Study reveals cultural characteristics of the Tea Party movement

The list will also include a strong tendency toward Racism, Christian Fundamentalism, cowardice, and profound ignorance.

The Tea Tards I have been exposed to could not perform simple mathematical operations like division, and had no meaningful skills at integrating such things into their minuscule thought processes.

Many Tea Tards have been led to believe that in the last 2.5 years, Obama has borrowed 14 trillion dollars.

Virtually all of the Tea Tards that I have seen think that the U.S. budget deficit can be solved by simply halting America's virtually non-existent foreign aid program, and by cutting the pensions and wages of their representatives in Washington.

This explains the popularity of air heads like Sarah Palin, Ron Paul and the other dimmer than dim bulbs among the Tea Tards.

And they also believe that the Pope is a Catholic

This is just another liberal smear tactic.

Political mud slinging does not belong on a site which purports to be scientific.

"The Tea Tards I have been exposed to could not perform simple mathematical operations like division, and had no meaningful skills at integrating such things into their minuscule thought processes."
Funny, a recent study found that liberals make decisions based more on emotion in a strikingly similar way to a person that is severely sleep-deprived, whereas conservatives make decisions in a more logical and thoughtful process.

The Libertarian aspect is interesting, and I would like to see the methodology once it is presented at the ASA.

The reason I wonder is because of other studies which suggest that the two front-running Tea party-supported candidates, Bachmann and Perry, are less libertarian than anti-secular government. That is to say, it is not less government they want, but less not-their-type of government that is wanted. Does this hold for rank-and-file Tea Partiers?

The Libertarian aspect is interesting, and I would like to see the methodology once it is presented at the ASA.

The reason I wonder is because of other studies which suggest that the two front-running Tea party-supported candidates, Bachmann and Perry, are less libertarian than anti-secular government. That is to say, it is not less government they want, but less not-their-type of government that is wanted. Does this hold for rank-and-file Tea Partiers?

Actually the focus of the Tea Party movement is the desire for lower taxes and lower government spending. All other ideals and expressions of Tea Party members are of the individuals, not of the movement. Unlike the common representations of the Tea Party by media types, there is no national leadership or organization of the Tea Party. It is truly a grass-roots movement made of people from all walks of life, all colors, all economic standings, and all ideals. That's my take from the inside.

Fear of change and no regulation - don't these two contradict each other?

Basically the Tea Party seems to be the fruit of the driving factors in US policy-making for the past 60 years: fear and hate.

A govt that has the power to do FOR you has the power to do TO you.

fear and hate.

"This is a tough game. You cant be intimidated. You cant be frightened. And as far as Im concerned the tea party can go straight to hell."

Read more: http://dailycalle...VmIJ66EL

American Sociological Association - Anyone believes these people are unbiased? Anyone really believe they would report anything that would cast the tea party in a positive light?

Anyone believe Physorg could resist putting articles that casts conservatives in a bad light even if the article is unscientific?

Now let's see the same kind of "study" about Marxism. Very revealing how the left is obsessed by the values and beliefs of Americans who are attempting to stem the spread of a destructive remaking of the USA into a third world socialist country yet have never even thought of examining Obama's true goals and the roots of his hatred for American traditions and Christian values. Just ask yourself, who has hurt America more, Obama or the Tea Party?

Obama's true goals and the roots of his hatred for American traditions and Christian values. Just ask yourself, who has hurt America more, Obama or the Tea Party?

It's stuff like that.

Good old Maxine Waters...panties all tied up in a knot because the House is going ahead with investigation and trial for her potential ethics violation. I mean, she asked for special bailout money to bail out a bank where her husband holds stock--knowingly.

First, she tries to rush the House Ethics Committee into conducting the investigation and getting it over with. Then, she demands that the case be dismissed. Finally, the House Ethics Committee decides to hire outside Counsel for her. So, yes, she is worried and is lashing out accordingly.

I doubt that anything bad will happen to her, though, unless the investigation yields additional juicy tidbits, but it is more likely that she will get what happened to the previous scandals--a verbal condemnation.

Funny, a recent study found that liberals make decisions based more on emotion...

You know, I read something about that, too, but don't remember where. Anyone have a link to the actual study? I'd like to read it. :)

Funny, a recent study found that liberals make decisions based more on emotion...

Just goes to show: conservatives who sit down to think are still less capable of making sensible decisions than liberals in full knee-jerk mode.

You're doing it again. Try to concentrate on the topic at hand and do NOT just call names.. Please, that is so stupid.

Thank you for your patience..

Question, why is it when you have a rally of tea partiers the place where they hold the rally is cleaner after the event than before? Why is it when you have a rally of progressives, the opposite it true?

Why is it that more criminals support democrats than republicans?

Why is it more terrorists support democrats than republicans?

Why do democrats have problems figuring out how to vote, and more often than republicans vote more than once for their candidates?

Why is it that democratic votes are magically found in tight elections, leading to just enough votes to win that elections?

If you look at the article it has a polluted and non-representative base for the results. Less than half lean towards this yet claim the results are accurate and representative.

Someone obviously fell asleep a lot in basic statistics classes if they think think they have good data. For anyone wanting to slam this reverse it. What if they asked for what are liberal views from a majority of conservatives. Would the result be correct or just junk science?

authoritarianism, libertarianism, fear of change, and negative attitudes toward immigrants and immigration

Funny how Libertarians dislike authority (one cannot herd cats) and their view on immigration is, "no national government should have the authority to stop the individual movements of people", aka "Open Borders".

""We've had Democrats calling American citizens 'terrorists' and 'hostage takers,' and now an elected Democratic representative says that we can 'go straight to hell.' The president and all leaders of the Democratic Party, who have called for civility in the past, are neglecting to censure their own. Is civility only required from their opponents?" they asked in a statement. "Perhaps it's time for a new-NEW era of civility. ... The president's silence on these latest violations of civility has been deafening, but not surprising."

Read more: http://www.foxnew...VoUZ4Pkb
"

For anyone wanting to slam this reverse it. What if they asked for what are liberal views from a majority of conservatives. Would the result be correct or just junk science?

No, a sample of union supporters at the DNC would be an example. Your example is baseless and nonsequitor.

""We've had Democrats calling American citizens 'terrorists' and 'hostage takers

Some Americans are indeed terrorists, executed for their acts, and were moreover conservative. What is your point? BTW quoting faux newz is tantamount to admitting you just make things up.

@freethinking Your handle is a perversion. As a staunch counterreformationst, freethinkers are your avowed enemies.

It is truly a grass-roots movement made of people from all walks of life, all colors, all economic standings, and all ideals. That's my take from the inside.

Does your entourage even know why the American Revolution was fought? Hint: it wasn't about tea.

Instead of calling the study trash or biased, why don't you people try to specifically pick out part of the methodology you think is flawed, or try to come up with alternative explanations for the results. Instead I see people covering their ears and eyes, going "na na na na na na", because something threatens their worldview. Sorry guys, but even if you don't like these findings, if it's the reality of it, it's the reality, and you need to accept it. It's not like this is some unexpected, highly controversial result. And really you all need to keep the political crap out of this. You can't think about the scientific process rationally if you have an ax to grind.

Conservatives have relatively larger amygdale, this is associated with emotional processing. Liberals have relatively larger anterior cingulate cortices, this area correlates with a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts".http://www.wallst...ain-sca/ http://blogs.hows...-brains/ The thing to focus on here is the word "relative". The similarities between conservatives and liberals are much more prevalent than differences.

Libertarianism, as I am one, is based the political philosophy of non aggression and individual liberty. The tea party began as a libertarian movement and quickly degraded to the bastardization it is today. If you really want to learn about libertarianism, then visit the website directly or the Cato institute. I for one, will not vote for any of the tea partiers.

Crow, that is the attitude that will keep Libertarians loosertarians.
The socialists coopted the democrat party, the libertarians need to take over the Republican party.
Until you change the 50 state voting laws taking power from the two party system, you will have to deal with parties.
Or, just sit in a corner and whine.

Tea party fascists won't be happy until they turn society back to the '50s. I'm just not sure if it's the 1950s or 1850s they seek to recreate.

Kochevnik Because I don't towing the progressive line I'm accused of not being a free thinker? If all people would live by the saying I live by which is: prove ALL things and holding fast to that which is true.

We have seen on this board and in the real world when people don't agree with Progressives, progressives will lie, attempt to shout down, threaten, denegrate, and turn violent.

SH, VD and FH are prime examples.

FH accuses tea party folks of being fascists when fascism is more govt control of the economy. Which is exactly what 'progressives' want, more govt control of the economy.

Fascism also involves government control over the financial decisions of businesses, if I recall correctly. That is how GM became "Government Motors" as the Federal government took financial control in exchange for bailing them out. They mandated that thousands of jobs had to be cut and portions of the business needed either to be sold off or to be closed even to get the aid. This, by the way, resulted in the cutting of thousands of jobs by government mandate in an economy that already had high unemployment at the time. It resulted in higher unemployment. But, for some reason, people have tended to ignore what was done. Go figure.

Looks like the democrats, the ASA and other useful idiots have their marching orders.
""Let us all remember who the real enemy is. The real enemy is the Tea Party -- the Tea Party holds the Congress hostage. They have one goal in mind, and that's to make President Obama a one-term president," Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) said at a Miami town hall with constituents."
http://www.realcl...rty.html

FH accuses tea party folks of being fascists when fascism is more govt control of the economy. Which is exactly what 'progressives' want, more govt control of the economy.

You have that backwards. Mussolini himself stated "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." Fascism is neofudalism inspired by a time when the church, landowners and monarchy were one and the same.

Looks like the democrats, the ASA and other useful idiots have their marching orders.

Now you're just trolling like a Koch shill.

state and corporate power

You mean STATE power.
What does the state do if the corporation says 'no'?
The state makes an 'offer' the corporation can't refuse.
This is what the 'progressives' implemented with the creation of the FDA. The large meat packers WANTED the federal regulations to limit their competitors.
Corporations get favors, pay off the politicians. But ultimately the state will dictate the terms.
BTW, the socialist FDR praised Fascism.
"The Roosevelt administration, she added, envisages a federation of industry, labor and government after the fashion of the corporative State as it exists in Italy."
http://reason.com...oosevelt

"As early as 1912, FDR himself praised the Prussian-German model: They passed beyond the liberty of the individual to do as he pleased with his own property and found it necessary to check this liberty for the benefit of the freedom of the whole people, he said in an address to the Peoples Forum of Troy, New York."
http://reason.com...oosevelt
This confirms Hayek's observation that the Germans killed classical liberalism for socialism long before the rise of the Nazis.

Kochevnik Because I don't towing the progressive line I'm accused of not being a free thinker?

How does sharing a philosophical congruence with Anders Behring Breivik bring you a monopoly on truth? You arrogantly posit the notion that there is a singular truth; moreover that it is knowable by yourself. This right-wing meme is an outgrowth of monotheism, which in turn leads to fascism. A single god demands obedience, relegating all dissidents to heresy. Your dominionism is a naked appeal to a theofasist government, likely borrowing heavily from Hitler's favorite American notions of eugenics and concentration camps. Except you would project intolerance outward in the US tradition. The JSOC black ops, preforming over 40,000 murders and attacks yearly worldwide, may suit your purposes.

@ryggesogn2 What does the state do if the corporation says 'no'?

If the corporations say no, the state risks bankruptcy. Have you been living in a cave the last two weeks? Due to revolving doors in lobbying and government careers, the onus of bankruptcy and an army of attorneys, foundations and thinktanks corporfascism slowly creeps into the government and law.

@ryggesogn2 This confirms Hayek's observation that the Germans killed classical liberalism for socialism long before the rise of the Nazis.

That's a false distinction, likely created out of thin air to suit the whims of the author. I would expect nothing less from a Koch-funded rag like Reason magazine. Hoarding is not a fundamental human right.

If the corporations say no, the state risks bankruptcy.

How? The state can't take or print all the money it wants.

Is the socialist billionaire Soros can fund socialist media, what's wrong with billionaires who built several profitable businesses funding organizations that share their free market perspective?

Hayek was funded by the Koch brothers? He wrote about German socialism in 1944. It was easy for Germans to become national socialists because they were already socialists.

"Peabody proclaimed not only the social gospel but social universalism the belief that it was unfair for anyone to be poor, and that government's task was to eliminate this unfairness by siding with poorer over richer, worker over capitalist. "
"The new order should be, "march on with civilization in a way satisfactory to the well-being of the great majority of us.""
"The difficulty, Roosevelt felt, lay in gaining enough political power to force others to cooperate "
http://www.enters...t.com/ar

The political contributions of the author of this 'study':

Moveon.org: 250
Progressive change campaign committee: 250
ACTBLUE: 250
Obmama: 250
....
http://www.newsme...t=andrew

I would have to say that the American Sociological Association is far, far from an unbiased source on the Tea Parties. The findings you are referring to have another name, and that's a stereotype. The stereotype used to frame Tea Party supporters is structurally similar to stereotypes used to frame Blacks, homosexuals and Jews in unattractive ways. It's simply a way of stigmatizing and marginalizing an out-group by focusing on prejudicial beliefs about them and cherry-picking evidence to support it.

Even when some of these traits may have support, other traits which may contradict them are ignored. The Tea Parties, like other groups, are not internally consistent and they have support from a wide range of people. Some of the cited beliefs, like libertarianism and authoritarianism, are diametrically opposed, but by snatching slogans, buzzwords or passages from here and there you can find examples of each. This could be true in leftist groups as well.

What's sad and astounding is that dolts like Vendickare and FrankHubris can't tell the difference between propaganda and "science".

It's should be clear to anyone else that this is pure propaganda designed to marginalize a legitimate and rational point of view.

If you don't believe that there are intelligent and rational liberals AND intelligent and rational conservatives, then you're nothing but a intellectual fraud who needs and desires some "defect" in those of the opposing viewpoint to complete your cartoon caricature of them, because you would rather argue as a child against a sock puppet than as a intellectually honest and concerned citizen.

Are there racists in the Tea Party? Yes, but there are racists in EVERY group, including NAACP, union members, democrat party, flash mob thugs, people who wear green shirts, poodles, etc.

Are Tea Party folks bible thumpers? Yes, but so are most democrats, especially the south and minorities,... but they're never berated for it.

This is how stupid and fraudulent such a study is,...

Sociologists by definition study all manner of social phenomena, they pour over social statistics. The natural application of such studies are social engineering and social welfare, understanding relations between classes, etc.

Now the "Tea Party" folks understand that some societal defects are inherent in the meaning of a free-society and therefore generally reject social engineering out such defects, because you can't have both a free-society and a liberal engineered nirvana.

So is it any surprise that these people(i.e. American Sociological Association) back a "study" to support the notion that the Tea Party are defective?

If the corporations say no, the state risks bankruptcy.

@ryggesogn2 How? The state can't take or print all the money it wants.

Yes that's exactly my point. The state must beg a private company, a shell company of the Rothschilds called the FED, for creation of more debt to print more debt notes to the banksters called dollars. The sole products bankers peddle is debt, without which they're out of business.

@ryggesogn2 It was easy for Germans to become national socialists because they were already socialists.

Hitler infiltrated the German Socialist party and made it his own. That is how he inherited the name "National Socialist Worker's Party." By inheritance, not by ideology. Your supposition is as absurd as saying that any group which defeats China wants to become communist.

Problem is, Hitler and the Nazis, in speech after speech, law after law, deed after deed, went after socialists, liberals and communists with a vengeance.

The political contributions of the author of this 'study':

What's really sad is that you consider two hundred bucks to be real money, when that couldn't buy you a license for a lemonade stand in D.C.

The stereotype used to frame Tea Party supporters is structurally similar to stereotypes used to frame Blacks, homosexuals and Jews in unattractive ways.

Sorry but Blacks, gays and Jews are full humans, and not a sick subculture of authoritarians with withered anterior cingulate cortices and inflamed fear-inducing amygdale.

Some of the cited beliefs, like libertarianism and authoritarianism, are diametrically opposed

Not really they're liberal only in welfare for plutocrats. That's just the superficial packaging.

Are there racists in the Tea Party? Yes, but there are racists in EVERY group, including NAACP, union members, democrat party, flash mob thugs, people who wear green shirts, poodles, etc.

But in the Tea Party they're all collected under one roof.

Are Tea Party folks bible thumpers? Yes, but so are most democrats, especially the south and minorities,... but they're never berated for it.

Those are dixiecrats: Republicans in sheepskin. They're not real democrats.

American voters sympathetic to the Tea Party movement reflect four primary cultural and political beliefs more than other voters do: authoritarianism,

VERY wrong.

libertarianism,

Quite correct

fear of change,

LOL what fucking idiot did this study?? Why make a party that wants to change things then? WRONG...

and negative attitudes toward immigrants and immigration,

Wrong, they have negative attitudes towards ILLEGAL immigrants and immigration.

I don't have to do a study to know that leftists hacks did this study to "blackwash" a conservative movement they don't like. Anyone who can't see through this blatant bullshit has a far lower IQ than your average tea bagger....

Are there racists in the Tea Party? Yes, but there are racists in EVERY group, including NAACP, union members, democrat party, flash mob thugs, people who wear green shirts, poodles, etc.

But in the Tea Party they're all collected under one roof.

Are Tea Party folks bible thumpers? Yes, but so are most democrats, especially the south and minorities,... but they're never berated for it.

Those are dixiecrats: Republicans in sheepskin. They're not real democrats.

Koch, you're not even honest with yourself if you deny there are as many religious democrats as republicans. Name one high level democrat that does not believe in god. I'm conservative and DON''T believe in god. Caricatures are for idiots that can't argue principals.

Also, the idea that even a significant portion of tea party members are racist, much less all of them, is pure lies and stupid political slander, engineered by the media for dumb guys to act on at the ballot box.

a sick subculture of authoritarians with withered anterior cingulate cortices and inflamed fear-inducing amygdale.

This is the kind of stupidity I was referring to above. This type of a child-like caricature IS the product of fear-inducing authoritarians, ...those who want society to fear Tea Party conservatives by caricaturing them into slobbering monstrosities of society,... those who seek to marginalize and shut out alternative view points, via lies.

These were the tactics of Hitler!! Over the top caricatures of Jews as evil slobbering monstrosities of society,... and shutting out competing view points by intimidation and propaganda.

The Tea Party are for a SMALLER government, therefore it makes no sense to call them authoritarian.

Liberals are for a larger more involved government, ...they are for social engineering, redistribution of wealth, the welfare state,... these are authoritarian in that they're controlling aspects of society,... the opposite of conservatism.

About religious democrats:
"Endicott Peabody, founder and headmaster of Groton, was a disciple of Charles Kingsley, founder of the Christian Socialist movement in England. Peabody in turn became a lifelong influence on Roosevelt and many others. (When Roosevelt held private services in Washington before his inauguration and on other major occasions, he asked Rev. Peabody to conduct them.) Peabody proclaimed not only the social gospel but social universalism the belief that it was unfair for anyone to be poor, and that government's task was to eliminate this unfairness by siding with poorer over richer, worker over capitalist."
Of course this doesn't abide with Lenin's demand that communists must be atheists.

Noumenon,

Socialists always attack character through lies and innuendo because they cannot support their position logically.

They accuse their opponents of hatred, but their own statements are filled with hatred and patronizing attitudes.

By Larry Elders:
"Waters' tea party attack once again exposes her as one of the most racist, hateful and vulgar members of Congress -- prompting Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum to call her "vile." He was far too kind. "
http://www.realcl...079.html

Socialists always attack character through lies and innuendo because they cannot support their position logically.

Concise, pointless strawman argument.

They accuse their opponents of hatred, but their own statements are filled with hatred and patronizing attitudes.

You mean they got world-class educations? That says nothing about them and everything about you.

A study by Bob Putnam highlights the fact that the second strongest predictor of a Tea Partier is being a religious xtian, and the strongest predictor was prior political affiliation, namely being a republican. Tea partiers are just the conservative xtian coalition repackaged as a grassroots movement, when in fact they are just the decades-old right-wing powerbase of the GOP: the people who think Jesus had pet dinosaurs and vote accordingly.

a sick subculture of authoritarians with withered anterior cingulate cortices and inflamed fear-inducing amygdale.

@Noumenon This is the kind of stupidity I was referring to above. This type of a child-like caricature IS the product of fear-inducing authoritarians, ...those who want society to fear Tea Party conservatives by caricaturing them into slobbering monstrosities of society,... those who seek to marginalize and shut out alternative view points, via lies.

So disprove this biological fact, Noumenon. Ranting about non-sequitors only validates your own childlike stereotype. The amygdale controls the brain's access to environmental information, vital to conservative denial. It's rational to resist authoritarian hiveminds always starting wars, no?

Koch, you're not even honest with yourself if you deny there are as many religious democrats as republicans. Name one high level democrat that does not believe in god. I'm conservative and DON''T believe in god.

The definition of a conservative is one who appeals to religion as the ultimate authority. That makes you a walking, talking contradiction.

According to http://www.scribd...gnostics fewer than half as many Democrats appeal to an invisible shy fairy living in the clouds for their support network. So you're wrong on that count as well. As for atheist political figures, that's a short list in the USA, only underscoring how much work remains to be done to vanquish the fairytale mystics back to their caves and crypts. Indoctrinating young minds with such cult cruft is outright child abuse.

We've had political movements who don't appeal to an "invisible shy fairy living in the clouds"...and they have an abysmal track record.

Maoist China, Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany. You dig those societies Koch?

Give me ONE evidence based example of an atheist society that's better than what we have in America. Oh, and I won't be holding my breath.

The definition of a conservative is one who appeals to religion as the ultimate authority.

That is your definition.

"That is your definition.": my thoughts as well.
Your (USA's) Tea Party phenomenon is a paradox to me. It seems their foundations are built on marshmallows. I have no doubt that if The Tea Party gained power in your country you would face civil war and total anarchy within 2 years. You cannot just ignore and dictate to a mass of underclass and expect them to go along for the ride. A man with nothing to lose is the most dangerous of them all. It is unbelievably naive and short-sighted to think that some kind of 90 degree turn to the right will help anything now.
Have a look at the UK where the public schooled newly elected conservative PM is advocating a "get tough" crack down with increased punishments for minor anti-social crimes. He has no empathy or idea what causes these kids to go nuts. He wouldn't know what it is like to go all your life with no job and no hope of one, no family structure, n no regular home, no nothing. Does he really think he can put a generation in gaol???????

Bog Mire,

Socialist policies caused the situation where there is "no job and no hope of one, no family structure, n no regular home, no nothing".

Do you think more of the same will fix it?

Why not return to the conservative values which used to exist and which resulted in jobs and prosperity?

Conservative values on the face of them are flawed. They are almost as antithetical to freedom as socialist values. They want my soul, socialists want my wallet...which is worse?

Bog, how about those riots? England is 1984 congrats, you were warned and you idiots sucked the c**k of the authoritarians....good luck with that.

Conservative values on the face of them are flawed. ... They want my soul, socialists want my wallet ...

You are equating conservative values with religion. There are certainly religious conservatives, just as there are religious socialists, but conservatism is about morality, personal integrity, freedom, a work ethic, etc.

Conservatives don't want your soul. Socialists want your soul. Socialists believe the state should own you and direct your every thought and action.

Conservatives want to free you from state control.

The origins of FDRs socialism was from Christian socialism he learned at the Groton school.
It is interesting how socialism emerged from the Puritans.
The key is the desire for people to control others. While the Puritans used their faith to promote work and property, they also used their power to force their people to live 'pure' lives.
They left England to escape the oppression of the English church and proceeded to oppress their own.
The only real differentiation that is important is do you want to force others to live the way you want them to? Not just your bedroom life but your economic life. If it is not right for the govt to control your sex life why is it ok for the govt to take the wealth you earn and redistribute?

@dogbert You are equating conservative values with religion. There are certainly religious conservatives, just as there are religious socialists, but conservatism is about morality, personal integrity, freedom, a work ethic, etc.

Conservatives want to free you from state control.

And where do you think morality comes from, dogbert? Aren't xtians always trolling boards whining how atheists are immoral because they have no god? Your thoughts are so shallow they should be studied as nanosheets. Dominionist conservatives want feudalism restored, and the barriers separating state from totalitarian theofascism torn down. They want to rub their wacky myths in our face, and indoctrinate our kids to be good brownshirts. And what's with your hatred of the state? Isn't that the will of the people? Why do you hate the will of the people but love fascist authoritarians and despots quoting Nazi Pope?

kochevnik,

And where do you think morality comes from, dogbert?

Wow. Most atheists won't admit that morality requires a moral standard. Good for you, Koch!

It is interesting how socialism emerged from the Puritans.
The key is the desire for people to control others. While the Puritans used their faith to promote work and property, they also used their power to force their people to live 'pure' lives.

Ironic how Puritans prized work and property, yet you cast them as an intrusive element opposing human freedoms. That means you actually agree with me! Because, ryggesogn2, you too have been making overtures to use conservatism to force people to live 'pure' lives.

Damn I didn't know Karl Marx was a Puritan. I'll be sure to update facebook and wikipedia.

kochevnik,

And where do you think morality comes from, dogbert?

Wow. Most atheists won't admit that morality requires a moral standard. Good for you, Koch!

That's a tautology, dogbert. Lawyers require a legal standard. Fascists require a fascistic standard, I suppose. Atheists employ ethics, not morality. Thanks for proving my point!

Bog Mire,

Socialist policies caused the situation where there is "no job and no hope of one, no family structure, n no regular home, no nothing".

Do you think more of the same will fix it?

Why not return to the conservative values which used to exist and which resulted in jobs and prosperity?

Actually this is thirty years of neocons enforcing "trickle-down economics", transferring wealth from the middle class to the corporofascist plutocrats and Wall Street. To paraphrase Ronald Regan, are you better off than you were thirty years ago?

The definition of a conservative is one who appeals to religion as the ultimate authority.

That is your definition.

Conservatives are just rebranded Tories. Rebranded because American Tories were Loyalists of British North America who sided with Britain and Crown during the Revolutionary War. In other words they were traitors. The origin of "Tory" is thought to be old Irish for "outlaw" or "bandit." The Tory ethics can be summed up with the phrase 'God, King and Country'. Tories generally advocate monarchism, are usually of a High Church Anglican or Recusant Catholic religious heritage, and are opposed to radical liberalism; being associated with upholding the rights of the monarchy and the privileges of the established Church.

So ryggesogn2 this is not solely my definition, but the definition shared by those who read more than one book: That book which was penned by desert hermits high on a diet of magic mushrooms and locusts 2000 years ago.

kochevnik,

Wow. Most atheists won't admit that morality requires a moral standard. Good for you, Koch!

That's a tautology, dogbert. Lawyers require a legal standard. Fascists require a fascistic standard, I suppose. Atheists employ ethics, not morality. Thanks for proving my point!

Ethics is the application of moral principles.

The definition of a conservative is one who appeals to religion as the ultimate authority. That makes you a walking, talking contradiction.

Factually ignorant statement. Your artificial conflation of conservatism with religious belief is designed to support a caricature for idiots. That there are religious conservatives is as relevant as that there are religious liberals, when the discussion is centered on the role of government. As a non-religious conservative, I'm a contradiction only to YOU, because of your profound ignorance and remarkable lack of understanding of what a conservative is. You NEED conservatives to be backward bible thumping racist dimwits, because you NEED it to be easy for you.

Conservatives are just rebranded Tories. {..}The Tory ethics can be summed up with the phrase 'God, King and Country'. Tories generally advocate monarchism, are usually of a High Church Anglican or Recusant Catholic religious heritage, and are opposed to radical liberalism; being associated with upholding the rights of the monarchy and the privileges of the established Church..

If you read more than one book or wiki you would understand that the spectrum of political thought is dynamic and so appeal to history for THE end all definition of what a conservative is, is rather out of context. Fundamentally, shedding all the attributes due to particular historic settings, modern conservatives are for individualism, capitalism, less government, personal accountability, etc,... as opposed to collectivism, social engineering, big government, welfare state, etc

Ethics is the application of moral principles.

'Morality' brings with it a particular, and sometimes inappropriate, resonance today. It suggests a stern set of duties that require us to subordinate our natural desires -- and our sexual desires get particular emphasis here -- in order to obey the moral law. A failure to fulfill our duty brings with it a heavy sense of guilt. Very often, morality is assumed to have a religious basis. These connotations of 'morality' are features of a particular conception of ethics, one linked to the Jewish and Christian traditions, rather than an inherent feature of any ethical system.

Ethics has no necessary connection with any particular religion, nor with religion in general.

If you read more than one book or wiki you would understand that the spectrum of political thought is dynamic and so appeal to history for THE end all definition of what a conservative is, is rather out of context. Fundamentally, shedding all the attributes due to particular historic settings, modern conservatives are for individualism, capitalism, less government, personal accountability, etc,... as opposed to collectivism, social engineering, big government, welfare state, etc

Ignorance of history is no excuse for promulgating your newspeak. The leopard doesn't change it's spots. Face it you are from the party of traitors who backed King George. You haven't evolved any new ideas since your kind backed the reintroduction of the Roman Catholic Church into British politics.

Your artificial conflation of conservatism with religious belief is designed to support a caricature for idiots.

Your ignorance of history is a logical fallacy.

So disprove this biological fact, Noumenon. Ranting about non-sequitors only validates your own childlike stereotype. The amygdale controls the brain's access to environmental information, vital to conservative denial. It's rational to resist authoritarian hiveminds always starting wars, no?

There is no biological fact. As I pointed out above the study is an abject fraud based on the Inherent bias of those conducting the study. Social engineers are 180* opposed to Tea Party principals, thus they're unqualified for conducting such a study, except as pure propaganda. If you can't understand this logic, YOU'RE the person the study was conducted for!

I can't carry on discussions with you. You are just plan ignorant of politics,... you construct YOUR own false idea of what a conservative is, rather than listening to one, in order to sooth your own naïveté and lack of understanding.

We've had political movements who don't appeal to an "invisible shy fairy living in the clouds"...and they have an abysmal track record.

Maoist China, Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany. You dig those societies Koch?

Those are right-wing governments. If you lived in the Soviet Union you would know it. This is the most flamboyant fundie lie. Let's try some history. There was nothing liberal about communism. The liberal utopia was a carrot to implement extreme rightwing programs. Moreover Pol Pott, Stalin, Mao and Castro had Jesuit Catholic educations. Hitler was raised catholic and Himler was a catholic priest. The objective was to destroy Orthodox Christianity and Buddhism, clearing the way to make the countries catholic.

Koch, seriously are you this dense? Political philosophy is not based on religion or a lack thereof. Western history ITSELF is fundamentally effected by religion, so naturally all aspects of western history are tainted by religion.

Nancy Pelocy is a Catholic as well as many other liberals in congress, in fact the vast majority of liberal democrats are religious. This is not a basis for forming an opinion about political philosophy whether left or right. Understand?

Further more, what was once liberal/conservative may not be at another time in history, as these are political terms used to express relations. As a example Liberman was once considered a liberal, but now he left the democratic party because as he says the party left him (to far to the left).

,...To a modern conservative, communism is the next logical step from socialism which is itself the next logical step from liberalism.

You're trying to define conservatism by appealing to history. This is a rather clumsy way of ignoring what contemporary conservatives actually advocate. As I said such definitions require context, are not absolute, and are relative to the times.

A modern conservative is absolutely against big authoritarian government, and for personal liberty. A modern liberal is for government control and regulation.

So disprove this biological fact, Noumenon. Ranting about non-sequitors only validates your own childlike stereotype. The amygdale controls the brain's access to environmental information, vital to conservative denial. It's rational to resist authoritarian hiveminds always starting wars, no?

There is no biological fact.

Oh I guess we should ignore this biological fact because it gives Noumenon cognitive dissonance. And the Earth is flat, too.

...To a modern conservative, communism is the next logical step from socialism which is itself the next logical step from liberalism.

And to a fish the world is all wet. Your "modern conservative" is missing an education.

We've had political movements who don't appeal to an "invisible shy fairy living in the clouds"...and they have an abysmal track record.

Maoist China, Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany. You dig those societies Koch?

Those are right-wing governments. If you lived in the Soviet Union you would know it. Pol Pott, Stalin, Mao and Castro had Jesuit Catholic educations. Hitler was raised catholic and Himler was a catholic priest. The objective was to destroy Orthodox Christianity and Buddhism, clearing the way to make the countries catholic.

"A number of avowedly Marxist governments in the twentieth century, such as the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, implemented rules introducing state atheism."

Hey history-face, the idea that communism has any relation whatsoever to modern conservatism is laughable.

So disprove this biological fact, Noumenon{...}. It's rational to resist authoritarian hiveminds always starting wars, no?

There is no biological fact.

Oh I guess we should ignore this biological fact because it gives Noumenon cognitive dissonance. And the Earth is flat, too.

...To a modern conservative, communism is the next logical step from socialism which is itself the next logical step from liberalism.

And to a fish the world is all wet. Your "modern conservative" is missing an education.

You don't have a grasp of modern politics. This isn't me saying this, it's your posts. If you were even moderately literate concerning political philosophy you wouldn't seek a biological "defect" in those who advocate conservative principals, as you would realize it's possible to acknowledge conservatism as a legitimate and rational point of view despite not believing it best for the times,... but you can't because you're a child.

,... Are you even living in the USA or a western country? Perhaps not and this accounts for your appalling lack of political sense, in which case I should offer condolences rather than scorn. What country are you from?

@Noumenon As I said such definitions require context, are not absolute, and are relative to the times.

Thanks for proving my point that you are myopic, ungrounded in history, and flip-flop betweeen accusing liberals of relativism then doing exactly the same.

Indeed your concept of "modern" is relative to the times. Your political myopic relativism originates from the heliocentric universe and dark ages. Everything is relative for you because when you lose a debate, you simply change the subject.

A modern conservative is absolutely against big authoritarian government, and for personal liberty. A modern liberal is for government control and regulation.

Except when you're invading smaller countries to steal their oil or transferring wealth from the middle class to the banksters or making the US a xtian theocracy or when a woman chooses to flush an unwanted parasite from her body or when a corporation needs a vast slice of public resources as a gift.

,... Are you even living in the USA or a western country? Perhaps not and this accounts for your appalling lack of political sense, in which case I should offer condolences rather than scorn. What country are you from?

From a place not packed to the brim with ethnocentric hicks feigning pedantic discourse based upon delusions of worldliness and culture. You posit that the meaning of words changes with the weather. I see you take no discomfort with incredulity.

you wouldn't seek a biological "defect" in those who advocate conservative principals, as you would realize it's possible to acknowledge conservatism as a legitimate and rational point of view

I can't warrent brain damage as a legitimate POV, sorry.

@Noumenon Hey history-face, the idea that communism has any relation whatsoever to modern conservatism is laughable.

Indeed what is laughable is that communism was invented and refined by catholic Jesuits in Paraguay, as a way to cast the ascetic lifestyle of priests onto a wide swath of secular society. I guess they didn't mention that at your Tea Party rally, the name of which highlights your ignorance of the cause for the American Revolutionary War.

The ONLY way communism/socialism can be successful is IFF every individual has the free choice to participate.
When then that fails at the nation-state level, coercive force must be applied against those who do not want to volunteer.
The Puritan Christian Pilgrims in MA failed to successfully implement communism even though that is what they intended.

How much oil has the US stolen from Iraq, or any smaller country?

Koch, why is it that the more progressive one is, the more hate and anger they have?

@freethinking Koch, why is it that the more progressive one is, the more hate and anger they have?

Is that why you have a fake moniker posing as a progressive?

@ryggesogn2 How much oil has the US stolen from Iraq, or any smaller country?

The U.S. is currently fighting several wars in a region that contains more than 65 percent of the worlds oil supplies. Do you think those Libyans beholden to NATO for their new positions will drive a hard bargain with the likes of Total SA and Repso when it comes to making deals? If I were those companies I would see the war as a very lucrative investment in futures. I just learned rebels created a new oil company to sell the Libyan oil. And they set up a brand new Libyan central bank controlled by the Israeli Rothschilds/Schiff and friends.

As for Iraq oil http://my.firedog...raq-war/

I just learned rebels created a new oil company to sell the Libyan oil.

So the USA is NOT stealing oil.

BTW, the Libyan campaign was led by France.

I would see the war as a very lucrative investment in futures.

That has been the 'progressive' way. The VERY libertarian Ron Paul did not support involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya.
Obama was very eager to jump into the conflict with Libya.

Ron Paul did not support involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya.

Paul makes more sense than the entire GOP and Tea Party combined. Of course he's bending on abortion but he has to placate the xtian wackos somehow. Obama makes most GOP look liberal in comparison with his backdoor bankster dealing.

""We've had Democrats calling American citizens 'terrorists' and 'hostage takers,' - ryggTard

S&P agrees with those Democrats - hence their downgrade in America's debt rating. No compromise agreement could be reached because the Tea Tards would rather see the nation go into a 30 year long Grand Economic recession than compromise.

You poor tard you.

"So the USA is NOT stealing oil." - RyggTard

Of course not, they are just paying corrupt individuals to give other corrupt individuals authority to sell oil to U.S oil companies at below market prices.

That way the theft is all legal like.

"If you were even moderately literate concerning political philosophy you wouldn't seek a biological "defect" in those who advocate conservative principals" - NoumenTard

Conservatism - With it's borrow and spend philosophy - has been a spectacular failure for America.

I doubt that Conservatives are genetically inferior to Liberals, but it is self evident that they are intellectually inferior to Liberals.

And that is why Universities are called the "bastions of Liberalism", and why American Conservatives have spent so much time and effort opposing Science over the last century.

To a "modern conservative" the earth is 7,000 years old, evolution is a fraud, climate change is a fraud, Saddam had WMD, George Bush Jr. was a good man and a honest christian.

In other words... Completely delusional and disconnected from reality.

"To a modern conservative, communism is the next logical step from socialism which is itself the next logical step from liberalism." - NoumenTard

"I can't carry on discussions with you. You are just plan ignorant of politics,..." - NoumenTard

Your comment illustrates the primary difference between Liberals and "modern conservatives". Liberals live in a world of reality and facts. Conservatives live in a land of make believe in which facts have largely been replaced with Conservative political ideology and non-science constructed to support that ideology.

This is why 98 percent of the worlds natural scientists are Liberals, and only 2 percent identify themselves with Conservatives.

The difference is primarily in that Liberals believe in the moral underpinnings of Christianity and are smart enough to dispense with the nonsense magic that goes along with it, while Conservatives - American ConservaTards at least, are wrapped up in the religious magic and discount the moral underpinnings of their own religion.

It was fun to watch the Conservative Christians in America demand that America embark on a bloody campaign of murder in Iraq after 911, even though the own tenants of their religion teach against such things.

"That there are religious conservatives is as relevant as that there are religious liberals, when the discussion is centered on the role of government." - NoumenTard

"To paraphrase Ronald Regan, are you better off than you were thirty years ago?" - Koch

Well, with all of the wealth transferred by Republican policies from the middle class to the wealthiest Americans, certainly the wealthy class are in much better shape than they were 30 years ago.

And the U.S. middle class continues to vote against it's own interest in such matters.

In my view, these fools have gotten what those fools deserved.

The ONLY way communism/socialism can be successful is IFF every individual has the free choice to participate.
When then that fails at the nation-state level, coercive force must be applied against those who do not want to volunteer.

Well thats true with just about any political system including your heaven-on-earth, isnt it? You think there wouldnt be taxes to pay for a common infrastructure, and that not paying them would still be a crime?

You either pay or you pay. How many more times do I gotta say this?

Liberals live in a world of reality and facts. Conservatives live in a land of make believe

Aw come on VD you dont really believe its as cut and dried as this do you? Just the fact that we age means that we tend to start liberal and grow more conservative over time.

George W was very good at following Orders just like they all are. You really think anybody would be allowed to control the most powerful nation on earth and just start AD LIBBING do you?? Thats just nuts.

Liberals believe in the moral underpinnings of Christianity

But most are atheists. Why would they do that?

Why do 'progressives' need to classify people? What is 'middle' class?

Why do 'progressives' need to classify people? What is 'middle' class?

The people who aren't yet classified as "debt slave" or "robber baron" or dead. With the Rothschild's FED caught redhanded today loaning out $16trillion to their bankster buddies, "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, youre-on-your-own individualism for everyone else," said U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.

Why do 'progressives' need to classify people? What is 'middle' class?

You classify people all the time. You just classified people who need to classify people as progressives. Neat.

But most are atheists.

No they're not. A lot of those who you argue with on the internet, sure, but that's a pretty small sample size.

Liberals believe in the moral underpinnings of Christianity

But most are atheists. Why would they do that?

Why do 'progressives' need to classify people? What is 'middle' class?

Xians believe in the moral underpinnings of the tribe, as all Religionists do. That is to treat others of their sect, denomination, or coven altruistically while distaining those with other affiliations.

The only reason xians are currently progressive in their ecumenicism is 1) they're on the defensive and 2) their tribal perception has in modern times been redirected to absorbing conquered peoples rather than slaughtering them. The NT was written exclusively for this Purpose.

This is not universally true however. In Africa, Norway, Egypt and elsewhere, xians have been told to consult the OT for instructions on how to treat tresspassers.

The message in all holy books: comply or die. Believe or leave. Sooner or later, one way or another.

Xians like to smile when they tell you this.

Xians like to smile when they tell you this.

-Because xianity is the religion of peace don't you know. No wait - that's Islam isn't it? Uh, buddhism? Not Sikhs that's for sure, their god makes them carry knives. But that was only for killing Mongols as they came through the pass; purely for defensive purposes. But the mandate persists... like the joshuan zionists. Now THERE is a warrior religion. They've got their own garrison state, right in the midst of the Enemy. "Bring it on!" says the people of Masada, of the pending Temple.

OK I'm done.

I rescind any support of libertarian wacko Ron Paul after learning he too thinks Jesus had pet dinosaurs: http://www.cbsnew...76.shtml

You just classified people who need to classify people as progressives.

'Progressive' is a description of those who believe that the they should use govt to control everyone's life.
'Progressives' use economic and racial classification to foster envy to increase their control.

Progressive:
1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
4. Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924.
5. Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school.
6. Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax.
7. Pathology Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis.
8. Grammar Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress.

-Where in there does your definition fit?

'Progressive' is a description of those who believe that the they should use govt to control everyone's life.
'Progressives' use economic and racial classification to foster envy to increase their control.

This describes your religion very well if we only change a few inconsequential words. Xians believe they should use god to control everyones life, and they certainly enjoy classifying people as either in or out, saved or fallen, dangerous or benign.

Although your last statement here makes little sense now that I actually read it. I thought you conservatives put much more emphasis on wealth and worldly goods as indicators of worth? Which is the opposite of 'progressive', or socialist as you like to call it, is it not? You guys want god AND mammon in copious amounts, yes?

Just remember that squeezing camels through needle eyes makes very skinny sausage. -?

You guys want god AND mammon in copious amounts, yes?

Priceless.

DANKE.

If Jesus was a socialist, he would have taxed the rich man.
Since He was not, He tried to persuade the rich man to DONATE his wealth.
'Christian socialism' is an oxymoron.
Socialism itself is inconsistent by definition. It claims to support individual rights, but then must violate those rights by confiscating and redistributing the property of some of those individuals.
Some are more equal than others.

If Jesus was a socialist, he would have taxed the rich man.

Naw Im sure he would have had a flat tax because he was a socialist. Except he didnt exist.

On the other hand maybe he would supply pennies from heaven.

Since He was not, He tried to persuade the rich man to DONATE his wealth.

Yah, persuade. As in threatening to squeeze them through the eye of a needle in order to get into heaven. Or of course settling for eternity in the lake of fire. He always said this softly, with a sad smile on his face.

Threats of unspeakable torture forever is NOT persuasion. Well it is, the kind the mob likes to use. Wonder where they learned to do that?

but then must violate those rights by confiscating and redistributing the property of some of those individuals.

Yeah like your egalitarian mafia buddies. You have some problem with paying your fair share to support things the community NEEDS? Not very american of you.