Posted on 01/25/2011 7:01:23 AM PST by Kaslin
Here's is how it breaks down on thsi article.
1) Conservatives are more patriotic than liberals:
Conservatives are Competitors, and group competitors seek group success. Liberals are Anticompetitors. The group Anticompetitor seeks to sell out their own group for favor with the incoming oppressor, all while louding claiming their patriotism to their own people, to cover themselves. Group Anticompetitors are traitorous subversives under the theory. It is the basis of the Stockholm syndrome, and all the Liberal treason we see today.
2) It's socially acceptable for liberals to lie about conservatives:
Conservatives, as group competitors evolved rules to abide by. The purpose of the rules were to enhance the probability of success in group competitions, and to make competitions more effective. Honesty is an aid to success in group competitions, and honesty among competitors produces a more effective, fair competition, which will more successfully judge the fitness of the competitors, and speed our evolution.
Liberals are Anticompetitors, thus they will seek advantage by cheating, as they do not care about the evolutionary advancement of our species, the effectiveness of our competitions, or anything else, beyond their own immediate, Darwinian advantage. Thus they will lie, cheat, steal, oppress, and seek any other unfair advantage they can muster.
3) Conservatives are results-oriented. Liberals are not:
Conservatives are Competitors. Their fortuens rise and fall on the back of their ability to produce success. Thus they evovled to produce results.
Liberals are Anticompetitors. They do not want to produce results. They want unfair advantages confered upon them, like favor curried with a new oppressor, or funds redistributed from the successful to themselves. Hell, had Vietnam occupied us after defeating us, the Hippies would have been elevated to leadership positions in our government. Success and results of hard work are not how Hippies would have gotten to power. Results just aren't a part of the Liberal's evolutionary strategy.
4) Conservatives care about the Constitution. Liberals don't:
The Constitution is designed to foster free and fair competitions among men, absent unfair governmental interference. Of course Liberals hate it. They abhor free competition.
5) Liberals are much more misogynistic than conservatives:
The Anticompetitive psychology is wholly absent the respect, loyalty, and honor found in the Competitor. If one looks at research into the harsh childhoods which cue development of a Liberal psychology (research which began here), one will find a halmark of the Anticompetitive's promiscuous psychology is a "depersonalization" of females (oddly enough, Anticompetitive females "denigrate masculinity"). This prevents long term pair attachments, and promotes the promiscuous "r selective" mating strategy found in the Liberal.
6) Conservatives are happier people than liberals:
A fundamental aspect of the Competitor is optimism, and a belief that success is possible. Were it not, who would compete?
Liberals are depressive, and this motivates them to fear free competition, and the free environment as a whole. It is a part of their psychology, imbued by evolution to foster Anticompetitiveness.
7) Conservatives are better Christians than liberals:
Religion fosters competition. It comforts with faith, emphasizes respect for one's fellow man, and emboldens one to pursue greatness to glorify God.
Marx derided it as the opiate of the people because the only way to bring his bleak anticompetitive utopian vision to fruition would be for everyone to adopt a barren, faithless, depressive perception of the world. If everything was destined for failure, why compete?
Click on my nick, check my profile, and spread the truth to humiliate Liberals.
“But some of those HIPPY girls from the 60’s were KNOCKOUTS!”
That was then, this is now.
(even though they were cute they still smelled funny)
Libs tend to say “People shouldn’t be allowed to do that”.
Conservatives tend to say, “Man, they’re stupid, but that’s their right to do that”.
The funny thing is, libs actually believe they are more for freedom than conservatives. Most libs I talk to are convinced conservatives are trying to shut them down. I think that’s just projection on their part.
Conservatives are more likely to believe in a supreme deity and an organized form of prayer and beliefs.
Whereas Liberals can and do mentally imbue objects with specials ‘powers’.
IE: guns are the special ‘mystic’ power to slay people from whence they lay. A hunk of coal or barrel of oil will magically spew forth toxins that will force themselves into your body, intent on destruction.
So, according to you, when an economics-only conservative or a libertarian insists on making illegal drugs legal...they are not attempting to “impose their beliefs”?
The key difference is that the fiscal conservative, in your case of legalizing drugs, is not forcing you to partake of them. Whereas the laws from social conservatives (and liberals, for that matter) inevitably result in *ALL* Americans either complying with theor diktats or becoming a criminal.
"theor" was supposed to be "their". (caught it as soon as I hit 'post')
“Whereas the laws from social conservatives (and liberals, for that matter) inevitably result in *ALL* Americans either complying with theor diktats or becoming a criminal.”
Personally I think you are either an economic, social and natsecurity conservative or you are just fooling yourself that you are a real conservative.
Just being a social conservative doesn’t make one conservative. Just being an economic conservative doesn’t make one conservative.
Actually, I’m a small government Conservative. Government should be as small as possible, with as many decisions made at the lowest possible level. (preferable at the city or county level)
Only when whatever issue isn’t solved at that level should it move up the government chain. (ie: state, then federal)
The problem with social conservatives (and liberals) is that they have to go to the Federal government immediately for all issues, because only the Federal government has jurisdiction over all Americans... and social conservatives want to see their message pushed onto everyone (for it’s a good message; it’s G-d’s message).
So they need a Federal government big enough and strong enough to make Americans comply with that message. Failing to realize that a Federal government that big and strong is a government that can force Americans to do other people’s bidding (like liberals). Plus, a government that big and strong is also very expensive.
And they have bigger houses, bigger automobiles, even bigger pets. Leftism is mostly about size envy.
Nothing brought this home to me more than a tour of the capital building in Sacramento. There is a stairwell (IIRC) where portraits of past governors are displayed. Without exception, every Republican governor (e.g. Reagan, Deukmajian) is smiling and happy in the portrait. Every Democrat governor (Brown, Davis) is scowling and dour in his portrait.
A liberal will ask concerning the same issue, “How does that make you feel?”
My mother is extremely fond of asking, "So, Sis, how does that make you feel?"
She usually gets upset shortly after, because, to my recollection, I have never had an answer to that question. Whatever I may feel about something is irrelevant to what I might think about it.
One of my pet peeves. Control the language, control the debate.
Imperialism is a word that was promulgated by the KGB during the cold war which accused the west of doing what all great powers do and have always done - USSR, China, Britain you name it. Basically looking after one's own interests worldwide.
Even though the word was no more than a KGB propaganda point, it has stuck in our lexicon and affects how we think.
“The problem with social conservatives (and liberals) is that they have to go to the Federal government immediately for all issues, because only the Federal government has jurisdiction over all Americans... and social conservatives want to see their message pushed onto everyone (for it’s a good message; it’s G-d’s message).”
Very simplistic take on social conservatives lol. Since I’m a real conservative, I am an economic, a social and a national security conservative.
I and most in the Republican Party don’t consider preventing people from murdering the most innocent among us, dictating our beliefs onto others. Protecting life and liberty are at the cornerstone of our Republic.
And how will you make others comply if they ignore any of the laws you enact regarding that? (hint: you'll have to use governmental force... and any government strong enough to force others to do your moral bidding is a government strong enough to force you to do Obama's moral biddings)
Which, in large part, is why we're so dang unhappy with the little cult Messiah.
Your position actually means that there should be no laws against any crimes, since some people will do them anyway.
Libertarianism is a puerile adolescent dope smokers’ utopian fantasy which would, if tried to be implemented, lead to hell on earth, as all utopian fantasies do.
Even if you don’t smoke dope, the above is still accurate. And here’s the kicker - since the vast majority of people do not, and never will, want the libertarian nightmare/dream, it would have to be forced on us.
Which sort of defeats the purpose of it... And evidence for this is the aggressive and hard edged way libertarians “debate”.
No thanks. You libertarians can buy an island and try it with willing participants, and get back to us in a couple of decades with the results (if you all last that long).
Care to explain how those evil libertarians would *force* you to live by their nonexistant laws?
Bm
I said my piece, no matter what I write you will pretend I didn’t make sense.
Nighty night!
Then it should be easy to explain, since you do claim your posts do make sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.