Are Conservatives More Complex Than Liberals?

Just wash your hands; don't scrub the skin away. Another indication that Enviros are Zero-Growth kooks is the silly Endangered (unfit) Species Act. Any concern about wild beasts, which deserve to be exterminated to free up property and benefit mankind instead, makes me suspicious about the entire environmentalist agenda. I even might go so far in my opposition to this decadent trend that I could believe that pollution is actually antiseptic, killing off harmful germs more than endangering humans. "Clean Air" is the most toxic of all. Nature wasn't designed to benefit us, the balance of Nature is not in our favor, and any re-designing of it gets the go ahead from me. Where there's smoke, there's fire. Zeus was the first Greenhead, punishing Prometheus for bringing controlled fire to benefit the human race.

 

Are Conservatives More Complex Than Liberals?

No, it's just that it take more time & talent to spin lies....double speak ala the Obama admin has become an art.

 

Conservatism is easy! Just turn on Rush Limbaugh and you learn everything you need to know about the world! Screw science, math, and all that other boring stuff... just instill fear in to someone and they'll believe anything you say!! I actually wish I was a conservative some time! So simple even Sarah Palin can master it!

 

I'm a conservative who doesnt listen/watch Rush and has a degree in science..where have i gone wrong?!

 

We should point out that "conservatives have been effectively disempowered, marginalized, and reduced to the level of livestock" by the actions of the Republican Party.

And while there are 100 million Americans that are not expressing themselves politically it is generally because of their choice. I'm an optimist and I know that about 1.3 million people did express themselves politically in the 2012 presidential election by voting for a candidate that actually endorsed exactly what they believed. Gary Johnson received those 1.3 million votes by those of us that refused to vote for the "lesser of two evils" which was the only choice most people made. As people become less enfranchised with the options of "Democrat v Republican" and start investigating the actual policies that they believe in more and more will turn their backs on the Republican and Democratic party machines that are both pandering to extremists.

There is one fundamental problem though and that is that 1/2 of the population has an IQ of 100 or less and they are not inclined to do the research necessary to become an informed electorate. It is up to the rest of us to ensure a process where the information they need to make informed decisions is virtually spoon fed to them. The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are opposed to this and will do everything possible to prevent it from happening even if it means they would lose an election to the other party. We saw this with their suppression of Gary Johnson that was excluded from the Presidental Debates. They didn't want him on the stage to offer a different political choice to the American People. The didn't want the "classic liberal" political opinion that America was founded upon presented to the general public because both parties have abandoned that political philosophy.

As I look into the future though I believe with information technology expanding that the political options will expand and not contract. With that expansion then more and more Americans will know that they have options other than voting against a political party. They will actually come to know that there are political candidates that have the same values that they have and they will begin to vote for them re-establishing their influence over our government.

Of course I might be overly optimistic or even delusional in believing that the American People will actually become informed before voting in the future.

 

It would be impossible to determine how an individual possibly went wrong but in general I'd say that if a "conservative" voted for Mitt Romney then they went wrong there as Mitt Romney is not a conservative by any traditional definition of the word. He's a "social-conservative" and social-conservatives are not traditional conservatives. Traditional conservatives are "Classic Liberals" and Romney opposes Classic Liberalism.

 

As more of an Independent Conservative, I would say that I am a 95% Traditionalist (believing that there are tried & proven reasons why civilized nations are successful) and 5% Progressive (seeing the need for required change to fine tune the success of those nations, but w/o violating the foundational principles)....and I agree, Romney was not a classic Conservative. He wasnt the 'Great Hope' of conservatives, but what they had to settle for.

 

Conservatives had another option and that was to vote for Gary Johnson who is a conservative believing in "Classic Liberalsim" that is a political ideology that advocates civil liberties and political freedom with limited government under the rule of law and generally promotes a laissez-faire economic policy. Over 1.3 million "conservative" voters choose this option in the 2012 presidential election. Yes, we lost the election but our votes counted because we voted for what we believed in. Those that voted from Romney instead of Johnson also lost the election but their votes also violated the principles of traditional conservatism founded in classic liberalism as well.

I'm a one-time loser because my candidate didn't win the election but the "traditional conservatives" that voted for Romney are two-time losers because not only did they not win the election they also voted for a candidate that didn't represent their political ideology. They would have still been losers even if Romney was elected because he didn't represent their political ideology.

 

I still harken back to the Bush-Clinton election of 1992, when Ross Perot with his good ideas, lost the majority vote for H.W. Bush (who had freed Kuwait and was on a popular high, even with his falling down on his "Read my lips...." comment), and who shud have won re-election as an incumbent, but ended up losing to but a slick-talking personality and a song by Fleetwood Mac...

EDIT: Btw, that mind set reminds me of the story of the pedestrian who took his right of way and was hit by a vehicle..his last words, "But I was right!"

 

Ditto.

 

The last vestige of traditional conservatism in the Republican Party were lost in 1971 under Nixon. Ross Perot was never a traditional conservative nor was former President George GW Bush.

BTW the Gulf War was a regional conflict between competing tyrannical regimes and the restoration of the Royal Family of Kuwait, which is still a tyrannical regime, did not "free" the Kawaiti People from tyranny anymore than the 2003 Iraq War hasn't removed the tyranny of government from the Iraqi People nor will our current military mission in Afghanistan result in the freedom of the Afghani People. The only reason that I believe that former President George GW Bush got the US involved in the Gulf War was because the Royal Families in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were personal friends and former business associates of the president. It had nothing to do with "freedom" but instead was about retaining/restoring the existing tyranny of the governments where the leaders were presonal friends of the president. Remember that Saddam, also a tyrant, was an "ally" of the United States before he messed with the personal friends of the president. Saddam was previously an ally because the Iranian People had overthrown the Shah of Iran that was another tyrant supported by the United States and Saddam stood against Iran.

When are we, the United States, going to stop supporting tyrants and tyrannical regimes is the question I'd ask.

 

It's the ole "the enemy of mine enemy is my friend' syndrome, as well as what advances US 'interests.'

Btw, Personal convictions are important, but one who makes their stand on them must be prepared to live with the consequences. I.e. a person's Martyrdom in medieval times could have been stopped if that person repented as a heretic, denied their new found faith, and came back to the Romanian Church during the Inquisition. The vast majority per "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" did not and paid the ultimate price...

But your 1 vote (and that collective mind set) merely cost you et al but 4 more years of a Tax & Spend Big Govt....feel better?

 

The bottom line answer here is YES. That is because conservatives think and liberals react.

 

Oh please. Don't act like liberals believe in science or math. The minute they don't support your agenda, you toss them right out the window.

 

I see the Alex Jones nutter syndrome is strong in this thread.
We went into Kuwait because Saddam Hussein was trying to takeover all of the oil fields in the area. His design was to use the oil proffits to gain a nuclear capablity and finance his military takeover and become the new Caliph.
If you believe anything else you need more tinfoil.


As for the idea of liberal/progressives being intelligent? Don't waste my time. They are the english majors because they don't understand "The Maths" or that Physics stuff. Every time I see some idiot type "the maths" I want to horse laugh them off the planet.
Mathematics is not plural, dumbass.

 

I could see that as being a reason for the Middle-East nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran going to war against Iraq in 1991 because Iraq would present an actual threat to those nations. That doesn't explain why the US went to war against Iraq though because even with nuclear weapons Iraq wouldn't have presented any threat to the United States. Why would the United States become involved in a war between different tyrannical regimes when we weren't threatened. I believe the answer is simple. The Royal Families of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (both tyrannical regimes) were personal friends and former business associates of President Bush. From a political and national defense perspective we had no motivation whatsover to become involved so, at least to me, it appears that we became involved based upon personal reasons by our president.

Then do the math. Studies show that low IQ individuals are more likely to adopt conservative ideologies and there is a fundamental balance per capita between "liberal/progressives" and "social conservatives" so if more low IQ people become conservatives then the average conservative would be less intelligent than the average liberal. That's just what the math indicates based upon scientific studies but it is general in context and doesn't apply to specific individuals.

 

Studies done by who?

Lib academics who do not have real jobs but lots of time to do studies?

The fact is its easier to be a lib because other people do your thinking for you and all you have to do is repeat what you hear on the dominant lib media.

 

A person with a high IQ can also become an 'educated fool,' lacking common sense and understanding..which from my experience on this forum is the std Liberal profile...as in 'intentions trump results'.

 

That's correct.

Education and knowledge are good things but no guarantee of wisdom or common sense.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html

This peer reviewed study was presented before on another thread and in that discussion no one was able to establish that the researchers were "liberals" nor were any contradictory studies ever presented as rebuttal to this study. So we have the undisputed results of a peer-reviewed study to go by and unless a rebuttal study can be provided we can assume the results of the study are accurate.

Now if a peer reviewed study can be presented that contradicts this study it is worthy of consideration. Lacking that unsupported personal opinions really have no merit worthy of consideration by anyone regardless of any political considerations.

 

Some of you seem to be assuming that people chooses their political leanings based on personal research. Most don't have the time, and either follow the local trend or choose a party based on emotions or personal feelings (such as abortion or civil rights.)
Find a study of people who swear they honestly evaluated both parties before choosing bne and see who they support.

 

So show me a math on it's own. Mathematics has an "s" on the end, as does the abbreviation, "maths"

 

Why was gasoline only a dollar a gallon when Reagan was friends with Saddam?
Why did the Bush family protect OPEC's price-gouging by opposing Saddam? The cartel charges us dozens of times what the oil is worth. That can only be accomplished if each member agrees to limit production. Saddam exceeded his quotas in order to finance his war with our enemy, Iran.

You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to recognize economic treason. The American oil companies piggyback off OPEC price-gouging. Follow the money, don't accept what the pre-owned mainstream tells you is going on. Respect for self-appointed authority should disqualify people from posting on an independent Internet. All the professionals have forums for people who look up to them.

By the way, oxymoron doesn't mean what the media tell you it means. It is the exact opposite: phrases like "less is more, boneless ribs, sounds of silence, Little Big Horn" etc. The correct phrase for the way your signature uses oxymoron is "a contradiction in terms" or actually, just a claim that perfectly logical phrases are contradictions. That you imitate the ignorant way these ambitious imbeciles speak is still another example that the education of people who influence you is about brown-nosing, not brains. Which of their ventriloquists is using you as a dummy?

 

Common sense would tell you that college is class-biased indentured servitude and must be replaced with highly paid profession training. Common sense would shout, "You want us to do what! Get a job by going four years without a job? What are you trying to pull?" But people have the sense knocked out of them by the overwhelming force of ruling-class mind control.