Perverted, God-Hating Frenchies vs. Inbred, Sex-Obsessed Yokels

[USMC the Almighty]

Ah yes, the book by Peter Schwiezer, he of a conservative think tank, he who has been praised by Bill O'Reilly of Fox News. I'm quite sure it's equally "fair and balanced".

So you won't read the book because it's written by a conservative individual? It still contains facts (such as pictures of Michael Moore's tax returns).

 

[Irishone21]

I know political forums have done a farely good job at discrediting me, but I have something to say that needs to be taken seriously. I saw Hilary and Obama reading (rather pessimistic) excerpts out of the Bible in a cloudy room on a television program... The smoke is similar to the smoke I see from time to time, especially when I pray... Nobody ever talked about this, and it pretty much occured under the radar awhile back... I connected this to the fact the Obama claimed that he thinks being saved by "Jesus" is too easy, and now the fact that he changed him mind and all the sudden turned christian brings about suspition, well at least to me... Is it possible that he could be the antichrist? I am not against him... but I'm rather concerned. Think about it... don't just laugh it off.

 

[Popeye]

So you won't read the book because it's written by a conservative individual? It still contains facts (such as pictures of Michael Moore's tax returns).

Why would I want to read a book that's slanted to the right? I'm already sure it's filled with half-truths and outright lies. The right has been trying to discredit Michael Moore for years and has been wholly unsuccessful, Fahrenheit 9/11 really stuck in their craw. The fact that the right dislikes him so much, shows that his films have hit them in numerable vulnerable spots.

 

[Reliant]

So you won't read the book because it's written by a conservative individual?

Conservatives are crazy and dangerous. There is quite a lot of psychological research done and published. Stanford did a study titled "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition".

A brief summary.....

"These things are strongly correlated
male sex
Conservative politics
adherence to right-wing ideology
homophobia
authoritarianism
cognitive rigidity
opposition to gender equality
traditional gender-role orientation
racism
variety of personal and interpersonal difficulties
intolerance to ambiguity
lack of intimacy in friendships with other men
misogyny
detesting femininity in men
exclusive masculine identity
greater rigidity and conflict in attempts to adhere to male gender norms
violence towards gays
arousal by gay male sex images
paranoia
chronic anxiety about personal achievement, competence, failure, and career and financial success
sexual coercion
hostility towards women
impaired intimacy
negative attitudes towards help seeking
low self-esteem
marital dissatisfaction
depression
authoritarian personality style
general psychological distress
psychotic thinking
obsessive-compulsive behavior
dogmatism
perception of threat by social change and instability
acceptance of relationships of domination between social groups
decreased cognitive complexity
higher need for order and structure"

When you look at the listed characteristics and observe Republican personality tendencies, you certainly see a strong correlation. I believe that conservatism is pretty closely associated with selfishism. I think the illness is selfishness and the manifestation is conservatism.

 

[palerider]

You want religion to be a private matter while some of the religious peopl want a persons sexual orientaton to be a private matter.

we just all have to accept that other peoples ideas and lifestyles cannot be divorced from who they are and they will all be public to a degree.

It actually scares me when you say you want it to be a private matter because when people like dawkins say that they want religion to be basically quarantined to homes and churces.

I was about to say the very same thing. Those who want religion to be a private matter should review the first amendment, especially the part about not prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.

One thing that I noticed about the "truths" listed above is that most of the things conservatives think about liberals can be quite successfully argued and corroborated and substantiated with mountains of fact and while we have all heard the things liberals say about conservatives few of us have ever seen a liberal corroborate any of it with fact.

On another thread I saw a liberal equate the patriot act with fascism. It is clear that to him, fascism is just a word that he knows means something bad so he uses it to describe the actions of republicans but he has no idea what fascism is as a political philosophy. Any conservative, on the other hand, can draw clear parallels between modern liberalism and socialism, communism, and fascism as all three are liberal in nature.

 

[palerider]

Where else does religion need to be apart from a church and a home? And if a person is gay, they will be activley seeking out a partner, so they will need to show some kind of sign that they are homosexual. And I'm sure you wouldn't ban a man and a woman kissing in public, but you would have an issue with a man and a man?

The Bible calls on Christians to take the Word to all the people of the world. Not just preachers, but all Christians. Your wish to have Christians be unseen and unheard leads me to wonder to what legislative lengths you, and others who think like you would go to have your wish become reality.

 

[palerider]

How is that "not so different"? People on the Left don't recite, nearly verbatim, Republican hate-speech spewed forth by right-wing talk radio and Fox News.

Interesting. On another thread, you equated the patriot act with fascism. I have heard any number of liberals repeat the same thing but to date, I have not heard one liberal succesffully draw a parallel between fascism and the patriot act. I challenged you to do so on the other thread and you repeated almost verbatim, the standard liberal response to the question. You did not, however, rise to the challenge as none of the parallels you attempted to draw had anything to do with the political philosophy, or political reality of fascism.

You simply repeated, verbatim, liberal hate speach spewed forth by left wing media.

 

[palerider]

Ah yes, the book by Peter Schwiezer, he of a conservative think tank, he who has been praised by Bill O'Reilly of Fox News. I'm quite sure it's equally "fair and balanced".

Logical fallacy. Circumstantial Ad Hominem. Information is either true or it is not. If you are unable to prove it false, then you are logically required to accept it. The inability to effectively argue your positions is one of the greatest difference between liberals and conservatives. Most conservatives don't say things about liberals that they can't substantiate.

 

[palerider]

I know political forums have done a farely good job at discrediting me, but I have something to say that needs to be taken seriously. I saw Hilary and Obama reading (rather pessimistic) excerpts out of the Bible in a cloudy room on a television program... The smoke is similar to the smoke I see from time to time, especially when I pray... Nobody ever talked about this, and it pretty much occured under the radar awhile back... I connected this to the fact the Obama claimed that he thinks being saved by "Jesus" is too easy, and now the fact that he changed him mind and all the sudden turned christian brings about suspition, well at least to me... Is it possible that he could be the antichrist? I am not against him... but I'm rather concerned. Think about it... don't just laugh it off.

No. If you believe scripture, revalation in particular, the antichrist will come out of rome (or part of the old roman empire).

 

[palerider]

Conservatives are crazy and dangerous. There is quite a lot of psychological research done and published. Stanford did a study titled "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition".

You obviously didn't read the paper very well or were unable to comprehend what you read if you did.

As the "researchers" went merrily along their way describing these characteristics to right wingers, one of their most famous examples and case studies was one Joseph Stalin. If the most prominent communist of the 20th century was right wing, exactly what constitutes left wing? They actually called Stalin, politically right wing. That, in and of itself is sufficient to discredit their findings as they (the researchers) obviously have no clear knowledge of political philosophy.

When trying to define what conservativism is, they apparently went to a couplle of dictionaries, and asked some of their liberal cronies, but I saw nowhere in the study or in its references where they actually spoke to any conservatives. Exactly how does one do a credible psychological profile of a group without ever talking to members of that group?

The scales the researchers used were to determine which people were rightists and which were leftists sere the "F"scale, put together in the late 1940s by the (Marxist) Adorno and his group, and the RWA scale put together by Altemeyer. In general population samples using these scales, however, leftist voters are just about as likely to get high scores on both scales as Rightist voters. Isn't it interesting that when these scales are applied, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Musllini, and Mao all turn out to be right wingers? This would lead any rational reader to the conclusion that the traits you describe actually belong to leftists since the above people were most assuredly leftist.

If the paper accurately measures traits of any group of people, it appears that it "may" measure the traits of authoritaritan dictators and the majority of that group will certainly fall on the left.

 

[vyo476]

Here's something curious I just picked up off Yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070909/hl_afp/scienceneuroscience_070909173324

 

[USMC the Almighty]

The fact that the right dislikes him so much, shows that his films have hit them in numerable vulnerable spots.

I could say the same thing about Ann Coulter.

The left goes absolutely crazy over the very mentioning of her name. Most don't know anything about her, her columns, or her books and the ones that actually have taken the time to read some of her writing know that she's way smarter than they could ever be. Instead they resort to namecalling and vitriol on a level that I have never seen before.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Conservatives are crazy and dangerous. There is quite a lot of psychological research done and published. Stanford did a study titled "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition".

And I'm sure this was extremely objective, right? I shudder to think about what such a study would reveal about the libs.

When you look at the listed characteristics and observe Republican personality tendencies, you certainly see a strong correlation. I believe that conservatism is pretty closely associated with selfishism. I think the illness is selfishness and the manifestation is conservatism.

Selfish? That's why studies confirm that conservatives both give more total money and a higher percentage of their incomes to charity.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

And I'm sure this was extremely objective, right? I shudder to think about what such a study would reveal about the libs.

I stand corrected. That was a study about lefties. Thanks palerider.

 

[Popeye]

Selfish? That's why studies confirm that conservatives both give more total money and a higher percentage of their incomes to charity.

Though some conservatives are charitable,the main reason the majority of right-wingers give to charity is so they can claim a tax deduction.