Is Political Conservatism a Mild Form of Insanity?
#21
(12-11-2011, 07:27 PM)Leonard Wrote:
(12-11-2011, 06:32 PM)chuck white Wrote: Don't pay no mind to Hillclimber and Yeshuah Hamashiach.
They just have a mild form of insanity.
Big Grin

So I take it there is consensus and the answer to the question, posed by this thread is a definite yes?
You seem to need constant reinforcement of your party line "values". Will you sleep better if you have a definitive number of people who you believe think exactly like you? Safety in numbers? About half the nation votes for any liberal, presidential candidate and about half vote for whatever candidate the conservative party puts up. Most people are actually moderates and agree on a significant number of really important issues but it is important that that discussion never gets off the ground and that people like you, who love the righty-lefty thing dominate the collective conversation, but I guess you can't see that.
Reply
#22
Oh he sees it , he just doesn't care.
Reply
#23
Conservatives enjoy twice the headaches that liberals suffer. That's from more than one peer reviewed study. Pain is a signal that something is amiss.
Reply
#24
(12-12-2011, 08:11 AM)illcommandante Wrote: Conservatives enjoy twice the headaches that liberals suffer. That's from more than one peer reviewed study. Pain is a signal that something is amiss.

That's enlightening, real cutting edge information.

Reply
#25
David Brooks is Conservative and can explain why in a sentence or two. He speaks and writes with intelligence and clarity. He understands the importance of compromise in a democratic republic.

Newt Gingrich is Conservative and can explain why in a week or two. He waxes eloquent, describing policy shifts once a week never bothering to flush them into complete programs that can become enacted. A bright man, he is a prisoner of his own mind and a puppet of the extreme thought in his party. But insane he is not.

Two men with the same label, worlds apart.

To ask if political conservatism is a mild form of insanity is to beg the question. Of course it's not. There are, no doubt, insane conservatives. There are, without a doubt insane liberals.

We need new labels. I think maybe that is what the Tea Party was all about at some point. I'll bet dollars to donuts we we soon see splintering of our established two party's into factions that require grouping, similar to parliamentary governments.

The political insanity may very well be right here at the grass roots, fueling the goofy language and posturing we see in our politicians.
Reply
#26
I generally consider the source when topics like this pop up Wonky. Guess that is why I didn't comment on it till now.

I also agree with your observation. In fact, I would say that those that follow politics too much, or religion or science or any other number of topics as laymen and generalists have to be a bit insane to put themselves through the process.

BTW, I heard today that there is some kind of a 3rd party movement that had gotten some legs. Can't remember at the moment what it was called but when I read that they thought that Bloomberg might be a good candidate for their cause I pulled the plug!
Reply
#27
(12-20-2011, 10:16 PM)Wonky Wrote: David Brooks is Conservative and can explain why in a sentence or two. He speaks and writes with intelligence and clarity. He understands the importance of compromise in a democratic republic.

Newt Gingrich is Conservative and can explain why in a week or two. He waxes eloquent, describing policy shifts once a week never bothering to flush them into complete programs that can become enacted. A bright man, he is a prisoner of his own mind and a puppet of the extreme thought in his party. But insane he is not.

Two men with the same label, worlds apart.

To ask if political conservatism is a mild form of insanity is to beg the question. Of course it's not. There are, no doubt, insane conservatives. There are, without a doubt insane liberals.

We need new labels. I think maybe that is what the Tea Party was all about at some point. I'll bet dollars to donuts we we soon see splintering of our established two party's into factions that require grouping, similar to parliamentary governments.

The political insanity may very well be right here at the grass roots, fueling the goofy language and posturing we see in our politicians.

Give me a year or two and I couldn't beat this post.

But I will steal it to use elsewhere. Need an ego lift. Thanks.
Reply
#28
(12-20-2011, 10:44 PM)Queue Wrote:
(12-20-2011, 10:16 PM)Wonky Wrote: David Brooks is Conservative and can explain why in a sentence or two. He speaks and writes with intelligence and clarity. He understands the importance of compromise in a democratic republic.

Newt Gingrich is Conservative and can explain why in a week or two. He waxes eloquent, describing policy shifts once a week never bothering to flush them into complete programs that can become enacted. A bright man, he is a prisoner of his own mind and a puppet of the extreme thought in his party. But insane he is not.

Two men with the same label, worlds apart.

To ask if political conservatism is a mild form of insanity is to beg the question. Of course it's not. There are, no doubt, insane conservatives. There are, without a doubt insane liberals.

We need new labels. I think maybe that is what the Tea Party was all about at some point. I'll bet dollars to donuts we we soon see splintering of our established two party's into factions that require grouping, similar to parliamentary governments.

The political insanity may very well be right here at the grass roots, fueling the goofy language and posturing we see in our politicians.

Give me a year or two and I couldn't beat this post.

But I will steal it to use elsewhere. Need an ego lift. Thanks.

As so often happens with me, I'm not sure what you really mean.
That's okay...I'm just happy to see you active and responding.
Reply
#29
(12-11-2011, 07:49 PM)DUNNO Wrote:
(12-11-2011, 07:27 PM)Leonard Wrote:
(12-11-2011, 06:32 PM)chuck white Wrote: Don't pay no mind to Hillclimber and Yeshuah Hamashiach.
They just have a mild form of insanity.
Big Grin

So I take it there is consensus and the answer to the question, posed by this thread is a definite yes?
You seem to need constant reinforcement of your party line "values". Will you sleep better if you have a definitive number of people who you believe think exactly like you? Safety in numbers? About half the nation votes for any liberal, presidential candidate and about half vote for whatever candidate the conservative party puts up. Most people are actually moderates and agree on a significant number of really important issues but it is important that that discussion never gets off the ground and that people like you, who love the righty-lefty thing dominate the collective conversation, but I guess you can't see that.

It seems the far-right loves this decline into fascism, while the far-left is aghast;
so could you tell us what ''moderates'' think of the Patriot Act, the Activist Supreme Court, the loss of civil liberties, the latest indefinite detention of Americans by the president in the Defence Authorization Bill, income inequity, the wealthy paying little if any taxes, the lack of jobs, the homelessness, the endless invasions and occupations of countries for their resources only as they are of no threat to the US along with political assassination and then passing the buck and the costs for this folly on to our children's children?
Leonard


Reply
#30
(12-20-2011, 10:16 PM)Wonky Wrote: David Brooks is Conservative and can explain why in a sentence or two. He speaks and writes with intelligence and clarity. He understands the importance of compromise in a democratic republic.

I haven't considered Brooks a conservative in a long time. His conservative views, while there are some, are overshadowed by his pens desire to appeal to a broader audience.

Quote:Newt Gingrich is Conservative and can explain why in a week or two. He waxes eloquent, describing policy shifts once a week never bothering to flush them into complete programs that can become enacted. A bright man, he is a prisoner of his own mind and a puppet of the extreme thought in his party. But insane he is not.


He is also not the best choice for the GOP nomination, by a long shot. IMO A tough election cycle for conservatives.

Quote:To ask if political conservatism is a mild form of insanity is to beg the question. Of course it's not. There are, no doubt, insane conservatives. There are, without a doubt insane liberals.

These folks aren't insane. That label rests on us that state that.

Quote:We need new labels. I think maybe that is what the Tea Party was all about at some point. I'll bet dollars to donuts we we soon see splintering of our established two party's into factions that require grouping, similar to parliamentary governments.

I wish I could disagree.

Quote:The political insanity may very well be right here at the grass roots, fueling the goofy language and posturing we see in our politicians.

I think that is truer than you know, unless you give it more thought. Lots could be written

Reply
#31
I'm reluctant to define it as mild, over fear that the public may be enlisted to find a cure, and cures aren't cheap.
Reply
#32
(12-21-2011, 08:58 AM)Wonky Wrote:
(12-20-2011, 10:44 PM)Queue Wrote:
(12-20-2011, 10:16 PM)Wonky Wrote: David Brooks is Conservative and can explain why in a sentence or two. He speaks and writes with intelligence and clarity. He understands the importance of compromise in a democratic republic.

Newt Gingrich is Conservative and can explain why in a week or two. He waxes eloquent, describing policy shifts once a week never bothering to flush them into complete programs that can become enacted. A bright man, he is a prisoner of his own mind and a puppet of the extreme thought in his party. But insane he is not.

Two men with the same label, worlds apart.

To ask if political conservatism is a mild form of insanity is to beg the question. Of course it's not. There are, no doubt, insane conservatives. There are, without a doubt insane liberals.

We need new labels. I think maybe that is what the Tea Party was all about at some point. I'll bet dollars to donuts we we soon see splintering of our established two party's into factions that require grouping, similar to parliamentary governments.

The political insanity may very well be right here at the grass roots, fueling the goofy language and posturing we see in our politicians.

Give me a year or two and I couldn't beat this post.

But I will steal it to use elsewhere. Need an ego lift. Thanks.

As so often happens with me, I'm not sure what you really mean.
That's okay...I'm just happy to see you active and responding.

You don't take compliments well? Or do you want me to re-phrase it so you get complimented twice?

Reply
#33
(12-21-2011, 09:45 AM)Leonard Wrote:
(12-11-2011, 07:49 PM)DUNNO Wrote:
(12-11-2011, 07:27 PM)Leonard Wrote:
(12-11-2011, 06:32 PM)chuck white Wrote: Don't pay no mind to Hillclimber and Yeshuah Hamashiach.
They just have a mild form of insanity.
Big Grin

So I take it there is consensus and the answer to the question, posed by this thread is a definite yes?
You seem to need constant reinforcement of your party line "values". Will you sleep better if you have a definitive number of people who you believe think exactly like you? Safety in numbers? About half the nation votes for any liberal, presidential candidate and about half vote for whatever candidate the conservative party puts up. Most people are actually moderates and agree on a significant number of really important issues but it is important that that discussion never gets off the ground and that people like you, who love the righty-lefty thing dominate the collective conversation, but I guess you can't see that.

It seems the far-right loves this decline into fascism, while the far-left is aghast;
so could you tell us what ''moderates'' think of the Patriot Act, the Activist Supreme Court, the loss of civil liberties, the latest indefinite detention of Americans by the president in the Defence Authorization Bill, income inequity, the wealthy paying little if any taxes, the lack of jobs, the homelessness, the endless invasions and occupations of countries for their resources only as they are of no threat to the US along with political assassination and then passing the buck and the costs for this folly on to our children's children?
Leonard

Like even most non-moderates, with moderates the argument is in how to solve the problems or identify what to fear most, and does not not involve blood lust, fucking fascism or snuff films with popcorn.

Using pejoratives to explain the concerns of those you argue against ... you just might be a ditto-head.



Reply
#34
(12-21-2011, 07:29 PM)Queue Wrote:
(12-21-2011, 09:45 AM)Leonard Wrote:
(12-11-2011, 07:49 PM)DUNNO Wrote:
(12-11-2011, 07:27 PM)Leonard Wrote:
(12-11-2011, 06:32 PM)chuck white Wrote: Don't pay no mind to Hillclimber and Yeshuah Hamashiach.
They just have a mild form of insanity.
Big Grin

So I take it there is consensus and the answer to the question, posed by this thread is a definite yes?
You seem to need constant reinforcement of your party line "values". Will you sleep better if you have a definitive number of people who you believe think exactly like you? Safety in numbers? About half the nation votes for any liberal, presidential candidate and about half vote for whatever candidate the conservative party puts up. Most people are actually moderates and agree on a significant number of really important issues but it is important that that discussion never gets off the ground and that people like you, who love the righty-lefty thing dominate the collective conversation, but I guess you can't see that.

It seems the far-right loves this decline into fascism, while the far-left is aghast;
so could you tell us what ''moderates'' think of the Patriot Act, the Activist Supreme Court, the loss of civil liberties, the latest indefinite detention of Americans by the president in the Defence Authorization Bill, income inequity, the wealthy paying little if any taxes, the lack of jobs, the homelessness, the endless invasions and occupations of countries for their resources only as they are of no threat to the US along with political assassination and then passing the buck and the costs for this folly on to our children's children?
Leonard

Like even most non-moderates, with moderates the argument is in how to solve the problems or identify what to fear most, and does not not involve blood lust, fucking fascism or snuff films with popcorn.

Using pejoratives to explain the concerns of those you argue against ... you just might be a ditto-head.

Your use of the word pejorative, which means disparaging, a belittling word or expression could be used far more successfully with regards to your post than my asking questions that you seem unable to answer.

So you, like most non progressives use words, as red herrings so not to answer the questions posed regarding how you ''moderates'' feel about these issues that are tearing the country apart.

Seems to me most real ''conservatives'' and ''liberals'' tend to be against the destruction of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution along with the looting of the country while the so called ''moderates'' are more interested in getting along like the German people not wanting to make waves.

Reply
#35
(12-21-2011, 07:57 PM)Leonard Wrote: Seems to me most real ''conservatives'' and ''liberals'' tend to be against the destruction of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution along with the looting of the country while the so called ''moderates'' are more interested in getting along like the German people not wanting to make waves.[/b]

Typical "with us or against us" stuff there buddy.

Speaking for myself (and judging others as individuals as well) I happen to be against over protection, and that some of our lost liberties are due to an overly placed fear. It ain't a left or right thing. I don't have to hate the "other side", or attribute it to something less human. I don't have to attribute it to a grotesque plot or a grand conspiracy.

Nazi Germany? Please. War on Christmas? Please. In some standards (especially forums), I would have to believe in one of those or I am a weak kneed wishy washy moderate sheep.

Proud to baa for you.





Reply
#36
(12-21-2011, 07:57 PM)Leonard Wrote:

So you, like most non progressives use words, as red herrings so not to answer the questions posed regarding how you ''moderates'' feel about these issues that are tearing the country apart.


Who is tearing this country apart?

As to using words as red herrings, the empty use of socialism, fascism, freedom, (I could go on forever), is much less often caused by moderates. The rhetoric you illustrate as red herrings is what I read and see every day on Fox, MSNBC, and a growing list of internet sites.

Reply
#37
(12-21-2011, 07:57 PM)Leonard Wrote: [b]
Your use of the word pejorative, which means disparaging, a belittling word or expression could be used far more successfully with regards to your post than my asking questions that you seem unable to answer.

Wouldn't be the first time.

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)