What Is A Conservative?

[vicente]

Researchers help define what makes a political conservative
By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations 7/25/03

Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

Fear and aggression
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance
Need for cognitive closure

Terror management
"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

Assistant Professor Jack Glaser of the University of California, Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy and Visiting Professor Frank Sulloway of UC Berkeley joined lead author, Associate Professor John Jost of Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, and Professor Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park, to analyze the literature on conservatism.

The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies.

Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said.

The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.

The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote.

Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism - an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).

Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article.

This research marks the first synthesis of a vast amount of information about conservatism, and the result is an "elegant and unifying explanation" for political conservatism under the rubric of motivated social cognition, said Sulloway. That entails the tendency of people's attitudinal preferences on policy matters to be explained by individual needs based on personality, social interests or existential needs.

The researchers' analytical methods allowed them to determine the effects for each class of factors and revealed "more pluralistic and nuanced understanding of the source of conservatism," Sulloway said.

While most people resist change, Glaser said, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives do.

As for conservatives' penchant for accepting inequality, he said, one contemporary example is liberals' general endorsement of extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities such as gays and lesbians, compared to conservatives' opposing position.

The researchers said that conservative ideologies, like virtually all belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological needs, but that "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."

They also stressed that their findings are not judgmental.

"In many cases, including mass politics, 'liberal' traits may be liabilities, and being intolerant of ambiguity, high on the need for closure, or low in cognitive complexity might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty," the researchers wrote.

This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes, the researchers advised.

The latest debate about the possibility that the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq buying nuclear material from Africa may be linked to the conservative intolerance for ambiguity and or need for closure, said Glaser.

"For a variety of psychological reasons, then, right-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability," he said.

Glaser acknowledged that the team's exclusive assessment of the psychological motivations of political conservatism might be viewed as a partisan exercise. However, he said, there is a host of information available about conservatism, but not about liberalism.

The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism.

Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system.

Although they concluded that conservatives are less "integratively complex" than others are, Glaser said, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded."

Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said.

He pointed as an example to a 2001 trip to Italy, where President George W. Bush was asked to explain himself. The Republican president told assembled world leaders, "I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right." And in 2002, Bush told a British reporter, "Look, my job isn't to nuance."

[a random hack]

"I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right."

Seems most people could relate to the second part.

[rich]

Vicente,

There are many topics where we do not agree.

However, re; George W.(dubbya) Bush, and Iraqui War,
both of us are in agreement. Thought I'd let you know.
Regards, :D ;) :P B) :)

[zygoat]

hello,
The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism.
how quickly lefties overlook and minimalize,yet jump at 16 words.'
CUBA is a great example of communsim working on paper but not in real life,the economy was one of the best,now it has one of the worst!!!people fleeing by any means possible,even so far as gutting a car and attaching floats to escape.

i believe in a right to life,i believe in a right to choose
i believe in the death penalty,what am i?

i believe in free will,i believe in forgiveness
i believe in being punished for crimes,what am i?

i believe in GOD,i believe in being saved
i believe a person has a right not to believe,what am i?

i believe in peace,i believe in freedom
i believe in standing up and fighting for my beliefs,what am i?

i believe in equality,i believe in justice for all
i believe that everyone has the right to pursue happiness,and if someone in that pursuit aquires more than i do,ok!!
what am i? :D

[sonrisa]

Zygoat, u r what u r :)

[zygoat]

sonrisa,
u iz what u iz!! :D

[DavidS]

Originally posted by zygoat@Jul 29 2003, 05:43 PM
i believe in a right to life,i believe in a right to choose
i believe in the death penalty,what am i?

i believe in free will,i believe in forgiveness
i believe in being punished for crimes,what am i?

i believe in GOD,i believe in being saved
i believe a person has a right not to believe,what am i?

i believe in peace,i believe in freedom
i believe in standing up and fighting for my beliefs,what am i?

i believe in equality,i believe in justice for all
i believe that everyone has the right to pursue happiness,and if someone in that pursuit aquires more than i do,ok!!
what am i?
That's easy . . . you dropped lots of clues to the mystery . . . you are a BELIEVER (with a certain 'peculiar' type-identifying pattern of sometimes overlapping spots and stripes, as 'declared' above).

Right?

David :lol:

[zygoat]

DavidS,
you are a BELIEVER (with a certain 'peculiar' type-identifying pattern of sometimes overlapping spots and stripes, as 'declared' above).
my point that i was trying to make make is that there are ,many variables that make a conservative or a liberal or whatever and that defining a "type" is not as easy as a cookie cut-out. B)

[a random hack]

defining a "type" is not as easy as a cookie cut-out.

you are a BELIEVER (with a certain 'peculiar' type-identifying pattern of sometimes overlapping spots and stripes, as 'declared' above).

Sure it is. :)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by zygoat@Jul 30 2003, 09:20 AM
sonrisa,
u iz what u iz!! :D
u b wut u b!! :P

[rich]

I am what Iam
and that's all that I am,
I'm Popeye the Sailor Man.

toot toot. :lol: ;) :P

LMPOOL

laughing my pants off out loud.

[zygoat]

sonrisa,
iz u iz or iz u ain't my baby?!! :P

[sonrisa]

zygoat, hey mama! :D :P

been in da spinach again, huh Richie? :)

[zygoat]

sonrisa,
(richie) he's tuff to the finish,cuz he eats his spinach!!

hey mama,who's ur daddy? :P

[rich]

I last to the finish,

because I eat spinach,

I'm Popeye The Sailor Man.

toot toot :wacko: :blink: :rolleyes: :unsure:

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by zygoat@Aug 6 2003, 09:39 AM
sonrisa,
(richie) he's tuff to the finish,cuz he eats his spinach!!

hey mama,who's ur daddy? :P
wutcha name? who ur daddy?
can't remember da rest!
:rolleyes:
it da tyme uv da season 4 luvvin! :D

[zygoat]

sonrisa,
what's your name?
who's your daddy?
babe,is he rich like me?
has he taken ,any time,to show
you what you need to live
it's the time of the season for lovin ;)

[sonrisa]

thanx very much Zygoat! :)

and now- 4 da mispeld vurshin:

wutcha nayme? hoo yo daady?
iz hee ritch lyke mee?
haz hee takn- enny tyme 2 sho u
wutcha nead- wutcha nead 2 liv
itz da tyme uv da seesin 4 luvvin!1
:P

[zygoat]

sonrisa,
why isn't the word phonics spelled phonetically?fonix,hooked on fonix wurked 4 me!!lol :P

[sonrisa]

good qwestshun zygoat, dunno da anser. hookd on fonix wurked 4 me 2! :D

[Ronagon]

Here are the only definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" which are accurate, and you'll notice that each term has both ethical and unethical variations.

Liberal:

Ethical liberals strive for liberation from the status quo, the inescapable trappings of the caste system that evolves in any society. They want new ideas, the freedom to mobilize upwards and to think rationally and utilize one's full potential.

Unethical liberals strive for liberation from accountability, individual responsibility and power... they crave communist dictatorships run by a pseudo-intellectual, mystical elite of phonies.


Conservative:

Ethical conservatives strive for the conservation of accountability, individual responsibility and power... They crave a society where the government's function is to protect people from coercion and fraud, so they can think and choose rationally and fairly.

Unethical conservatives strive for the conservation of the status quo, the inescapable trappings of the caste system that evolves in any society. They want the severe constraint and even crushing of new ideas, the freedom to mobilize upwards, rational thinking, and utilization of one's full potential.

If you look very carefully at what I've just said, you'll notice that liberals and conservatives flip-flop, with regard to the evil movements within each party...

Evil liberals fight to destroy what the good conservatives strive for, and vice-versa...

while evil conservatives fight to destroy what good liberals strive for, and vice-versa.

Comments?

[Ronagon]

And one other thing... if you also look carefully once again, you'll notice that the ethical liberals and ethical conservatives are more or less working for the same sort of thing...

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Ronagon@Aug 12 2003, 12:16 AM
And one other thing... if you also look carefully once again, you'll notice that the ethical liberals and ethical conservatives are more or less working for the same sort of thing...
Yup! to that - the 'good' 'versus' 'evil' life-drama has the kinds of permutations and convolutions you mention - in my 'view', that is. :)

Hi, Ronagon -
- David

[a random hack]

"Good vs Evil" - two sides of the same con (sp.) :D

[a random hack]

just realised the above is a triple pun. :lol:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Aug 12 2003, 05:42 PM
just realised the above is a triple pun. :lol:
Oh my God, a serial punner! No 'cure' for that!

The whole thang looks like an "infinite-regression" collage to me!

It never ends! Just runs on and on in the context of an ever-expanding 'frame' of 'silence'!

That Cat's totally escaped the bag, me thinks.

:ph34r:

[a random hack]

:ph34r:
That Cat's totally escaped the bag, me thinks.

Luckily Nanchuan wasn't around at the time. :)

Meow! (http://www.everydayzen.org/edz/teachings/talk_cat.asp)

[vicente]

"Saying the lie about Iraq's nuclear weapons program was only 16 words in Bush's State of the Union Address is like saying "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness" is only 6 words in the Bible". Al Smudge

[zygoat]

vicente,
bill clinton uttered those same words in 1998! :angry:

[vicente]

Speaking of conservatives,...is George Bush a sociopath too?

"there is a disquieting truth about what lurks behind the cock-eyed leer of the leader of the free world. He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he's speaking punitively, when he's talking about violence, when he's talking about revenge,...When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine. It's only when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes."

In a speech last Sept. in Nashville, trying to strengthen his case against Saddam, Bush's script called for him to say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." But the words that came out of his mouth were, ""Fool me once, shame . . . shame on . . . you," followed by a long pause, then, "Fool me can't get fooled again!"

What's revealing about this is that Bush could not say, 'Shame on me' to save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude."

from Wolff at The Fray:

"If any of us are to have a future worth having, the world's leaders, the members of Congress, the US corporate media and people of all political persuasions who value freedom and democracy had better start seeing George W. Bush for what he is: a sociopath and a passive serial killer.

Psychiatrists tell us that all serial killers lack the emotions that make us human; that they have to learn to emulate those emotions in order to get by in society. Hence, a charming, well educated fellow like Ted Bundy who is known to have murdered 15 women and may have killed 36 before he was caught.

While Bush is no Bundy, when it comes Bundy's education and acquired charm, and to our knowledge has never personally murdered anyone, it has been evident to us that there is something missing in George W. in terms of his lack of compassion and empathy. As governor of Texas, he set a record in signing death warrants 154 in five years. He even made fun of the way convicted killer Karla Faye Tucker begged for her life.

If we believe the psychiatrists, a sign of a future serial killer is a child who delights in torturing and killing animals. George W., as a child, did exactly that. In a May 21, 2000, New York Times' puff piece about the values Bush gained growing up in Midland, Texas, Nicholas D. Kristof quoted Bush's childhood friend Terry Throckmorton: "'We were terrible to animals,' recalled Mr. Throckmorton, laughing. A dip behind the Bush home turned into a small lake after a good rain, and thousands of frogs would come out. 'Everybody would get BB guns and shoot them,' Mr. Throckmorton said. 'Or we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up.'"

On Sept. 12, 2000, Baltimore Sun reporter Miriam Miedzian wrote, "So when he was a kid, George W. enjoyed putting firecrackers into frogs, throwing them in the air, and then watching them blow up. Should this be cause for alarm? How relevant is a man's childhood behavior to what he is like as an adult? And in this case, to what he would be like as president of the United States."

We're finding out, aren't we? While we, in two articles before the 2000 election Sept. 21 and Oct. 23 noted Bush's penchant for blowing up frogs, the corporate media blew it off, just as it had no interest in what he was trying to hide by obtaining a new Texas driver license and his 1976 drunk driving conviction, or the fact he was AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard. Instead, they bought into his nonsensical claim of being a "compassionate conservative" and "a uniter not a divider" who was going to "restore honor and dignity to the White House."

All through the 2000 campaign and up to Sept. 11, 2001, the corporate media depicted Bush as an affable, tongue-tied bumbler the kind of guy Joe Six-pack would like to have a beer with turning a blind eye to his dark underside. It mattered not that he stocked his illicit administration with the worst of the worst: John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Gale Norton, Paul O'Neill, Harvey Pitt, Thomas White, John Negroponte, Otto Reich and convicted Iran-contra felon Elliot Abrams who received a 1992 Christmas Eve pardon from George W.'s father.

Then, despite his peculiar behavior on Sept. 11, the corporate media and his handlers transformed him into a leader extraordinaire in the mold of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill rolled into one.

And as Bush had Afghanistan bombed back beyond the Stone Age to rid the world of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, then switched to claiming it was the Taliban that had to go, then declared there was an "axis of evil" and it was really Saddam Hussein who was the "mother of all evil" and that war with Iraq was in the offing to get rid of Saddam, the corporate media cheered him on and to this day continues to beat the war drum. They have yet to consider that the passive serial killer needs to feed his lust for blood by sending others to put their lives on the line and do the killing for him.

In his Sept. 12 article, White House insiders say Bush is "out of control," Mike Hersh wrote, "Some among Bush's trusted White House staff fear what they are seeing and where Bush is taking us. His state of mind hauntingly reminds them of Richard Nixon's Final Days. They fear Bush is becoming Nixonesque . . . or worse. Although Bush lacks Nixon's paranoia, he may entertain even more dangerous notions."

But their desperate late night phone calls to trusted reporters has not seen the light of day in the corporate media. Yet, some of us outside the Beltway have long had an inkling of what we are dealing with.

More proof lies in Alexandra Pelosi's documentary, Journeys with George. Pelosi, the daughter of incoming House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, was a producer for NBC when she wangled the assignment to spend 18 months as part of Bush's campaign press corps.

From the surface, Pelosi's "home movie," as she calls it, seems to be nothing more than a love fest as George W. works to charm the pants off her and the rest of the press corps. The striking thing about this George, even though Karen Hughes is often seen hovering at his elbow, is that he isn't tongue-tied when he is pumping up his ego, dishing out digs and being sarcastic and crude.

Mark Crispin Miller, author of The Bush Dyslexicon and professor of media studies at New York University, who also sees the darker Bush, said in a Nov. 28 interview with the Toronto Star, ""Bush is not an imbecile. He's not a puppet. I think that Bush is a sociopathic personality. I think he's incapable of empathy. He has an inordinate sense of his own entitlement, and he's a very skilled manipulator. And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this is what a lot of people miss."

Miller said he did intend The Bush Dyslexicon to be a funny book, but that was before he read all the transcripts, which revealed, according to reporter Murray Whyte, "a disquieting truth about what lurks behind the cock-eyed leer of the leader of the free world. He's not a moron at all on that point, Miller and Prime Minister Jean Chretien agree."

"He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he's speaking punitively, when he's talking about violence, when he's talking about revenge," Miller told Whyte. "When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine. It's only when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes."

In a speech last Sept. in Nashville, trying to strengthen his case against Saddam, Bush's script called for him to say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." But the words that came out of his mouth were, ""Fool me once, shame . . . shame on . . . you," followed by a long pause, then, "Fool me can't get fooled again!"

Said Miller, "What's revealing about this is that Bush could not say, 'Shame on me' to save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude."

Another example, Miller said, occurred early in Bush's White House tenure when he said, "I know how hard it is to put food on your family."

According to Miller, "That wasn't because he's so stupid that he doesn't know how to say, 'Put food on your family's table'—it's because he doesn't care about people who can't put food on the table."

Miller told Whyte, ""When he tries to talk about what this country stands for, or about democracy, he can't do it."

"This, then, is why he's so closely watched by his handlers, Miller says not because he'll say something stupid, but because he'll overindulge in the language of violence and punishment at which he excels," Whyte wrote.

"He's a very angry guy, a hostile guy. He's much like Nixon. So they're very, very careful to choreograph every move he makes. They don't want him anywhere near protestors, because he would lose his temper," Miller said.

"I call him the feel bad president, because he's all about punishment and death," Miller told Whyte. "It would be a grave mistake to just play him for laughs."

A grave mistake, indeed.

If all that has happened since Bush was first mentioned as a possible GOP presidential candidate hasn't set off alarms, his naming of war criminal, mass murderer and international fugitive Henry Kissinger to head up the 9/11 investigation should have. And then another alarm should have gone off when Bush promoted Elliot Abrams to lead the National Security Council's office for Near East and North African affairs, which oversees Arab-Israeli relations.

Bush must be stopped now, before he sets the world aflame. And set it aflame is what he intends to do, even if Iraq has no "weapons of mass destruction" or Saddam stands on his head, naked, on the White House lawn".

[vicente]

"Incidentally, I looked up the definition of "liberal" in a Random House dictionary. It gave the synonyms for "liberal" as "progressive," "broad-minded," "unprejudiced," "beneficent." The antonyms it offered: "conservative", "reactionary" and "intolerant." Walter Cronkite

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Aug/08102003/co...menta/82548.asp (http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Aug/08102003/commenta/82548.asp)

[rich]

FDR gave a definitions of Conservative, Radical and Liberal. It went something like this:

Conservative: One whose feet are firmly planted in the ground, unable to move ahead. :ph34r:

Radical:One that has neither foot on firm ground, wild ideas always flying off into the air. :wacko:

Liberal: One who always has one foot on the ground, moving ahead, one step at a time. :)

[sonrisa]

Franklin Roosevelt defined them well. :)
Vicente, I believe you are applying the term "conservative" to a group of fascists. That is a different definition. :)

[zygoat]

richie,
Conservative: One whose feet are firmly planted in the ground, unable to move ahead.

Radical:One that has neither foot on firm ground, wild ideas always flying off into the air.

Liberal: One who always has one foot on the ground, moving ahead, one step at a time.

at least he wasn't biased!!! :(

[Ronagon]

VINCENTE:

I read your post about G.W. ... and you're not entirely right about his not pardoning death row inmates.

He has pardoned one: Mr. Henry Lee Lucas, the famous serial killer.

Now, you might ask yourself why. What would Bush possibly see in such a person, that is admirable and worth preserving?

[vicente]

I've mostly been puzzled by people like dustwitch and slayer,...from their posts they're Rightwing Conservative, however, when in life do these sorts of people lose the capacity for reason, even on the simplest levels? I certainly mean no insult to dustwitch and slayer,...to me, conservativism is a mental disease, not much different than schizophrenia or other psychosis.

Currently however, these mentally disfunctional people as a group have become the majority, at least media wise, and have, irrefutably, an agenda to destroy America and the world. The question is, can they be stopped without a full out war, to irradicate their kind from the planet like we would go after any other danger virus that threatened us?

If you're not Liberal, you're illiberal,

[dustwitch]

Looks to me like vicente is feeling insecure because he has blanketed himself in his old ' What Is A Conservative Thread ? ' to call the big mean slayer and the scary dustwitch naughty names. How very weak and childishly inappropriate to attempt to bolster ones poorly argued political stance with such feeble nonsense.
What's the matter vicente, too lazy today to copy and paste ?

[slayer]

Yeah, Vicente, why this ad hominem? You can't take apart our arguments? You know, those things we posit in support of our claims.

Let me do to your post what you wish you could do to mine. I'm going to critique its many faults.

[Vicentes's first sentence] I've mostly been puzzled by people like dustwitch and slayer,...from their posts they're Rightwing Conservative, however, when in life do these sorts of people lose the capacity for reason, even on the simplest levels?

Well, Vicente, the fallacy here is commonly known as a loaded question. When in life did Dustwitch and I lose the capacity for reason? Oh, I don't know, simpleton, when in life did your mother find out that you are a dumbass, simple-minded quimby?

[Vicenten's second sentence] I certainly mean no insult to dustwitch and slayer,...to me, conservativism is a mental disease, not much different than schizophrenia or other psychosis.

Well, it's just not interesting what conservativism is TO YOU. To me being Vicente is a mental disease. Hmm, I wonder what follows from that fact? Perhaps we should ask experts on mental stability whether conservativism is a mental disease similar to schizophrenia and other phychoses. I wonder what they'll have to say. Probably this: TO ME and the rest of the mental health community, conservativism is not a mental disease.

[Vicente's third sentence] Currently however, these mentally disfunctional people as a group have become the majority, at least media wise, and have, irrefutably, an agenda to destroy America and the world.

Empirically false! The majority of the media, college professors, and most college students (hmmm, I wonder why the students are liberal!?) are liberals! If it's irrefutably, then where's the argument? Of course you have no argument, and all you mean by 'irrefutable' is that you really really believe it's true.

[Vicente's fourth sentence] The question is, can they be stopped without a full out war, to irradicate their kind from the planet like we would go after any other danger virus that threatened us?

Does this need my dissection? War! They must be stopped! They're like a virus! They threaten us! We must erradicate their kind! Well, the way we prevent viruses from threatening us is to inject ourselves with some of the virus, so you can gradually build up a resistance. So I guess you must be advocating that all you liberal idiots adopt some conservative position, and see if your liberal immune systems can build up a resistance to even a greater dose of conservative thought. My thought is that your immune systems, by which I mean your feeble minds, will not be able to handle even a small dose of rational and intelligent thought, so a full dose will only drive you crazy. Oh the irony, because then you liberal nimrods will suffer from a mental disease (a real one!). Oh wait, I forgot, TO ME liberals already suffer from a mental disease. Now to write a retarded post articulating how we should erradicate them.

The genius that is Vicente -- coming to a theatre near you!

slayer

[dustwitch]

:)

[dustwitch]

Yeah, and I hope he's not going to cause another big disturbance by getting thrown out once again for talking loudly on his 1 watt radio and throwing redhots at the middle school girls in the front row.

[vicente]

dustwitch Yeah, and I hope he's not going to cause another big disturbance by getting thrown out once again for talking loudly on his 1 watt radio and throwing redhots at the middle school girls in the front row.

slayer My thought is that your immune systems, by which I mean your feeble minds, will not be able to handle even a small dose of rational and intelligent thought, so a full dose will only drive you crazy.

Typical Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter responses. There is no discussing reason with them either, for they make no intelligible arguement to discuss. As I implied, most conservatives are like vicious dog breeds,...the only humane thing to do is put them down,...preferrably before they cause any more harm to America and the world.

If you're not Liberal, you're illiberal!

:)

[slayer]

Vicente Moore Strikes Again!

[Vicente...] Typical Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter responses.

Way to concentrate on the jokes and ad hominems in our discussions and avoid addressing our very damning criticism. Of course my ad hominem was just in repsonse to your initial ad hominem about conservativism, but we'll ignore that fact.

I'm more familiar with your thoughts than with Limbaugh's, O'Reilly's, and Coulter's put together, by the way.

You really lack substance, Vicente. What happened? At least you used to give poor arguments -- now you give none.

Perhaps Asheera and Sonrisa can help you formulate a pseudo-intelligent response this time. You know, they can add smiley faces and questions such as "does slayer imagine logical discourse can show wrong?"

guffaw,

slayer

[vicente]

Of course my ad hominem was just in repsonse to your initial ad hominem about conservativism

No,...your ad hominem as per this thread, began with your dumping on Moore's film without seeing it,...a typical neo-conservative response.

If you're not Liberal, you're illiberal.

A difference between myself and you and dustwitch is ie., when your idol, GW Bush proposes to evaluate the mental health of all citizens, which is obviously a way to solidify his 'faith based agenda', I'll take a look, then discern his anti-American activities critically. You on the hand, attack (ad hominem) what you don't know or see, because the conservative groupthink media-ted you to attack what you haven't seen.

I would be safe to bet you and dustwitch will come back with some more of your conservative rhetoric,...and that's OK,...I really don't expect much from conservatives.

Synonyms for Conservative

illiberal
anti-American
reactionary
bigoted
closed-minded
obstructionist
rightwinger
reversionary
intolerant
prevarcator
discommodity
christian
malevolent
chickenhawk
anti-progress
iniquitous
arrogant
atrocious
arrant
perfidious
faith-driven
McCarthyite
loutish
anti-Constitution
bellicose
diabolic
anti-ACLU
peccant
easily media-ted
republican
belligerent

:)

[slayer]

Another non-reader!

Vicente: "No,...your ad hominem as per this thread, began with your dumping on Moore's film without seeing it,...a typical neo-conservative response."

Well, I qualified everything I said about what I expected from Moore and his film as based on clips, interviews, previous Moore films, and criticism I've read, so how is this an ad hominem? So now produce one thing that I said that was about any particular content in the film. You can't, because I didn't say anything about the content. I simply argued that he was un-American for witholding very important evidence from the State Department, not to mention the illegal means by which he acquired this evidence.

Your synomyms are uninteresting, as they have no significance to anything.

But you're right, I am a neoconservative.

Uhm, if you're not dead, you're the undead!

slayer

[vicente]

I for one know he's a moron and a liar. He's disingenuous and out to get rich before doing the right thing, as in reporting the mistreatment of Iraqi soldiers. He might have, had he done the right thing, prevented such mistreatment...

Moore is a "moron and liar",...gee, words right of Limbaugh's, O'Reilly's and Coulter's mouths. I'm not suggesting you (slayer, or dustwitch) watch Limbaugh, O'reilly or Coulter, as conservatives and anti-Americans I suppose you don't have to, to spew the same arguement.

The real disingenuous liar in this drama which has made U.S. less safe since 9-11 is GW Bush, but because of America's Rightwing Controlled media, Rightwing Controlled Legislative Branch, Rightwing Controlled Military, this SCOTUS appointed President who should have been tried and executed for treason and other crimes against America and Humanity, is still actively engaged in his self-proclaimed mission from his god to bring faith-based democracy (theocracy) to the world through hook or crook.

Yes,...there was no doubt that you and dustwitch are NEOCONSERVATIVES. However, even the most dis-eased and confused can be healed.

If you're not Liberal, you're illiberal.

:)

[dustwitch]

" Yes,...there was no doubt that you and dustwitch are NEOCONSERVATIVES. However, even the most dis-eased and confused can be healed. "

. Thank you for the compliment . and dear, you should see a physician concerning your condition regardless of your optimism.

Again, I must state, your most of your word list decribes you and your posts perfectly:

anti-American
iniquitous
arrogant
atrocious
arrant
perfidious
faith-driven
:uhoh:
loutish
anti-Constitution
bellicose
diabolic
:uhoh:
peccant
easily media-ted
:uhoh:
belligerent
malevolent
:uhoh:
reactionary
bigoted
closed-minded
obstructionist
reversionary
intolerant
prevarcator
discommodity
<_<

Question: vicente, why, in your opinion, do you find it necessary to
to call people names ?

[vicente]

dustwitch,...using synonyms of conservative to describe me in any way is simply oxymoronic.

Unlike you and slayer, I have a respect and appreciation for my Country. Unlike you and slayer, I have no intentions to revise and reconstruct history to fit a self-deluded mission from some god to force a theocratic-conservative ideology on others.

The first Christian President was Andrew Jackson,...in my view, his portrait should be removed from the $20 bill, along with the unconstitutional 'in god we trust', as soon as possible.

The Father of the American Revolution, and person who coined the term "United States of America" said:

"It has often been said that anything may be proved from the Bible; but before anything can be admitted as proved by the Bible, the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted as proof of anything." Thomas Paine

he also said:
"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses, who gave an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and then rape the daughters. One of the most horrible atrocities found in the literature of any nation. I would not dishonor my Creator's name by attaching it to this filthy book." Thomas Paine

If the Founding Fathers were alive today, people like you, slayer and Bush would not exist.

Unfortunately, just as 87% were media-ted to believe Saddam had WMD's, 87% of the American Sheeple think the majority has some sort of right to tyrranize the minority. In my view, and in the view of the US Constitution, you and they are anti-americans, and the minority has every right to abolish you from the Earth,...ie:

The Declaration of Independence suggests that "When in the Course of human events, the unalienable Rights guarenteed to the people are, that when through a long train of abuses and usurpations destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people, it is their duty, to throw off such Despotism, and to provide new Guards for their future security that respect and honor the values and ideas of the Constitution. It is the Right of the People to dispose of that evil by abolishing the illegal forms, traditions and revisionist attempts to indoctrinated the citizenry".

If you're not liberal, then you're illiberal.

In other words (and I apologize if the truth upsets you) the only good neo-con is a dead neo-con. Of course I would not actually advocate killing them,...but having an anvil tied around their necks and thrown into an abyss would be acceptable.

:)

[slayer]

Well, yes, Vicente, I agree -- using synonyms of conservative to describe you would be oxymoronic. But Dustwitch wasn't saying that they were synonyms of conservative, you simpleton, she was saying that they are synonyms for liberal fools like you.

Unlike you, Vicente, Dustwitch and I don't make preposterous assumptions like the assumption that we don't have respect for our country. Our Country even. We care deeply for our country, which is why your misinformed, misguided, ill-thought out opinions matter to us -- because your suggestions, if followed, would be detrimental to America. You're disingenuous, because you should have at least acknowledged that we want what's best for America.

And you are advocating the death of neo-cons on this forum. Is this the spirit of this forum? Yet I doubt we'll see any of 'our liberal friends' admonishing you for this, as it might offend you to tell you that you're a bad man and wrong for advocating such a thing. Because of course we must support everyone's opinions, as we are all equally equal. Gaybob relativist nonsense! You're a moron, Vicente, because of what you believe and advocate. You're worse than an anti-American, you're a deluded pro-American whose opinions are shared by all too many Americans, opinions that in effect would be detrimental to this country, er, Country.

I share your venom though, except mine is directed at dumbass liberals like yourself. You pollute humanity with your existence.

[vicente]

Slayer, silly fellow, it wouldn't matter what dustwitch called those synonyms of conservative, they are still synonyms of conservative.

But hey,...I do understand your persistence in clinging to your beliefs for your identity. The neo-con movement has media-ted many US citizens in the past 24 years, and most little liberals did nothing. But there comes a time when enough is enough, and the righteous strike back at pathetic bullies and chichenhawks.
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore....%20Chickenhawks (http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks)

Unfortunately that time has not yet arrived. Liberals are still allowing conservatives to revise, reconstruct, and pollute America's skys, streets and minds. Yet the pendulum has not only changed momentum, but has been removed,...and by 2009, the time of the Thomas Paine Celebrations, we will be taking our Country back, and conservativism will be placed in museums along with other despicable historic movements like Christianity and Fascism.

Peace and Humanitarianism is near,...but the fish's and Sheeple of neo-conservatism will struggle to the end in their deluded madness.

How wonderful will be the day when the average US citizen realizes, as someone once said, that 'Leave it Beaver' was not a documentary.

Under George Washington, a document was drafted in 1796, then unanimously ratified by the US Senate and sign into law on June 10, 1797 by President John Adams which said,

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion".

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, February 10, 1814

:)

[slayer]

You're starting to bore me, Vicente, only because you're so inept. Your thoughts are no longer interesting, because you have given up trying to argue for them. I don't blame you, it's the first genuine act you've probably performed -- not giving an argument because you don't have a good one.

[Vicente...] Slayer, silly fellow, it wouldn't matter what dustwitch called those synonyms of conservative, they are still synonyms of conservative.

Gee, let me try that nifty trick. Uhm, silly Vicente, it doesn't matter what you say because those synonyms are synonyms of liberal. Presto, it must be true!

Yeah, the righteous strike back. When is enough enough? Oh, when it's enough. I see. Any more words of wisdom to share? Ease up on the preaching there, "non-religious" boy.

I'll stop now, because you gave not one single argument. You've been reduced to what you've always been, a giant emote. Whah, slayer bad. Whah, conservatives don't think like me. You're pathetic.

I am sincerely stunned by your stupidity. I am almost surprised, but then after having talked to Sonrisa, nothing surprises me about liberals. The venom you feel is that of resentiment, as Nietzsche would say, because conservatives rule this country, while you simply boo and hiss in the background. Keep clamoring away outside the White House gates, for that's as close as you liberals will get.

The world is too harsh a place for your dough-like mind, Vicente, so stop reading all the bad things Bush is doing and vote for him this coming election. It'll be the smartest thing you'll ever do with your wasted existence.

And, please, construct an argument already, or spare us your rhetoric. It's not convincing, and the majority here doesn't need convincing. They're mooing right along with you.

how droll this has become,

slayer

[vicente]

I wouldn't vote for Bush any more than I'd vote to Kerry or any of the 99 Senators who voted against the US 9th Circuit Court when they said "The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers "that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community."

Personally I'd prefer that the criminal Bush wins (or gets re-appointed),...why sweep the problem of the World (Christian Conservatives) under a rug,...as I've mentioned, I'm for their immediate removal from the Planet.

As for your diatribe of me being inept,...I come upon those empty swings from deranged neo-cons like yourself pretty often. But, no big deal,...your kind will be history soon,...as soon as people get educated to your fascist christian agenda.

I agree that neo-cons run this Country, just like fascists brown-shirts ran 1938 Germany. However this time, your indoctrinated views will not go underground till another McCarthy Era, or bring about another criminal like Reagan (who as one of his first acts as President was to removed the VA motto, that is, "to care for those whom borne the battle"). This time, the hate-driven, self-profit mentality, faith-based conservative movement is over,...their cancer has spread throughout their miserable entities, yet they are so much in denial, and think they will live on.

What is true drollness,...is watching these pathetic conservatives continue their anti-american, anti-life, anti-nature rhetoric as if their legacy will be anything other than the crime it is.

:)

[sahyo]

Your thoughts are no longer interesting, because you have given up trying to argue for them.



I'll stop now, because you gave not one single argument.



And, please, construct an argument already, or spare us your rhetoric.



expresses slayer desiring demanding argumenting,
not whether vicente arguments or not

[fu*]

The egoic sense of self needs conflict because its sense of a separate identity gets strengthened in fighting against this or that, and in demonstrating that this is "me" and that is not "me." Not infrequently, tribes, nations, and religions derive a strengthened sense of collective identity from having enemies. Who would the "believer" be without the "unbeliever?"

Eckhart Tolle
Stillness Speaks

[sahyo]

:D

[slayer]

Well, I think this is the end of our "dicussion,' Vicente, as you've stopped giving arguments.

For the record, I'm not a Christian, so I found your accusation presumptuous. I don't believe in a deity, so I'm an atheist. On more confused days, I'm agnostic.

I am in favor of removing "under God" from the Pledge, so again I don't understand your accusations here. Anyway, it was a chicken-shit out the Supreme Court took, but I don't expect this'll last long -- because a new case will come up where they'll be forced to rule on the case, and I fully expect a favorable ruling.

The rest of your post, with your "criminal Bush" and "criminal Reagan" talk is uninteresting, and since there was no argument, I won't be responding to it. Feel free to continue to spew your rhetoric. I've deemed it utterly unconvincing to anyone of moderate intelligence, and those who do buy it are politically lost idiots, so no harm done.

I await your prophetic words to come true. I tremble at the thought of my imminent death. (Yeah, I'm mocking you).

slayer

[zygoat]

Slayer,
all Vicente does is spew,regurgetated crap that he has swallowed whole,he's not American,he is French,Liberals suck and he is at the front of the line.
He pukes alot of hatred for someone who tries,and I do mean tries(unsuccessfully) to be philosophical.
He had a bad childhood I guess,and now he's out to make everyone around him suffer,he is one of the worst things you could ever call someone....a Liberal!! :angry:

[a random hack]

THE TIBETAN BOOK OF THE DEAD

from the commentry by chogyam trunngpa, rinpoche

we could say that the real world is that in which we experience pleasure and pain, good and bad. there is some act of intelligence which provides the criteria of things as they are, a basic dualistic notion. but if we are completely in touch with these dualistic feelings, that absolute experience of duality is itself the experience of non-duality. then there is no problem at all, because duality is seen from a perfectly open and clear point of view, in which there is no conflict; there is a tremendous encompassing vision of oneness. conflict arises because duality is not seen as it is at all. it is only seen in a biased way, a very clumsy way. in fact, we do not percieve anything properlyand we begin to wonder whether such things as myself and my projections really exist. so when we talk about the dualistic world as confusion, that confusion is not the complete dualistic world, but only half hearted, and this causes tremendous dissatisfaction and uncertainty; it builds up to the point of fear of becoming insane, the point where there are possibilities of leaving the world of duality and going into a sort of wolly, fuzzy emptiness, which is the world of the dead, the graveyard that exists in the midst of fog.
:D

[zygoat]

vicente,
Moore is a "moron and liar",...gee, words right of Limbaugh's, O'Reilly's and Coulter's mouths. I'm not suggesting you (slayer, or dustwitch) watch Limbaugh, O'reilly or Coulter, as conservatives and anti-Americans I suppose you don't have to, to spew the same arguement.


then you post
No,...your ad hominem as per this thread, began with your dumping on Moore's film without seeing it,...a typical neo-conservative response.
you are nothing,nothing but a true hypocrite in the purest sense of the world :angry:

[sahyo]

but if we are completely in touch with these dualistic feelings, that absolute experience of duality is itself the experience of non-duality. then there is no problem at all, because duality is seen from a perfectly open and clear point of view, in which there is no conflict; there is a tremendous encompassing vision of oneness.


does believe a"clear point of view", as though an'entity',
which experiences imagined "non-duality"duality"
as though "a tremendous encompassing
vision of "oneness"?

[sahyo]

we are completely in touch with these dualistic feelings


believe as though the feelings real?

[a random hack]

seems author speaking to those who believe an entity <_<

[sahyo]

The egoic sense of self needs conflict because its sense of a separate identity gets strengthened in fighting against this or that, and in demonstrating that this is "me" and that is not "me."

[sahyo]

seems author speaking to those who believe an entity <_<

perhaps, but

[a random hack]

NO BUT!!! :lol:

[NeverMind]

Conservatives are bastards that hate change.

[a random hack]

was wondering where this thread went <_< :lol:

NM,
it depends on your point of view :)

[NeverMind]

well from a socialist point of view, conservatives are bastards that hate change.
And they love their money more than their countrymen.


which dictator are you?
http://www.novistrana.com/test/

[sonrisa]

NM, I have played that game several times & on different daze, clicking different answers to the questions, & the game keeps servng up dubya. Is that game fixed? Did dubya fix it?

[a random hack]

risa,
:lol:
i got pinochet :o :lol:

[NeverMind]

NM, I have played that game several times & on different daze, clicking different answers to the questions, & the game keeps servng up dubya. Is that game fixed? Did dubya fix it?

naw its not fixed
ive gotten several different ppl