NationStates Jolt Archive

someone said that in the heat of battle in an AOL political fightroom that I go to--does anyone agree with this and if not why not?

Well, it's hard for me to say. It really depends on how you define the terms used. Of course, no matter what, I expect you'll find someone who fits the description.

I prefer to think of them as demagogues.

As a liberal, I disagree. Conservatives such as Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley, Jr. are certainly thoughtful when you review their speeches and read their writings. While I may disagree with a majority of their points, I will not say that they have not thought them out.

On the other hand, much of the so-called "neocon" crowd nowadays seems to value action above thought, and I believe that this will eventually work to the detriment of the G.O.P.

These liberals are distroying this great land once called america. If it wasn't for conservatives we would have a crazy dictator with chem weapons only a couple thousand miles away. But I do believe in balance in that politics can't survive without both liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans.

thanks for all your thinking answers

I'd have to agree RA, at least based on the posts of most of the neo-cons on this forum. Thinking is obviously not something they do.

I'd have to agree RA, at least based on the posts of most of the neo-cons on this forum. Thinking is obviously not something they do.I know--its almost like arguing with people who belong to a cult or some kinda christian fundie who just shuts off their mind and finds some quote in the bible to sustain their lack of logic

Exactly. And that disappoints me, because I find much to admire in some underlying conservative principles: Respect for oneself and others, personal initiative, etc. I wonder what the old-school conservatives I mentioned earlier would think of the current administration.

Generalizations... generalizations... :roll:

Generalizations... generalizations... :roll:

Yes, for all of the Conservative Bashing, you would think someone would step up and declare "Hey, this is a blatant stereotype, and this is fundamentally wrong", but this is not the case, and it really puts things into perspective.

I tend to agree with Trojan. I am sure there are some conservatives who are thinkers and probably just as many who are merely believers. You cant really make generalizations that broad.

DP whoops :roll:

These liberals are distroying this great land once called america. If it wasn't for conservatives we would have a crazy dictator with chem weapons only a couple thousand miles away. But I do believe in balance in that politics can't survive without both liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans.

Isnt the dictator what would happen in an extreme right-wing situation?

I think the situation is closer to Conservatives being people who do things and Liberals being people who plan to one day do things.

I think the situation is closer to Conservatives being people who do things and Liberals being people who plan to one day do things. Only partially correct, Conservatives do things if it benifits them now, Liberals on the other hand will do something now for a benefit one day that they might not even reap. And of course your hard core capatalist conservative hates them for this.

someone said that in the heat of battle in an AOL political fightroom that I go to--does anyone agree with this and if not why not?and Liberals are problem creaters and supporters, not problem solvers.

Generalizations... generalizations... :roll:

Yes, for all of the Conservative Bashing, you would think someone would step up and declare "Hey, this is a blatant stereotype, and this is fundamentally wrong", but this is not the case, and it really puts things into perspective.

I hate to say it, but there is stereotype on both sides of the aisle. Some of it is deserved and other times it is not. It is hard to tell the difference in most cases. It is better to use your own judgement in making decisions than to rely on someone else to make it for you. I think our politicians have forgotten this to a point since many important bills have been stalled or killed by both parties.

I think the situation is closer to Conservatives being people who do things and Liberals being people who plan to one day do things. Only partially correct, Conservatives do things if it benifits them now, Liberals on the other hand will do something now for a benefit one day that they might not even reap. And of course your hard core capatalist conservative hates them for this.
Hey, deficit spending helps us in the future, it makes big socialistic programs harder to implement. :wink:

I hate to say it, but there is stereotype on both sides of the aisle. Some of it is deserved and other times it is not. It is hard to tell the difference in most cases. It is better to use your own judgement in making decisions than to rely on someone else to make it for you. I think our politicians have forgotten this to a point since many important bills have been stalled or killed by both parties.

Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself. The issue as I see it is not so much liberals or conservatives, but rather the extreme partisanship and viciousness that's infected the entire political process.

someone said that in the heat of battle in an AOL political fightroom that I go to--does anyone agree with this and if not why not?and Liberals are problem creaters and supporters, not problem solvers.

Right.....just look at all the problems that Dubya has solved...

Conservatives tend to be three things:

Greedy....they all have a love of money.

Homophobic.....thus the very anti-gay marriage attitude.

Xenophobic.....thus the anti-immagration status.

and most importantly, they are willing to believe whatever Bush tells them as long as it fits into what they would like to believe.
bush wanted them to believe that Saddam has WMD's....he didnt.
He wanted them to believe that Saddam had ties to A;-Qeada....he didnt.
He wanted them to belive that Saddam supported terrorism, and was a direct threat to the United States.

He was none of those things.

Yes, he WAS a mass murdering asshole, but that alone does not give the US thr right to invade and take over his country.
If It did....we'd be knocking over every third-world, tin-pot dictator on the planet.


So..Bush is a liar, and the Neo-Cons are brainwashed by his bullshit.

If I were a Conservative, the best thing I could hope for would be that Bush loses this election, and a new Conservative reperesentative emerges for the 2008 election.
Bush has lied to me, and Bush has lied to his own party.
and yet The Conservies STILL buy into his crap.

BS, thats BS.

Republicans are a pro-immigration party. The majority of America dosen't agree with them, but they are arguably more free-trade / globalization / immigrant oriented than the protectoinists like Dick Gephardt.

I hate to say it, but there is stereotype on both sides of the aisle. Some of it is deserved and other times it is not. It is hard to tell the difference in most cases. It is better to use your own judgement in making decisions than to rely on someone else to make it for you. I think our politicians have forgotten this to a point since many important bills have been stalled or killed by both parties.

Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself. The issue as I see it is not so much liberals or conservatives, but rather the extreme partisanship and viciousness that's infected the entire political process.

I agree with you Andolai. They have infected the entire system. However, there is very little we can do to change it. The only thing we can do is pray that it'll work itself out.

BS, thats BS.

Republicans are a pro-immigration party. The majority of America dosen't agree with them, but they are arguably more free-trade / globalization / immigrant oriented than the protectoinists like Dick Gephardt.

Gephart is one example of a protectionist.
The majority of them are Republicans.
These are the same group who denounced illegal immagration with one hand, and yet outsource american jobs with the other.

Right.....just look at all the problems that Dubya has solved...

Conservatives tend to be three things:

Greedy....they all have a love of money.

Homophobic.....thus the very anti-gay marriage attitude.

Xenophobic.....thus the anti-immagration status.

and most importantly, they are willing to believe whatever Bush tells them as long as it fits into what they would like to believe.
bush wanted them to believe that Saddam has WMD's....he didnt.
He wanted them to believe that Saddam had ties to A;-Qeada....he didnt.
He wanted them to belive that Saddam supported terrorism, and was a direct threat to the United States.

He was none of those things.

Yes, he WAS a mass murdering asshole, but that alone does not give the US thr right to invade and take over his country.
If It did....we'd be knocking over every third-world, tin-pot dictator on the planet.


So..Bush is a liar, and the Neo-Cons are brainwashed by his bullshit.

If I were a Conservative, the best thing I could hope for would be that Bush loses this election, and a new Conservative reperesentative emerges for the 2008 election.
Bush has lied to me, and Bush has lied to his own party.
and yet The Conservies STILL buy into his crap.

Greedy....they all have a love of money. there is a difference between greedy, and pro-business, which creates jobs, which creates economic stimulas

Homophobic.....thus the very anti-gay marriage attitude. pro-traditional marriage, not your little salanderous Homophobic crap that you trot out everytime you feel the need to shame someone

Xenophobic.....thus the anti-immagration status. pro-strong border control would have prevented the crap like September 11, 2001

BS, thats BS.

Republicans are a pro-immigration party. The majority of America dosen't agree with them, but they are arguably more free-trade / globalization / immigrant oriented than the protectoinists like Dick Gephardt.

Gephart is one example of a protectionist.
The majority of them are Republicans.
These are the same group who denounced illegal immagration with one hand, and yet outsource american jobs with the other.
The same people who outsource jobs are the ones who like immigrants. Its all about money, as you said in #1, and those (Hispanic) immigrants provide cheap labor for jobs more established families wouldn't want.

Bill O'Reilly certainly is a conservative who is a thinker, not a believer, like Michael Savage for example.

The topic-statement of this thread really could go both ways, with liberals and conservatives being interchanged easily.

Pinhead enviormentalists who arson buildings to "protect the enviorment" certainly could be called believers, not thinkers. Same for those on the more religious right who use the bible way too often.

William F. Buckley, Jr. is NOT a conservative! He is a member of the ultra-leftist, pro-Marxist, pro-globalism Council on Foreign Relations (founded by a socialist one-worlder named Edward Mandell House who explicitly said his 'political and ethical faith' was 'socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx' with a 'spiritual leavening') and the ultra-secretive, subversive Skull and Bones (which was strongly inspired by the Illuminati). He favored the giveaway of the Panama Canal. He picked many Trotskyites to write for 'National Review.' His views on abortion, drugs, pornography, and other things are far from conservative. He is, like George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, a 'neo-conservative'; a person who calls themself a conservative but favors big government, big spending, internationalism, and complete disregard for the constitution. Neo-conservatives are unique in that they are generally denounced by both liberals and (genuine) conservatives alike.


P.S. Other examples of neo-conservatives include Newt Gingrich, Colin
Powell, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Bob Dole, Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity, Anne Coulter (I think that's her name), the overwhelming
majority of Republicans today, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower,
Fox News, etc.

P.S.2 Another thing about neo-conservatives is that many of them claim
to vehemently hate communism, when the opposite is true. It was
'anti-communist' Nixon, for example, who drastically increased aid
to and trade with the U.S.S.R., recognized Red China, sold out anti-
communist governments in Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam,
and appointed Henry Kissinger (who was a Soviet agent known as
Bor) to be his Secretary of State. And it was Ike who sold out
Fulgencio Batista, gave Castro Cuba on a silver platter (although
Robert Welch, Ike's Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson,
Cuban ambassador Earl E.T. Smith, and others warned he was a
communist), abandoned the Hungarian Freedom Fighters, etc. Come
to think of it, we've never had an anti-communist President.

P.S.3 By the way, Ike, Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Powell, Cheney, and
Kissinger were or are all CFR members.

Conservatives tend to be three things:
I can probably be classified as a conservative. Let's see how I rate.
Greedy....they all have a love of money.
I love not being poor, and I love not being a burden on others, and I love being able to keep what I earn.
Homophobic.....thus the very anti-gay marriage attitude.
I support gays getting married if they so choose. I don't support the government being involved in marriage and I would not support compelling any church to perform a gay marriage.
Xenophobic.....thus the anti-immagration status.
I'm all for immigration, as long as immigrants are willing to not be a burden, and as long as they leave the problems of their crappy home countries behind.
and most importantly, they are willing to believe whatever Bush tells them as long as it fits into what they would like to believe.
bush wanted them to believe that Saddam has WMD's....he didnt.
Sure he did. They're all in Syria now.
He wanted them to believe that Saddam had ties to A;-Qeada....he didnt.
The jury is out on this, but frankly I don't care.
He wanted them to belive that Saddam supported terrorism, and was a direct threat to the United States.
Saddam supported terrorism. $25,000 to the family of suicide bombers. As for being a threat to the USA, I don't know. The Russians are saying he was planning terrorist attacks against the USA. Again, I don't really care if he was or not.
Yes, he WAS a mass murdering asshole, but that alone does not give the US thr right to invade and take over his country.
If It did....we'd be knocking over every third-world, tin-pot dictator on the planet.
It does give the US or anyone else the right to invade and depose him. We should knock over every third-world, tin-pot dictator. We can't get them all at once, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't get the ones we can. WMDs, terrorist ties, whatever, are completely inconsequential as a cause of war compared to what Saddam did to the Iraqi people.
Our motives must be correct though, and we should only be there long enough to allow the Iraqis a chance at real self-determination. There have been missteps in this (Abu Ghraib, and not killing Al-Sadr long ago) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't just try harder.

Bill O'Reilly certainly is a conservative who is a thinker, not a believer, like Michael Savage for example.

The topic-statement of this thread really could go both ways, with liberals and conservatives being interchanged easily.

Pinhead enviormentalists who arson buildings to "protect the enviorment" certainly could be called believers, not thinkers. Same for those on the more religious right who use the bible way too often.

YOu are right. I love watching bill o'reilly. He doesn't HESITATE to SLAM BOTH SIDES! He has I've seen it. Some here will say he's the greatest spin master in the No Spin Zone but that just isn't accurate.

your right when you say that this can go both ways. I've already seen it with this BackwoodsSquatches character. He is definetly a liberal just by his stances and his vehemous towards the otherside. Of course, there are also people on the other side that are just as bad. So far, they haven't shown themselves. the other conservatives on here haven't yet yelled or insulted the liberals. just pointed out the differences.

Please, lets keep this debate civilized.

I think saying that liberals are thinkers and conservatives are believers has some merit, if you look at it objectively.
Naturally, they are broad, broad generalized stereotypes, but most stereotypes exist because there is some grain of truth in them. Certainly there are thoughtful, skeptical conservatives, just as there are passionate, faith-based liberals, but if you look at the field over all, the traits that tend to crop up are much closer to the stereotypes.
Which is not to say that either stereotype is intrinsicly positive or negative. Liberals are often thoughtful and logical, but equally often esoteric, idealistic, and abstract. Conservatives, while so often passionate and fiercely advocative of their beliefs and grounded in tradition, can also be extremely stubborn and resistant to logic contrary to their beliefs.
Now, I wouldn't dream of saying that these traits are universal, but I see them played out, more often than not, every day right here on NS. So maybe it behooves us to take these stereotypes into account, and reexamine our OWN classically stereotypical behaviors. Maybe liberals need to look more closely at practical realities, and at the moral dimension. And maybe a lot of conservatives could stand to try to assess the logic of their arguments objectively, and consider that they might be flying in the face of logic.
And maybe both sides need to stop demonizing each other and calling each other names. We need to admit to ourselves that we ALL want to do what is right, at the end of the day. Republicans aren't evil dwarves bent on greed, ignorance, and warfare, and liberals are not tree-hugging hypocrite traitors to our country.
((Cue cheesy music))
The More You Know....

Greedy....they all have a love of money. there is a difference between greedy, and pro-business, which creates jobs, which creates economic stimulas

Homophobic.....thus the very anti-gay marriage attitude. pro-traditional marriage, not your little salanderous Homophobic crap that you trot out everytime you feel the need to shame someone

Xenophobic.....thus the anti-immagration status. pro-strong border control would have prevented the crap like September 11, 2001Pro-Business? yeah I'll buy that, but that just another fancy way of saying it's all about the benjamins. The other crap is just bullshit to sell it to the workers who make the fat cats fatter.

Pro-traditional Marraige? gimme a friggin break! Your just restating Homophobic. What does effect your neighbors marraige have on your own? None, whether it be 'traditional' or otherwise. Your "Pro-traditional" stand is just smoke to cover the fact that your poking your nose in other peoples personal lives and trying to make them conform.

Strong border controls would have had NO effect on the events of 9/11, none of the hijackers snuck into this country, Another bullshit smoke screen to cover Xenophobic attitudes.

All your arguements are a load of rubbish, proving the theory stated at the beginning of this thread that conservatives don't think, they just believe.

Conservatives tend to be three things:
I can probably be classified as a conservative. Let's see how I rate.
Greedy....they all have a love of money.
I love not being poor, and I love not being a burden on others, and I love being able to keep what I earn.
Homophobic.....thus the very anti-gay marriage attitude.
I support gays getting married if they so choose. I don't support the government being involved in marriage and I would not support compelling any church to perform a gay marriage.
Xenophobic.....thus the anti-immagration status.
I'm all for immigration, as long as immigrants are willing to not be a burden, and as long as they leave the problems of their crappy home countries behind.
and most importantly, they are willing to believe whatever Bush tells them as long as it fits into what they would like to believe.
bush wanted them to believe that Saddam has WMD's....he didnt.
Sure he did. They're all in Syria now.
He wanted them to believe that Saddam had ties to A;-Qeada....he didnt.
The jury is out on this, but frankly I don't care.
He wanted them to belive that Saddam supported terrorism, and was a direct threat to the United States.
Saddam supported terrorism. $25,000 to the family of suicide bombers. As for being a threat to the USA, I don't know. The Russians are saying he was planning terrorist attacks against the USA. Again, I don't really care if he was or not.
Yes, he WAS a mass murdering asshole, but that alone does not give the US thr right to invade and take over his country.
If It did....we'd be knocking over every third-world, tin-pot dictator on the planet.
It does give the US or anyone else the right to invade and depose him. We should knock over every third-world, tin-pot dictator. We can't get them all at once, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't get the ones we can. WMDs, terrorist ties, whatever, are completely inconsequential as a cause of war compared to what Saddam did to the Iraqi people.
Our motives must be correct though, and we should only be there long enough to allow the Iraqis a chance at real self-determination. There have been missteps in this (Abu Ghraib, and not killing Al-Sadr long ago) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't just try harder.

Are you insane?

What gives us the right to be the Big Brother?
Who decided that the US is the World Police?

What makes you think that national soverignity means nothing to other people?


The jury is out on this, but frankly I don't care.

No..the jury ISNT out on this anymore.
Or did you miss the Commisions findings?
"No credible link can be proven"

Sure he did. They're all in Syria now.

Prove it.

Saddam supported terrorism. $25,000 to the family of suicide bombers. As for being a threat to the USA, I don't know. The Russians are saying he was planning terrorist attacks against the USA. Again, I don't really care if he was or not.

To the PALESTINIAN suicide bombers, not Al-Qeada.

and you should care...becuase THATS Bush's exscuse for invading in the first place.

Why do you guys not care that the President Of the United States of America started a war on false, or completely made-up pretenses??

Thats the biggest issue at hand.

Hate this server..

Hating this server like it is my job.

SERIOUSLY hate this server.

Seriously... only meant to post my message once.

I hate this server

Generalizations... generalizations... :roll:

Yes, for all of the Conservative Bashing, you would think someone would step up and declare "Hey, this is a blatant stereotype, and this is fundamentally wrong", but this is not the case, and it really puts things into perspective.

I hate to say it, but there is stereotype on both sides of the aisle. Some of it is deserved and other times it is not. It is hard to tell the difference in most cases. It is better to use your own judgement in making decisions than to rely on someone else to make it for you. I think our politicians have forgotten this to a point since many important bills have been stalled or killed by both parties.finally I can agree with you on something

Generalizations... generalizations... :roll:

Yes, for all of the Conservative Bashing, you would think someone would step up and declare "Hey, this is a blatant stereotype, and this is fundamentally wrong", but this is not the case, and it really puts things into perspective.

I hate to say it, but there is stereotype on both sides of the aisle. Some of it is deserved and other times it is not. It is hard to tell the difference in most cases. It is better to use your own judgement in making decisions than to rely on someone else to make it for you. I think our politicians have forgotten this to a point since many important bills have been stalled or killed by both parties.finally I can agree with you on something

dies of a massive heat attack.

Everyone is a believer, true, but conservatives think, too.

"conservatives are believers not thinkers"

I finally agree with you TRA..lol I do ;)

I think it swings both ways... some liberals are people who don't think for themselves, they just follow the crowd. Same goes for conservatives. My old school is filled with conservatives who don't think for themselves, they just regurgitate what their parents say. I was the only democrat in the whole school.
But I don't like generalizations. So yes, lots of voters don't think for themselves, but it occurs in all parties.

I still think the phrase is too vague. It could be taken any number of ways.

"conservatives are believers not thinkers"

I finally agree with you TRA..lol I do ;)

Stephistan, as much as its hard to believe, Liberals have believers too and conservatives have thinkers. They are in both parties here and in all political parties around the world. I bet Al Qaeda has both thinkers and believers too.

Everyone is a thinker and a believer to some extent. Its how they come across that makes them one or the other. Never brand one party as one and the opposite the other. That is a sure fire way to get into trouble.

William F. Buckley, Jr. is NOT a conservative! He is a member of the ultra-leftist, pro-Marxist, pro-globalism Council on Foreign Relations (founded by a socialist one-worlder named Edward Mandell House who explicitly said his 'political and ethical faith' was 'socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx' with a 'spiritual leavening') and the ultra-secretive, subversive Skull and Bones (which was strongly inspired by the Illuminati). He favored the giveaway of the Panama Canal. He picked many Trotskyites to write for 'National Review.' His views on abortion, drugs, pornography, and other things are far from conservative. He is, like George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, a 'neo-conservative'; a person who calls themself a conservative but favors big government, big spending, internationalism, and complete disregard for the constitution. Neo-conservatives are unique in that they are generally denounced by both liberals and (genuine) conservatives alike.


P.S. Other examples of neo-conservatives include Newt Gingrich, Colin
Powell, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Bob Dole, Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity, Anne Coulter (I think that's her name), the overwhelming
majority of Republicans today, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower,
Fox News, etc.

P.S.2 Another thing about neo-conservatives is that many of them claim
to vehemently hate communism, when the opposite is true. It was
'anti-communist' Nixon, for example, who drastically increased aid
to and trade with the U.S.S.R., recognized Red China, sold out anti-
communist governments in Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam,
and appointed Henry Kissinger (who was a Soviet agent known as
Bor) to be his Secretary of State. And it was Ike who sold out
Fulgencio Batista, gave Castro Cuba on a silver platter (although
Robert Welch, Ike's Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson,
Cuban ambassador Earl E.T. Smith, and others warned he was a
communist), abandoned the Hungarian Freedom Fighters, etc. Come
to think of it, we've never had an anti-communist President.

P.S.3 By the way, Ike, Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Powell, Cheney, and
Kissinger were or are all CFR members.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Funniest thing I've read all day. Buckley an ultra-leftist Marixt, Dr. Kissenger a Soviet agent, and Ike a neo-con.

It does give the US or anyone else the right to invade and depose him. We should knock over every third-world, tin-pot dictator. We can't get them all at once, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't get the ones we can. WMDs, terrorist ties, whatever, are completely inconsequential as a cause of war compared to what Saddam did to the Iraqi people.

If this is the case, then I am compelled to ask: Would you support a similar sort of action against Pinochet?

William F. Buckley, Jr. is NOT a conservative! He is a member of the ultra-leftist, pro-Marxist, pro-globalism Council on Foreign Relations (founded by a socialist one-worlder named Edward Mandell House who explicitly said his 'political and ethical faith' was 'socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx' with a 'spiritual leavening') and the ultra-secretive, subversive Skull and Bones (which was strongly inspired by the Illuminati). He favored the giveaway of the Panama Canal. He picked many Trotskyites to write for 'National Review.' His views on abortion, drugs, pornography, and other things are far from conservative. He is, like George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, a 'neo-conservative'; a person who calls themself a conservative but favors big government, big spending, internationalism, and complete disregard for the constitution. Neo-conservatives are unique in that they are generally denounced by both liberals and (genuine) conservatives alike.


P.S. Other examples of neo-conservatives include Newt Gingrich, Colin
Powell, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Bob Dole, Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity, Anne Coulter (I think that's her name), the overwhelming
majority of Republicans today, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower,
Fox News, etc.

P.S.2 Another thing about neo-conservatives is that many of them claim
to vehemently hate communism, when the opposite is true. It was
'anti-communist' Nixon, for example, who drastically increased aid
to and trade with the U.S.S.R., recognized Red China, sold out anti-
communist governments in Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam,
and appointed Henry Kissinger (who was a Soviet agent known as
Bor) to be his Secretary of State. And it was Ike who sold out
Fulgencio Batista, gave Castro Cuba on a silver platter (although
Robert Welch, Ike's Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson,
Cuban ambassador Earl E.T. Smith, and others warned he was a
communist), abandoned the Hungarian Freedom Fighters, etc. Come
to think of it, we've never had an anti-communist President.

P.S.3 By the way, Ike, Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Powell, Cheney, and
Kissinger were or are all CFR members.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Funniest thing I've read all day. Buckley an ultra-leftist Marixt, Dr. Kissenger a Soviet agent, and Ike a neo-con.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article1081.html

Here I present two distinct definitions of neoconservatism for consideration.

One: “[Neoconservatism] describes the erosion of liberal faith among a relatively small but talented and articulate group of scholars and intellectuals, and the movement of this group (which gradually gained many new recruits) toward a more conservative point of view: conservative, but different in certain important respects from the traditional conservatism of the Republican party."

Two: “[Neoconservatives] erroneously call themselves conservative, which they are not in the true sense of the word. These individuals are part of the mysterious Babylonian deception of latter days in which they hate everything they perceive as leftist oriented, because essentially, in part, that is where they come from. In other words, they hate to see in others what they hate the most within themselves, and if they find themselves in opposition to anyone, the opposition is instantly labeled as a lefty and veracity has nothing to do with the incongruous conclusion, it’s just the facts.”

And, as to the OP, I consider the opposite to be more of the general case.

I find the left to be generally more generally fuzzy headed than the right. However, as several others have pointed out, sweeping generalizations don't do very much but get you into trouble. And there are hard headed leftist and fuzzy headed rightist.
The religious right fits the Op description fairly well, but the fiscal/libertarian right (aka the real conservatives) does not come close.

I think the situation is closer to Conservatives being people who do things and Liberals being people who plan to one day do things. Only partially correct, Conservatives do things if it benifits them now, Liberals on the other hand will do something now for a benefit one day that they might not even reap. And of course your hard core capatalist conservative hates them for this.
Hey, deficit spending helps us in the future, it makes big socialistic programs harder to implement. :wink:you rightys only hate socialism when it benefits the people but you love it for billionaires--your just class bigots

BS, thats BS.

Republicans are a pro-immigration party. The majority of America dosen't agree with them, but they are arguably more free-trade / globalization / immigrant oriented than the protectoinists like Dick Gephardt.

Gephart is one example of a protectionist.
The majority of them are Republicans.
These are the same group who denounced illegal immagration with one hand, and yet outsource american jobs with the other.funny how rightwingers dont believe in free trade for american seniors who want cheaper drugs from canada--just like I said before--rightys want socialism for the rich and capitalism for everyone else--theyre class bigots

I think saying that liberals are thinkers and conservatives are believers has some merit, if you look at it objectively.
Naturally, they are broad, broad generalized stereotypes, but most stereotypes exist because there is some grain of truth in them. Certainly there are thoughtful, skeptical conservatives, just as there are passionate, faith-based liberals, but if you look at the field over all, the traits that tend to crop up are much closer to the stereotypes.
Which is not to say that either stereotype is intrinsicly positive or negative. Liberals are often thoughtful and logical, but equally often esoteric, idealistic, and abstract. Conservatives, while so often passionate and fiercely advocative of their beliefs and grounded in tradition, can also be extremely stubborn and resistant to logic contrary to their beliefs.
Now, I wouldn't dream of saying that these traits are universal, but I see them played out, more often than not, every day right here on NS. So maybe it behooves us to take these stereotypes into account, and reexamine our OWN classically stereotypical behaviors. Maybe liberals need to look more closely at practical realities, and at the moral dimension. And maybe a lot of conservatives could stand to try to assess the logic of their arguments objectively, and consider that they might be flying in the face of logic.
And maybe both sides need to stop demonizing each other and calling each other names. We need to admit to ourselves that we ALL want to do what is right, at the end of the day. Republicans aren't evil dwarves bent on greed, ignorance, and warfare, and liberals are not tree-hugging hypocrite traitors to our country.
((Cue cheesy music))
The More You Know....I agree with what your saying but rightys started the demonization game when they hijacked the media

Generalizations... generalizations... :roll:

Yes, for all of the Conservative Bashing, you would think someone would step up and declare "Hey, this is a blatant stereotype, and this is fundamentally wrong", but this is not the case, and it really puts things into perspective.

I hate to say it, but there is stereotype on both sides of the aisle. Some of it is deserved and other times it is not. It is hard to tell the difference in most cases. It is better to use your own judgement in making decisions than to rely on someone else to make it for you. I think our politicians have forgotten this to a point since many important bills have been stalled or killed by both parties.finally I can agree with you on something

dies of a massive heat attack.LOL dont die yet Im not done eductating you :wink:

"conservatives are believers not thinkers"

I finally agree with you TRA..lol I do ;)yeah but its not even my quote :lol:

Are you insane?
I doubt it.

What gives us the right to be the Big Brother?
The fact that there are a lot of Little Brothers out there getting the snot kicked out of them by dictators.
Who decided that the US is the World Police?
The US did. Bravo.
What makes you think that national soverignity means nothing to other people?
Iraq gave up its sovereignty when its state dressed people up as Superman and threw them off buildings, and when it tossed people in industrial shredders, and when it chopped people's fingers off or broke people's arms as punishment for resisting the regime. If anything America is creating Iraqi sovereignty for the first time. Go ahead and look (http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.844,filter.all/event_detail.asp), if you dare.
The jury is out on this, but frankly I don't care.
No..the jury ISNT out on this anymore.
Or did you miss the Commisions findings?
"No credible link can be proven"
Again, I don't care. WMDs are not the reason I supported and continue to support the campaign in Iraq.
Sure he did. They're all in Syria now.
Prove it.
Sponsor an invasion of Syria and I will.
Saddam supported terrorism. $25,000 to the family of suicide bombers. As for being a threat to the USA, I don't know. The Russians are saying he was planning terrorist attacks against the USA. Again, I don't really care if he was or not.
To the PALESTINIAN suicide bombers, not Al-Qeada.
War on Terrorism, not War on Al-Qaeda
and you should care...becuase THATS Bush's exscuse for invading in the first place.

Why do you guys not care that the President Of the United States of America started a war on false, or completely made-up pretenses??
Hey, I didn't vote for him. And I won't vote for him this year. Because I can't. I could care less about how he sold the war. All I know is that in Abu Ghraib birthday beheadings and amputations have been replaced by naked pyramids. It's a start.

Are you insane?
I doubt it.

What gives us the right to be the Big Brother?
The fact that there are a lot of Little Brothers out there getting the snot kicked out of them by dictators.
Who decided that the US is the World Police?
The US did. Bravo.
What makes you think that national soverignity means nothing to other people?
Iraq gave up its sovereignty when its state dressed people up as Superman and threw them off buildings, and when it tossed people in industrial shredders, and when it chopped people's fingers off or broke people's arms as punishment for resisting the regime. If anything America is creating Iraqi sovereignty for the first time. Go ahead and look (http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.844,filter.all/event_detail.asp), if you dare.
The jury is out on this, but frankly I don't care.
No..the jury ISNT out on this anymore.
Or did you miss the Commisions findings?
"No credible link can be proven"
Again, I don't care. WMDs are not the reason I supported and continue to support the campaign in Iraq.
Sure he did. They're all in Syria now.
Prove it.
Sponsor an invasion of Syria and I will.
Saddam supported terrorism. $25,000 to the family of suicide bombers. As for being a threat to the USA, I don't know. The Russians are saying he was planning terrorist attacks against the USA. Again, I don't really care if he was or not.
To the PALESTINIAN suicide bombers, not Al-Qeada.
War on Terrorism, not War on Al-Qaeda
and you should care...becuase THATS Bush's exscuse for invading in the first place.

Why do you guys not care that the President Of the United States of America started a war on false, or completely made-up pretenses??
Hey, I didn't vote for him. And I won't vote for him this year. Because I can't. I could care less about how he sold the war. All I know is that in Abu Ghraib birthday beheadings and amputations have been replaced by naked pyramids. It's a start.because of Bush unjust war in Iraq america not only lost the moral high ground but Bush caused an EXPLOSION of terrorist recruitment--instead of letting America and the civilized world unite against terrorism Bush became the terrorists best friend by playing right into their hands every step of the way--Americans and the world must never unite behind Bush to lead us