Thinking Like a Conservative

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You see?! Now that's revisionist history!

As I always say: THE MEANING OF ANYTHING IS WHAT HAPPENS, NOT WHAT WE CALL THINGS.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You see?! Now that's revisionist history!

Dayummm....that's some queery-class revisionism!!!!!

Ooops, I'm supposed to use alts to bash queery, I done goofed. My bad!

 

[KingOrfeo]

As I always say: THE MEANING OF ANYTHING IS WHAT HAPPENS, NOT WHAT WE CALL THINGS.

And what you describe is not what happened. E.g., the Civil War was not about railroad routes.

 

[PoppingTom]

"Ach, mein lieber Sulzer, er kennt nicht dies verdammte Race."

Sülzer?

Race?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Today’s Tea Party faces a completely different problem: how a shrinking conservative minority can keep change at bay in spite of the democratic processes defined in the Constitution. That’s why they need guns.

Why? Armed, unarmed, their chances of political success are exactly the same.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I will confess, that when the Tea Party started gathering attention from the media, I bought the premise that their cause was fighting unfair taxes.

Actually, the original Boston Tea Party was kindasorta a tax protest and kindasorta a protest against repeal of a tax. It's complicated.

Bostonians and other colonists had been subjected to a tax on tea as well as paint, paper, and glass with the passage of the Townshend Acts in 1767.[1] Protests and non-importation movements by the colonists led to the repeal of the Townshend duties in 1770, with the exception of the duty on tea. In 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act which allowed the struggling East India Tea Company to sell a half million pounds of tea in the colonies while bypassing the importation taxes normally paid under the British Navigation Acts. For all practical purposes, the 1773 Tea Act gave the East India Tea Company a monopoly by allowing them to charge less than other merchants.[2]

Despite the fact they were now paying less for tea, American colonists protested the act, not so much because they didn't like cheap tea, but because the tea was still taxed under the Townshend Act, which they opposed under the premise of "no taxation without representation"- the colonists were unable to vote in Parliament's elections, but Parliament had no problem levying taxes on the colonists, and strangely enough, the colonists didn't particularly like this.[3] Incidents like the Boston Tea Party were avoided in other port cities, when East India ships left without unloading their cargo in the face of protests by colonists. Massachusetts governor Thomas Hutchinson, however, issued an order forbidding ships to leave port without unloading their cargo, and this was a key factor that led to the Boston Tea Party.

 

[unregistered]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

And what you describe is not what happened. E.g., the Civil War was not about railroad routes.

Sure it was, and get this...Lincoln (a railroad lawyer) was in the thick of fomenting violence tween Kansas and Missouri. Whats more, he was giving railroad money to the slavery side. I kid you not. It gets more bizarre, William Quantrill was an abolitionist before the war. People don't know the half of all the chicanery. Instead the perfessers feed students crap. Results count, not words.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Being genetically predisposed to weakness and liberalism . . .

See post #11.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

It would be of no use. I'm quite impervious to the ticking metronome Salon uses to affect the hypnotic induction so effective in destroying your common sense.

[shrug] Then see the abstract of the actual study the article is about.

 

[1sickbastard]

[shrug] Then see the abstract of the actual study the article is about.

How will vetteman respond?
a) ignore the evidence presented with an ad hominem attack
b) dismiss the evidence using a logical fallacy
c) run away.


Let's watch!

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Thank you for the link!

Disputes between those holding differing political views are ubiquitous and deep-seated, and they often follow common, recognizable lines. The supporters of tradition and stability, sometimes referred to as conservatives, do battle with the supporters of innovation and reform, sometimes referred to as liberals.

Understanding the correlates of those distinct political orientations is probably a prerequisite for managing political disputes, which are a source of social conflict that can lead to frustration and even bloodshed. A rapidly growing body of empirical evidence documents a multitude of ways in which liberals and conservatives differ from each other in purviews of life with little direct connection to politics, from tastes in art to desire for closure and from disgust sensitivity to the tendency to pursue new information, but the central theme of the differences is a matter of debate.

In this article, we argue that one organizing element of the many differences between liberals and conservatives is the nature of their physiological and psychological responses to features of the environment that are negative.

Compared with liberals, conservatives tend to register greater physiological responses to such stimuli and also to devote more psychological resources to them. Operating from this point of departure, we suggest approaches for refining understanding of the broad relationship between political views and response to the negative.

We conclude with a discussion of normative implications, stressing that identifying differences across ideological groups is not tantamount to declaring one ideology superior to another.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9292100

*gsgs comment- (sings lyrics to White Wedding)*

 

[KingOrfeo]

See also Biology and political orientation.

See also here, here, and here.

Still, I'm sure a person's cultural background (class, ethnic, religious, regional, and generational) is a much more important factor in his or her political views than anything genetic or neurological.

 

[1sickbastard]

How will vetteman respond?
a) ignore the evidence presented with an ad hominem attack
b) dismiss the evidence using a logical fallacy
c) run away.


Let's watch!

So far, it looks like 'c' has the lead.
Will vetteman continue his manly advance to the rear?
Will he rebound and respond with more vile in true grandpa urine fashion?
Will KingOrfeo continue to match the betty-man in C&P threads?

Tune in next time!

 

[KingOrfeo]

So far, it looks like 'c' has the lead.

So far.

 

[CandiCame]

This entire thread is depressing. The whole damn thing.

Here's some tiny lizards.

Lookit'um. Lookit how cute they are. They're chameleons. They can't be real. But they are.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

lets face it, the obama kind do not think. the obama kind are slaves and have gov'net think for them

 

[NeverEndingMe]

then get your ass off welfare and find a job

This entire thread is depressing. The whole damn thing.

Here's some tiny lizards.

Lookit'um. Lookit how cute they are. They're chameleons. They can't be real. But they are.

 

[CandiCame]

then get your ass off welfare and find a job

I'm not sure how that follows from tiny lizards.

Somebody's being a Gloomy Gus.

Sink fulla ducks.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

clearly, the obama kind are like sunken ships

 

[KingOrfeo]

I'm not sure how that follows from tiny lizards.

NEM does not have the sort of mind wherein one thing "follows" from another.

Just iggy it.

 

[FGB]

KingOrfeo I'm going to do something I rarely do and that is to say what I'm really thinking.

You have no fucking ideal how a conservative thinks or believes or what values they hold dear.

Everything you think you know about Conservatives you have learned from liberal media or others like yourself.

If you really did have a clue you would be one.

You are certainly bright enough, so If you have some points to make...make them stand up on their own merits.

That is the way to convince Conservatives, not this crap you put out.

You may return to the regular scheduled oral dosage now.

 

[The_Trouvere]

This explains a lot about how RW Litsters and the rest just seem to talk past each other in different languages.

Excerpted from a series of blog posts at The Nation by Rick Perlstein...

You would be easier to read, and probably more frequently read, if you would restrict your posts to one computer screen. If you want to draw attention to an article that interests you, excerpt parts of it, or better yet paraphrase it. In either case, follow what you post about the article with a link. That way, those who you interest in the article can click on the post and read the entire article.

The rest of us can respond to what you post. If you do that, you will demonstrate that you understand the entire article, and have assimilated it.

I have only skimmed through what you copied and posted. Tell me in your own words how, according to the article, does one think like a conservative?

This comment of mine is not intended as an attack on you, but as friendly advice.

 

[The_Trouvere]

clearly, the obama kind are like sunken ships

You are ugly and half crazy.