Conservatives

[KittenKoder]

Hitler, the Messiah of CON$ervatism, HATED Liberals and scapgoated Libs along with the Jews for Germany's problems.

"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality.
Today Christians stand at the head of our country.
We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.
We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press-- in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of LIBERAL excess during the past years."
[The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872]

I'm sorry, but wrong. Hitler didn't give a rats ass about the political leanings any of the people he had slaughtered. He wanted power and went after anything that threatened it, adding us Jews to the list as revenge because he was the most well known "self hating Jew". The word was not used in that speech as a political affiliation but as an adjective, the word means "excess".

Except he already used the word "excess" so you are saying the CON$ervative hero said "as a result of "EXCESS" excess during the last few years."
ROFLMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO

No, combining adjectives of similar meaning places emphasis on them, any speech writer knows that. You have to repeat concepts for people to absorb them effectively, otherwise they will only remember a few details of the speech. The one trait that made Adolf so powerful was his speech giving ability. He knew, like many modern speech writers, how to captivate and maintain the full attention of the audience as well as make them believe almost anything he said without question ... like someone recent I can think of but that's another thread. Conservatives were the ones that actually called for him to be stopped, the liberals in this country at the time were too damned stoned to get it done (I am a liberal advocate by the way, and a mostly Democrat supporter but this dishonest claim needs some addressing). So thanks to the conservatives when Adolf was in power my family made it here safely, thanks to them Germany was rid of that monster.

 

[mash107]

Let me define a "modern" CONSERVATIVE for you: ...stingy, miserly, reactionary, regressive, bigoted, prejudiced, biased, narrow-minded and more.

Considering that conservatives were anti-women voting, anti-blacks voting, pro-segregation, pro-Vietnam War, anti-Head Start, etc. etc. etc. you can see why I'd be embarrassed and indeed ashamed to call myself a conservative.

You're describing someone who loves government to repress people.

Last I checked, true conservatives didn't like government.

Government controlled economics is regression to a period where the King decided who had land and who didn't. Capitalism is progressive where as statist economics is regressive.

 

[Bfgrn]

I kinda thought it might come as a surprise to you. You can thank me in private for contributing thusly to your education.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians, all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.


I guess this "concept" falls into the right wing dogma syndrome...

You're a "Tory", you just don't know it...LOL


Conservatives born in Germany in the 1920's supported Hitler
Conservatives born in Russia in the 1930's supported Stalin
Conservatives born in America in the 1750's supported King George III

You're quite simply wrong. Facism has its roots in socialism, which is a liberal construct. Not liberal in its original meaning, but liberal as it has come to mean; i.e. "statist".

Here's a bit from a piece by Daniel Pipes which (apparently) I can't link having not yet made my requisite 15 posts (what an odd rule!):

Liberal fascism sounds like an oxymoron – or a term for conservatives to insult liberals. Actually, it was coined by a socialist writer, none other than the respected and influential left-winger H.G. Wells, who in 1931 called on fellow progressives to become "liberal fascists" and "enlightened Nazis." Really.

His words, indeed, fit a much larger pattern of fusing socialism with fascism: Mussolini was a leading socialist figure who, during World War I, turned away from internationalism in favor of Italian nationalism and called the blend Fascism. Likewise, Hitler headed the National Socialist German Workers Party.

<snip>

A statist ideology, fascism uses politics as the tool to transform society from atomized individuals into an organic whole. It does so by exalting the state over the individual, expert knowledge over democracy, enforced consensus over debate, and socialism over capitalism. It is totalitarian in Mussolini's original meaning of the term, of "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." Fascism's message boils down to "Enough talk, more action!" Its lasting appeal is getting things done.

In contrast, conservatism calls for limited government, individualism, democratic debate, and capitalism. Its appeal is liberty and leaving citizens alone.

WOW, I'm glad no one ever told Hitler Fascism was rooted in Liberalism...otherwise, he would have never imprisoned and killed so many Liberals...the goof could have WON the frickin' war!


When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller

 

[KittenKoder]

Coming from someone who thinks pedos are all gay, that only your religion is right, etc. ... you described yourself much better than a conservative.

Pedophiles aren't gay they are queer !The Roman Catholic religion is the true Christian religion, all others are simply wannabe's.

You did not disprove my assertion ...

 

[edthecynic]

You're quite simply wrong. Facism has its roots in socialism, which is a liberal construct. Not liberal in its original meaning, but liberal as it has come to mean; i.e. "statist".

Here's a bit from a piece by Daniel Pipes which (apparently) I can't link having not yet made my requisite 15 posts (what an odd rule!):

Liberal fascism sounds like an oxymoron – or a term for conservatives to insult liberals. Actually, it was coined by a socialist writer, none other than the respected and influential left-winger H.G. Wells, who in 1931 called on fellow progressives to become "liberal fascists" and "enlightened Nazis." Really.

His words, indeed, fit a much larger pattern of fusing socialism with fascism: Mussolini was a leading socialist figure who, during World War I, turned away from internationalism in favor of Italian nationalism and called the blend Fascism. Likewise, Hitler headed the National Socialist German Workers Party.[/u][/color]

Hitler, the Messiah of CON$ervatism, HATED Liberals and scapgoated Libs along with the Jews for Germany's problems.

"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality.
Today Christians stand at the head of our country.
We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.
We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press-- in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of LIBERAL excess during the past years."
[The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872]

You really don't have a clue, do you? Hitler's movement was liberal as in "progressive" as in what we now see liberals adhering to today

BALONEY! Hitler is the archetype Reagan CON$ervative, you know it and I know it.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The one trait that made Adolf so powerful was his speech giving ability. He knew, like many modern speech writers, how to captivate and maintain the full attention of the audience as well as make them believe almost anything he said without question ... like someone recent I can think of but that's another thread.

Obamie? Sure sounds like him.

 

[KittenKoder]

The one trait that made Adolf so powerful was his speech giving ability. He knew, like many modern speech writers, how to captivate and maintain the full attention of the audience as well as make them believe almost anything he said without question ... like someone recent I can think of but that's another thread.

Obamie? Sure sounds like him.

Yep ... it's why when he got the ticket I got chills remembering the stories of my grandfather.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Both.

Keep in mind that a dead atheist is all dressed up with no place to go.

Is that a threat or a lame attempt to convince me of *scary music* "the horrors of atheism"?

Just a chance to allow you to prove that you are devoid of a sense of humor.

 

[Bfgrn]

WHAT party's supporters does THIS sound like?

 

[mash107]

Hitler, the Messiah of CON$ervatism, HATED Liberals and scapgoated Libs along with the Jews for Germany's problems.

"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality.
Today Christians stand at the head of our country.
We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.
We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press-- in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of LIBERAL excess during the past years."
[The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872]

You really don't have a clue, do you? Hitler's movement was liberal as in "progressive" as in what we now see liberals adhering to today

BALONEY! Hitler is the archetype Reagan CON$ervative, you know it and I know it.

Hitler loved government.

Reagan hated government.
"Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem!"

Wow, the similarities are really there!

 

[KittenKoder]

WHAT party's supporters does THIS sound like?

BOTH sides right now.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Until recently, I did not consider conservatives useless. We used to able to trust them with the check book. Now that is gone and I'm not sure what use there is for conservatism in the new millenium.

A few years of the Obama Administration and you'll be singing a different tune.

 

[PoliticalChic]

More science about the conservative brain:

There are many possible reasons why conservatives and liberals react differently to disgust induction. Haidt’s research suggests that liberals and conservatives differ in regard to their moral emotions. In other words, conservatives and liberals base their moral judgments on different emotions. For example, liberals are more sensitive to empathy whereas conservatives are more sensitive to disgust.
One possible reason why conservatives become more prejudice when disgusted may be because they are more sensitive to disgust. But this does not help explain why liberals become less prejudice when they are disgusted.
It is possible that liberals are averse to prejudice. The aversive racism literature suggests that people avoid expressing prejudicial attitudes so they are not seen as bigots. Thus, liberals are disgusted at the prospect of being prejudice whereas conservatives are disgusted by homosexuality.

Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Brain: Why Does Disgust Induction Cause Conservatives to Become More Prejudice but Liberals Less Prejudice?

“[People displaying] measurably lower physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism and gun control,” the team wrote in its report, to be published in the journal Science tomorrow.

“Individuals displaying measurably higher physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favor defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism and the Iraq War.”

The psychology of conservatism and liberalism - Bodhi Tree Swaying


Northwestern University studied 128 church-going persons, half of whom were conservative, and half of whom were liberal. They found that

Political conservatives operate out of a fear of chaos and absence of order while political liberals operate out of a fear of emptiness.

Dan McAdams, study co-author and professor of human development and psychology at Northwestern, notes:

Social scientists long have assumed that liberals are more rational and less fearful than conservatives, but we find that both groups view the world as a dangerous place. It’s just that their fears emerge differently.

…Political conservatives envision a world without God in which baser human impulses go unchecked, social institutions (marriage, government, family) fall apart and chaos ensues. Liberals, on the other hand, envision a world without God as barren, lifeless, devoid of color and reasons to live.

Conservatives worry about societal collapse, liberals worry about a world without deep feelings and intense experiences.

Ladyblog » Blog Archive » The Fear-Based Psychology of Conservatism and Liberalism

"…[W]e consider evidence for and against the hypotheses that political conservatism is significantly associated with (1) mental rigidity and closed-mindedness, including (a) increased dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, (b) decreased cognitive complexity, (c) decreased openness to experience, (d) uncertainty avoidance, (e) personal needs for order and structure, and (f) need for cognitive closure; (2) lowered self-esteem; (3) fear, anger, and aggression; (4) pessimism, disgust, and contempt; (5) loss prevention; (6) fear of death; (7) threat arising from social and economic deprivation; and (8) threat to the stability of the social system. We have argued that these motives are in fact related to one another psychologically, and our motivated social—cognitive perspective helps to integrate them. We now offer an integrative, meta-analytic

review of research on epistemic, existential, and ideological bases of conservatism."

Political Conservatism by Bryan Zepp Jamieson


The results are in, after years of research and the conclusion is what we suspected all along: conservatives are just scared pricks.

Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

And here we have the quintessential liberal.

 

[Bfgrn]

Nazi Leaders, Theism, and Family Values

According to standard biographies, the principal Nazi leaders were all born, baptized, and raised Christian. Most grew up in strict, pious households where tolerance and democratic values were disparaged. Nazi leaders of Catholic background included Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and Joseph Goebbels.

Hitler did well in monastery school. He sang in the choir, found High Mass and other ceremonies intoxicating, and idolized priests. Impressed by their power, he at one time considered entering the priesthood.

Rudolf Hoess, who as commandant at Auschwitz-Birkinau pioneered the use of the Zyklon-B gas that killed half of all Holocaust victims, had strict Catholic parents. Hermann Goering had mixed Catholic-Protestant parentage, while Rudolf Hess, Martin Bormann, Albert Speer, and Adolf Eichmann had Protestant backgrounds.

Not one of the top Nazi leaders was raised in a liberal or atheistic family—no doubt, the parents of any of them would have found such views scandalous. Traditionalists would never think to deprive their offspring of the faith-based moral foundations that they would need to grow into ethical adults.
The Great Scandal: Christianity's Role in the Rise of the Nazis

 

[Avatar4321]

Let me define a "modern" CONSERVATIVE for you: ...stingy, miserly, reactionary, regressive, bigoted, prejudiced, biased, narrow-minded and more.

Considering that conservatives were anti-women voting, anti-blacks voting, pro-segregation, pro-Vietnam War, anti-Head Start, etc. etc. etc. you can see why I'd be embarrassed and indeed ashamed to call myself a conservative.

Well, of course, you wouldnt. You're definition is incorrect. You cant redefine something incorrectly and negatively and than act like everyone else should be as ashamed as you are of your own psychosis

 

[edthecynic]

I'm sorry, but wrong. Hitler didn't give a rats ass about the political leanings any of the people he had slaughtered. He wanted power and went after anything that threatened it, adding us Jews to the list as revenge because he was the most well known "self hating Jew". The word was not used in that speech as a political affiliation but as an adjective, the word means "excess".

Except he already used the word "excess" so you are saying the CON$ervative hero said "as a result of "EXCESS" excess during the last few years."
ROFLMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO

No, combining adjectives of similar meaning places emphasis on them, any speech writer knows that. You have to repeat concepts for people to absorb them effectively, otherwise they will only remember a few details of the speech. The one trait that made Adolf so powerful was his speech giving ability. He knew, like many modern speech writers, how to captivate and maintain the full attention of the audience as well as make them believe almost anything he said without question ... like someone recent I can think [LIMPBOY] of but that's another thread. Conservatives were the ones that actually called for him to be stopped, the liberals in this country at the time were too damned stoned to get it done (I am a liberal advocate by the way, and a mostly Democrat supporter but this dishonest claim needs some addressing). So thanks to the conservatives when Adolf was in power my family made it here safely, thanks to them Germany was rid of that monster.

More BALONEY. The American CON$servative businessmen $upported Hitler and some, like the Bush family, continued to trade with him even after war was declared. And recreational drug use didn't become popular until the Beatniks of the 1950s.
I see your tactic is to cover one falsehood with an avalanche of new falsehoods.

One more thing, Cynics are immune to suggestion therefore no amount of programming is ever "effectively absorbed" by them. LOL

 

[KittenKoder]

Except he already used the word "excess" so you are saying the CON$ervative hero said "as a result of "EXCESS" excess during the last few years."
ROFLMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO

No, combining adjectives of similar meaning places emphasis on them, any speech writer knows that. You have to repeat concepts for people to absorb them effectively, otherwise they will only remember a few details of the speech. The one trait that made Adolf so powerful was his speech giving ability. He knew, like many modern speech writers, how to captivate and maintain the full attention of the audience as well as make them believe almost anything he said without question ... like someone recent I can think [LIMPBOY] of but that's another thread. Conservatives were the ones that actually called for him to be stopped, the liberals in this country at the time were too damned stoned to get it done (I am a liberal advocate by the way, and a mostly Democrat supporter but this dishonest claim needs some addressing). So thanks to the conservatives when Adolf was in power my family made it here safely, thanks to them Germany was rid of that monster.

More BALONEY. The American CON$servative businessmen $upported Hitler and some, like the Bush family, continued to trade with him even after war was declared. And recreational drug use didn't become popular until the Beatniks of the 1950s.
I see your tactic is to cover one falsehood with an avalanche of new falsehoods.

One more thing, Cynics are immune to suggestion therefore no amount of programming is ever "effectively absorbed" by them. LOL

Wow ... just wow ... you make a claim in the end that is shown to be completely false by the rest of your post. You are no longer fun, because when someone as truly uneducated does wish to listen to the truth from someone who's family lived it then it has become too sad to be fun.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You CON$ just make this crap up out of thin air. According to the 2005 CBO report, the top 1% paid 27.6% of all federal taxes. You obviously are not counting all wealth or all taxes.

How Bush Widened The Wealth Gap
Today the top 1% of households receives more pretax income than the bottom 40%. And the distribution of wealth is even more lopsided. The top 1% of households owns nearly 40% of total household wealth -- more than the bottom 90% of households combined -- and earns half of all capital income. Income and wealth are more unevenly distributed among Americans than at any time since the Jazz Age of the 1920s.

According to the figures, the richest 1% reported 22% of the nation's total adjusted gross income in 2006. That is up from 21.2% a year earlier, and is the highest in the 19 years that the IRS has kept strictly comparable figures. The 1988 level was 15.2%. Earlier IRS data show the last year the share of income belonging to the top 1% was at such a high level as it was in 2006 was in 1929, but changes in measuring income make a precise comparison difficult.
The average tax rate in 2006 for the top 1%, based on adjusted gross income, was 22.8%, down slightly from 2005 and the fifth straight year of declines. The average tax rate of this group was 28.9% in 1996, and was 24% in 1988.
As the wealthiest Americans' share of income has risen, so has their share of the income-tax burden. The group paid 39.9% of all income taxes in 2006, compared with 27.6% in 1988."
From the WSJ, Richest Americans See
Their Income Share Grow
By JESSE DRUCKER
July 23, 2008; Page A3

Based on your attack of a completly checkable fact, you must be one of those worthless, whiney, ne'er-do-well liberals.
Would you like to retract your criticism?

Or someone who knows the difference between ADJUSTED income and total income as well as the difference between income taxes and all federal taxes.
So you unwittingly proved, just as I said, you are not counting all wealth or all fed taxes.
Would you care to retract your deliberate deception. Of course not, you are a crybaby CON$ervative and CON$ never ever admit the truth.

Mrs. Clinton Honest About Taxes
August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

Wow, the anger you have toward success and wealth, seems to indicate that you are not successful, not wealthy, and surely not happy.

While I can sympathize with you reactions to your own inabilities, incompetance, and, no doubt, lack of satisfactory personal relationships, I can only encourage you to work harder, try to rise about the mundane and menial niche that your 'talents' have carved out for you.
There's nothing wrong with pushing a broom: remember, YOU ARE SOMEBODY!

There, are you calmer now?

Let's review.
Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke). If you find that there are weaknesses in the tax code, try to address that issue, don't blame those smarter than you for using the code to their benefit.
Do you understand?

My point, and a valid one, is that those who report earned income for tax purposes at the top of the earned-income pyramid, pay more than their equivalent share of taxes.

Those earners actually pay a greater portion of the taxes since the Bush tax cuts.

The top 50% of earners pay over 96% of taxes. What more do you want?

BTW, Rush Limbaugh makes statements like those you quote simply to infuriate whining covetous individuals like you.

Thanks for playing along.

 

[PoliticalChic]

#8 There is nothing 'scientific' about creationism. It's biblical based and not science. There is no 'choice' here. Granted many believe in it, then again there are those that believe in other non-science based things. Me? I believe in a just and rational God. I don't think he'd/she'd give us the ability to reason, expecting us not to use it.

I said nothing about creationism being scientific.

And, in this country, we each have the choice as to what to believe. A science teacher can teach the validity of the theory of evolution and not be insulted nor feel that they have not reached a student if the student then opts for a different view.

" I believe in a just and rational God. I don't think he'd/she'd give us the ability to reason, expecting us not to use it." Ditto.
I've had several opportunities to visit the Sistine Chapel, and was greatly impressed upon viewing the ceiling after it was 'cleaned,' and noted how the cape upon which G-d was floating was in the shape of a cerebrum. Kind of makes your point.

 

[Bfgrn]

Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

And here we have the quintessential liberal.
__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
Reply With Quote

Chic...WOW ...I don't think I've run across anyone that uses projection more than you. Here on a board where right wingers attack Obama because of speaking ticks even though his cognitive thought is perfectly logical and sound and where paranoid right wingers are hiding under their beds because Obama can capture the attention of a crowd BUT... so could Hitler...

I've got news for you...fear is an EMOTION...it is what drives right wingers like you 24/7...

And then you cap it off with a quote from that goof A. Coulter