You guys are starting to believe me now that Deany is Batman Villain insane, right?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You guys are starting to believe me now that Deany is Batman Villain insane, right?
So if I'd posted an article that started off "The opposite of liberalism is strawberry jam", you'd read it and seriously consider it?It can be safely assumed, daveman. That you won't read ANYTHING that challenges conservatism. FF represents EXACTLY the kind of conservative the author writes about. The Aristocrat. That's her attitude. Contempt for common folk.
It can be safely assumed, daveman. That you won't read ANYTHING that challenges conservatism. FF represents EXACTLY the kind of conservative the author writes about. The Aristocrat. That's her attitude. Contempt for common folk.
It can be safely assumed, daveman. That you won't read ANYTHING that challenges conservatism. FF represents EXACTLY the kind of conservative the author writes about. The Aristocrat. That's her attitude. Contempt for common folk.
Conservatives are always complaining that liberals have them all wrong. They will say they are the party of "moderate spending" even though it's under Republican presidents the deficit has exploded. And we can point to what the money is spent on. Things like Iraq and huge tax cuts for the wealthy. What have Democratic presidents spent money on? Republicans will say they give it away to poor people.
Conservatives insist they are for "individual freedom" and work tirelessly to limit women's rights, gay's rights and end anything "anti discrimination".
When I ask Conservatives to explain their position, it's never clear. Their answers are things like "make better" and "go back to when it was better" and "bring God back".
So, this is THIS liberals view of what it means to be a conservative:
Tax cuts for the wealthy because they make jobs.
Morals MUST be legislated. Otherwise, people will run crazy and have sex everywhere if not stopped.
Science must be "balanced" with God.
We need to return to a better time when blacks knew their place, women were in the kitchen, and gays were in the closet.
Stop trying to rebuild America. If a bridge is needed, let the locals build it.
We don't need health care. We have prayer and can go visit a doctor at last resort.
We don't need "facts". People are over-educated. Just use common sense.
Democracy is good as long as it doesn't interfere with our Christian Values. Then we may need to "tweak" it.
We need to "return" to basics in education (I can never figure out what that means. Our scientists are coming from somewhere. They didn't all get a private education.)
I just wish conservatives would explain to me where "education" and "science" fits into their philosophy. What does it mean to the right to be a conservative? Unless I nailed it.
No Sky Dancer. It can be dismissed because the very first sentence is an objectively untrue statement. How exactly is majority rule the opposite of conservatism (the opposite of majority rule being minority rule)?
So if I'd posted an article that started off "The opposite of liberalism is strawberry jam", you'd read it and seriously consider it?It can be safely assumed, daveman. That you won't read ANYTHING that challenges conservatism. FF represents EXACTLY the kind of conservative the author writes about. The Aristocrat. That's her attitude. Contempt for common folk.
The author understands nothing about conservatism. We don't do classes. That's the left.
So if I'd posted an article that started off "The opposite of liberalism is strawberry jam", you'd read it and seriously consider it?It can be safely assumed, daveman. That you won't read ANYTHING that challenges conservatism. FF represents EXACTLY the kind of conservative the author writes about. The Aristocrat. That's her attitude. Contempt for common folk.
The author understands nothing about conservatism. We don't do classes. That's the left.
Actually you do classes. The business class. You're the aristocracy, favoring tax cuts for the rich while the poor and middle classes carry the weight.
Conservatives, in the Wall Street Journal for example, have no difficulty claiming to be the party of freedom in one breath and attacking civil liberties in the next.
Conservatives argue that freedom is not possible at all. Without the domination of conservatism, social order would require the external domination of state terror. internalized domination has not worked. What is unthinkable to Conservatives is the possibility that people might organize their lives in a democratic fashion.
Conservatives are terrified of OWS. They think it should be clamped down on. Squashed, repressed, shut down. Why not look at the questions liberals raise in good conscience?
Do environmental regulations work? Why should we protect the civil liberties of terrorists? Are liberals anti-American? What do we need government for anyway?
So if I'd posted an article that started off "The opposite of liberalism is strawberry jam", you'd read it and seriously consider it?
The author understands nothing about conservatism. We don't do classes. That's the left.
Actually you do classes. The business class. You're the aristocracy, favoring tax cuts for the rich while the poor and middle classes carry the weight.
Conservatives, in the Wall Street Journal for example, have no difficulty claiming to be the party of freedom in one breath and attacking civil liberties in the next.
Conservatives argue that freedom is not possible at all. Without the domination of conservatism, social order would require the external domination of state terror. internalized domination has not worked. What is unthinkable to Conservatives is the possibility that people might organize their lives in a democratic fashion.
Conservatives are terrified of OWS. They think it should be clamped down on. Squashed, repressed, shut down. Why not look at the questions liberals raise in good conscience?
Do environmental regulations work? Why should we protect the civil liberties of terrorists? Are liberals anti-American? What do we need government for anyway?
You're out to lunch if that's what you think conservatives really believe. You can't expect to gain any credibility or 'open a debate' when you start by citing someone who is factually incorrect in what he says. You'd have to maks some type of argument as to how his opening statement is accurate. Two people asked you and you dodged both of them. It's one thing to have a difference of opinion about what conservatism is, but that isn't what the person you cited said. Dave man pointed it out best in noting that it's basically gibberish. It's the equivalent of saying something like the opposite of hot is peanuts. It's nonsensical. Forgive us for not taking him (or you) seriously.
So if I'd posted an article that started off "The opposite of liberalism is strawberry jam", you'd read it and seriously consider it?It can be safely assumed, daveman. That you won't read ANYTHING that challenges conservatism. FF represents EXACTLY the kind of conservative the author writes about. The Aristocrat. That's her attitude. Contempt for common folk.
The author understands nothing about conservatism. We don't do classes. That's the left.
Actually you do classes. The business class. You're the aristocracy, favoring tax cuts for the rich while the poor and middle classes carry the weight.
Conservatives, in the Wall Street Journal for example, have no difficulty claiming to be the party of freedom in one breath and attacking civil liberties in the next.
Conservatives argue that freedom is not possible at all. Without the domination of conservatism, social order would require the external domination of state terror. internalized domination has not worked. What is unthinkable to Conservatives is the possibility that people might organize their lives in a democratic fashion.
Conservatives are terrified of OWS. They think it should be clamped down on. Squashed, repressed, shut down. Why not look at the questions liberals raise in good conscience?
Do environmental regulations work? Why should we protect the civil liberties of terrorists? Are liberals anti-American? What do we need government for anyway?
You know, society has the right and does, decide what is deemed acceptable. You are not at liberty to do whatever the hell you fee like, you know, like euthanizing people or marrying goats.
Sorry to have to break it to you.
And sorry to break it to you but if you support banning the things I listed then you support a big, intrusive government. You can't have it both ways.
Yeah? Like claiming what you are claiming then claiming the moral high ground by supporting Obamacare under the guise of "it's the right thing to do".
Gimme me a fucking break.
And sorry to break it to you but if you support banning the things I listed then you support a big, intrusive government. You can't have it both ways.
Yeah? Like claiming what you are claiming then claiming the moral high ground by supporting Obamacare under the guise of "it's the right thing to do".
Gimme me a fucking break.
And if that's all you got then you got nothing. Face it, you support a big, intrusive gubmint as long as it intrudes in the things you oppose. Period.
And sorry to break it to you but if you support banning the things I listed then you support a big, intrusive government. You can't have it both ways.
Yeah? Like claiming what you are claiming then claiming the moral high ground by supporting Obamacare under the guise of "it's the right thing to do".
Gimme me a fucking break.
And if that's all you got then you got nothing. Face it, you support a big, intrusive gubmint as long as it intrudes in the things you oppose. Period.
Conservatives are always complaining that liberals have them all wrong. They will say they are the party of "moderate spending" even though it's under Republican presidents the deficit has exploded. And we can point to what the money is spent on. Things like Iraq and huge tax cuts for the wealthy. What have Democratic presidents spent money on? Republicans will say they give it away to poor people.
Conservatives insist they are for "individual freedom" and work tirelessly to limit women's rights, gay's rights and end anything "anti discrimination".
When I ask Conservatives to explain their position, it's never clear. Their answers are things like "make better" and "go back to when it was better" and "bring God back".
So, this is THIS liberals view of what it means to be a conservative:
Tax cuts for the wealthy because they make jobs.
Morals MUST be legislated. Otherwise, people will run crazy and have sex everywhere if not stopped.
Science must be "balanced" with God.
We need to return to a better time when blacks knew their place, women were in the kitchen, and gays were in the closet.
Stop trying to rebuild America. If a bridge is needed, let the locals build it.
We don't need health care. We have prayer and can go visit a doctor at last resort.
We don't need "facts". People are over-educated. Just use common sense.
Democracy is good as long as it doesn't interfere with our Christian Values. Then we may need to "tweak" it.
We need to "return" to basics in education (I can never figure out what that means. Our scientists are coming from somewhere. They didn't all get a private education.)
I just wish conservatives would explain to me where "education" and "science" fits into their philosophy. What does it mean to the right to be a conservative? Unless I nailed it.
No wonder you blindly swallowed that author's leftist horseshit. You're programmed to.So if I'd posted an article that started off "The opposite of liberalism is strawberry jam", you'd read it and seriously consider it?It can be safely assumed, daveman. That you won't read ANYTHING that challenges conservatism. FF represents EXACTLY the kind of conservative the author writes about. The Aristocrat. That's her attitude. Contempt for common folk.
The author understands nothing about conservatism. We don't do classes. That's the left.
Actually you do classes. The business class. You're the aristocracy, favoring tax cuts for the rich while the poor and middle classes carry the weight.
Conservatives, in the Wall Street Journal for example, have no difficulty claiming to be the party of freedom in one breath and attacking civil liberties in the next.
Conservatives argue that freedom is not possible at all. Without the domination of conservatism, social order would require the external domination of state terror. internalized domination has not worked. What is unthinkable to Conservatives is the possibility that people might organize their lives in a democratic fashion.
Conservatives are terrified of OWS. They think it should be clamped down on. Squashed, repressed, shut down. Why not look at the questions liberals raise in good conscience?
Do environmental regulations work? Why should we protect the civil liberties of terrorists? Are liberals anti-American? What do we need government for anyway?
Troll thread of the day!
Since you've never met a conservative in real life, and you are incapable of learning from the ones here, why I am surprised that you have it all wrong?
Yes, it's an interesting topic: "How warped is a liberal's view of conservatism?"Not one post here that I respond to. Too bad, it's an interesting topic.
Troll thread of the day!
Since you've never met a conservative in real life, and you are incapable of learning from the ones here, why I am surprised that you have it all wrong?
There is very little to learn from the Conservatives here that you did not already learn in primary school.