Why is it

[Setarcos]

that self-proclaimed conservatives always have the minds of children? They blame everything on "leftists and liberals and then, when you show their assertions to be false, respond only by attacking the speaker. Do they not realize every single achievement they attribute to conservatives was won by liberals, while the conservatives of the day fought tooth and nail to keep slavery legal, prevent the passing of child labor laws, and keep women and blacks out of the polling box? Does the fact the values they like to praise, like equality under the law, are actually classical liberal principles simply escape their underdeveloped minds?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

There is a lot of ugly irony in your opening post.

 

[007]

that self-proclaimed conservatives always have the minds of children? They blame everything on "leftists and liberals and then, when you show their assertions to be false, respond only by attacking the speaker. Do they not realize every single achievement they attribute to conservatives was won by liberals, while the conservatives of the day fought tooth and nail to keep slavery legal, prevent the passing of child labor laws, and keep women and blacks out of the polling box? Does the fact the values they like to praise, like equality under the law, are actually classical liberal principles simply escape their underdeveloped minds?

There's a place for bull shit hyperbole like this... it's called the Flame Zone.

 

[Oddball]

that self-proclaimed conservatives always have the minds of children? They blame everything on "leftists and liberals and then, when you show their assertions to be false, respond only by attacking the speaker. Do they not realize every single achievement they attribute to conservatives was won by liberals, while the conservatives of the day fought tooth and nail to keep slavery legal, prevent the passing of child labor laws, and keep women and blacks out of the polling box? Does the fact the values they like to praise, like equality under the law, are actually classical liberal principles simply escape their underdeveloped minds?

2a. Freudian Projection

The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called Freudian Projection.

* "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."

* "The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual."

* "Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."

* "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."

* "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."

* "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."

2b. (General) Projection

Here projection is assuming that others act or perceive similarly – according to this definition it is not necessary for a projected trait to be undesirable or unconscious. Projection is probably inherent in social animals and the single most important psychological mechanism. The following are given as examples:

1. Individual A assumes that B sees the colour red as he does, until informed that B is colour-blind;

2. Someone who never lies is easy to deceive because he projects his truthfulness onto others, assuming that others are honest also;

3. ‘It takes one to know one’;

4. An inept con-man fears that others are trying to cheat him, signals his fear and alerts others;

5. (Freudian) An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but who is unwilling to perceive himself as a protagonist, convinces himself that his opponent feels and would act the same way.

Each of these examples involves an assumption that others exhibit an own trait, but various "defence mechanisms" exist. Counter-strategies for Case 2 include (a) being conscious of a tendency to project and compensating with increased scepticism, testing scientifically, and (b) lying as much as everyone else. Case 3 could occur if an individual is honest about his own characteristics and inhibits his tendency to project, in which case he may accurately recognize his own traits in another without error. Case 4 is an interesting scenario left open for discussion.

In Case 5, offensive acts may occur when the projector (which may be an individual or a group), erroneously believing that their adversary is about to do likewise, pre-empts the opponent – making the player of this so-called defence mechanism into an aggressive protagonist. This illustrates just one of several problems with the orthodox notion of projection. I hope to have demonstrated that the conventional definition of projection, here dubbed Freudian Projection, merely describes a specific instance of a more general, and important, human mechanism. Projection, combined with features such as denial of latent desires, accounts for a great deal of human behaviour and attitudes.

 

[Setarcos]

Funny how noone can actually deny the observations made in the OP.

 

[xsited1]

that self-proclaimed conservatives always have the minds of children? They blame everything on "leftists and liberals and then, when you show their assertions to be false, respond only by attacking the speaker. Do they not realize every single achievement they attribute to conservatives was won by liberals, while the conservatives of the day fought tooth and nail to keep slavery legal, prevent the passing of child labor laws, and keep women and blacks out of the polling box? Does the fact the values they like to praise, like equality under the law, are actually classical liberal principles simply escape their underdeveloped minds?

Liberals freed the slaves, passed child labor laws and allowed women and blacks to vote? Wow. So why have modern American liberals turned their backs on the 'classical liberals' of yesteryear?

 

[Si modo]

that self-proclaimed conservatives always have the minds of children? They blame everything on "leftists and liberals and then, when you show their assertions to be false, respond only by attacking the speaker. Do they not realize every single achievement they attribute to conservatives was won by liberals, while the conservatives of the day fought tooth and nail to keep slavery legal, prevent the passing of child labor laws, and keep women and blacks out of the polling box? Does the fact the values they like to praise, like equality under the law, are actually classical liberal principles simply escape their underdeveloped minds?

Wait....were you actually serious?

 

[Setarcos]

that self-proclaimed conservatives always have the minds of children? They blame everything on "leftists and liberals and then, when you show their assertions to be false, respond only by attacking the speaker. Do they not realize every single achievement they attribute to conservatives was won by liberals, while the conservatives of the day fought tooth and nail to keep slavery legal, prevent the passing of child labor laws, and keep women and blacks out of the polling box? Does the fact the values they like to praise, like equality under the law, are actually classical liberal principles simply escape their underdeveloped minds?

Liberals freed the slaves, passed child labor laws and allowed women and blacks to vote? Wow. So why have modern American liberals turned their backs on the 'classical liberals' of yesteryear?

Because they're not liberals. They're authoritarian collectivists in it only to secure their own interests, the People be damned.

 

[DamnYankee]

that self-proclaimed conservatives always have the minds of children? They blame everything on "leftists and liberals and then, when you show their assertions to be false, respond only by attacking the speaker. Do they not realize every single achievement they attribute to conservatives was won by liberals, while the conservatives of the day fought tooth and nail to keep slavery legal, prevent the passing of child labor laws, and keep women and blacks out of the polling box? Does the fact the values they like to praise, like equality under the law, are actually classical liberal principles simply escape their underdeveloped minds?

Most of civilization exists on the basis of past, present and future. Then there's 'alternate reality'.

 

[chanel]

that self-proclaimed liberals always have the minds of children? They blame everything on "the religious right and greedy Wall Street bankers" When you show their assertions to be false, respond only by attacking the speaker. Do they not realize every single debacle they attribute to liberals, while the conservatives of the day fought tooth and nail to keep pedophilia illegal, prevent the amnesty of illegal immigrants, and to allow Whites in Phila. in the polling box? Does the fact the values Conservatives like to praise, like personal responsibility and individual liberty are actually unalienable rights that escape their underdeveloped minds?

Why do libs want strangers to be their "brother's keeper"? Do they not have brothers of their own? Why must they be taken care of by my family? Why do they want the federal govt. to be their mommy? The feds. won't do their laundry.

 

[Dr Grump]

that self-proclaimed liberals always have the minds of children? They blame everything on "the religious right and greedy Wall Street bankers" When you show their assertions to be false, respond only by attacking the speaker. Do they not realize every single debacle they attribute to liberals, while the conservatives of the day fought tooth and nail to keep pedophilia illegal, prevent the amnesty of illegal immigrants, and to allow Whites in Phila. in the polling box? Does the fact the values Conservatives like to praise, like personal responsibility and individual liberty are actually unalienable rights that escape their underdeveloped minds?

Why do libs want strangers to be their "brother's keeper"? Do they not have brothers of their own? Why must they be taken care of by my family? Why do they want the federal govt. to be their mommy? The feds. won't do their laundry.

Wow, Libs don't want paedophlia illegal? Really? You got proof of that, or are you just spouting empty rhetoric? And Wall St bankers aren't greedy? Really? hhhmmmm.....

 

[chanel]

The ACLU is a leftist organization that supports pedophilia. They have fought every sex offender law on the books. They have fought for the 1st amendment rights of child pornographers. And of course, they support NAMBLA. Look it up.

 

[Dr Grump]

No, you said it, you put up or shut up. And since when has the ACLU represented liberalism? You mean like David Duke supports conservatism? You wouldn't need the ACLU if you didn't have racist, misogynistic fuck heads in the first place. That's the problem with conservatives, they forget it's their brethren who like to marginalise that gave the ACLU a foot up in the first place. In saying that, I don't have a problem with their overall strategy. They've done some good work......

 

[RadiomanATL]

Why is it that the self-proclaimed liberal Setarcos has down syndrome and has the mind of a child? Setarcos blames everything on conservatives and then when you show the assertion to be false, the only response is to drool uncontrollably and sit in their own shit and mutter something about "stop the bukkake, Setarcos is drowning...."



Seriously. Why can't anyone actually factually deny these observations?

 

[chanel]

No, you said it, you put up or shut up. And since when has the ACLU represented liberalism? You mean like David Duke supports conservatism? You wouldn't need the ACLU if you didn't have racist, misogynistic fuck heads in the first place. That's the problem with conservatives, they forget it's their brethren who like to marginalise that gave the ACLU a foot up in the first place. In saying that, I don't have a problem with their overall strategy. They've done some good work......

Are you actually equating the power of the ACLU with the "power of David Duke"? Fail. Do we have to go through a pathetic list of card-carrying members like the Speaker of the House. Yawn. No one needs proof that the sky is blue.

The ACLU is hurting America. Esp. the children.

Remind me again where they stand on terrorism?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not one conservative here has proven any part of Setarcos' assertion to be false. You have attacked him, yes, but have not given any signficant counter evidence to his points.

 

[Oddball]

Funny how noone can actually deny the observations made in the OP.

What's the point in refuting a neurotic hissy fit?

 

[Dr Grump]

Are you actually equating the power of the ACLU with the "power of David Duke"? Fail. Do we have to go through a pathetic list of card-carrying members like the Speaker of the House. Yawn. No one needs proof that the sky is blue.

The ACLU is hurting America. Esp. the children.

Remind me again where they stand on terrorism?

No, what I'm doing is asking you why you are marginalising a certain group of people because they belong to an organisation, whereby said organisation - or certain people in it - have gone too far in a certain direction, and somehow that is the credentials of the whole organisation? I think it is opportunism on a grand scale on your part. You seem to be one of those conservatives that is quite happy to label a group a certain thing, without delving into the group as a whole. Seems to be an American thing. Same with Acorn. I have no doubt both groups started out with the best intentions - and most within those groups still fall in that category - but you'll take the exceptions within both groups and try and treat them like the norm. I find that a typical conservative - especially neocon- tactic. Disingenuous to the max.

Did I think Bush was a total moron, and a few members of his inner circle cocksuckers (Wolfowitz, Pearle, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld)? Absolutely. Do I think most members of his cabinet and the GoP such? no., not really.

And no, Chanel, I don't know. Please give me the ACLU's official policy on terrorism. I await with baIted breath..........

 

[RadiomanATL]

Not one conservative here has proven any part of Setarcos' assertion to be false. You have attacked him, yes, but have not given any signficant counter evidence to his points.

I was going to post something really snarky....I'm really itching to. But instead I'm going to be respectful for once...although the urge is still strong...

It's because when boiled down to its essence, the OP, and you are asking to prove a negative. Which is total BS. It was BS when Bush did it to Iraq, and its still bullshit now. It's complete and utter bullshit to ask someone or some nation to "oh yeah, well PROVE that you don't-have/aren't/don't think ____________".

The other option is that the OP is doing the exact same thing that it is accusing conservatives of...blaming everything on the other side. And thats still complete bullshit as well.

Such a poorly thought out flamebait deserves nothing but ridicule, derision and the thread starter deserves to be the pinata that he begged to become.

 

[editec]

There's certainly a subset (and a large one) of self-proclaiming coservatives who are basically nothing but angry know-nothing partisans, I'll readily admit that.

I expect they're as much an embarassment to thinking conservatives as CODE PINK is to somebody like me.