Hello:

Steve does these things.. I thought I'd do one too.

Quote:

---

In North America the following symptoms reveal right wing authoritarianism organized into four distinct categories.

1: Faulty Reasoning — Right-wing authoritarians (RWAs) are more likely to: Make many incorrect inferences from evidence. Hold contradictory ideas that result from a cognitive attribute known as compartmentalized thinking, as illustrated by Orwellian doublethink. Uncritically accept that many problems are 'our most serious problem.' Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs. Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear. Use many double standards in their thinking and judgments.

2: Hostility Toward Outgroups — RWAs are more likely to: Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty such as a Bill of Rights. Severely punish 'common' criminals in a role-playing situation. Admit they obtain personal pleasure from punishing such people. Be prejudiced against and hostile towards racial, ethnic, national, sexual, and linguistic minorities. Volunteer to help the government persecute almost anyone. Be mean-spirited toward those who have made mistakes and suffered.

3: Profound Character Attributes — RWAs are more likely to: Be dogmatic. Be zealots. Be hypocrites. Be absolutists. Be bullies when they have power over others. Help cause and inflame intergroup conflict. Seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive in situations requiring cooperation.

4: Blindness To One's Own Failings And To The Failings Of Authority. Figures whom they respect— RWAs are more likely to: Believe they have no personal failings. Avoid learning about their personal failings. Be highly self-righteous. Use religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness.

These are the hallmarks of Right-wing Authoritarianism. Recognizing them and the degree to which a political party promotes them is a matter for the individual to determine.

---

Comments?

Excon

Holy crap - that's dead on.

Sounds like Anthony Weiner.

I have been saying the same thing.

Sounds like some sort of weiner

Extremists don't bother me as much as all my conservative friends who spend half their days on Facebook posting anything and everything without researching it, and who constantly contradict themselves on just about anything in the Constitution, particularly freedom of religion (they want the gov't out of religion but not Christianity out of gov't).
Liberals aren't exempt from believing what they want to believe, or from subscribing to every taxpayer funded social program there is.

The Constitution does not ban God from government, it bans government from establishing a state religion.

Yes speech but like all generalities it is difficult for the masses to understand, same as gun rights, etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

The Constitution does not ban God from government, it bans government from establishing a state religion.

---

Yes, that would be true. The Constitution is a secular document whereby authority comes from the people.

Jonathan Haidt, a liberal professor at the University of Virginia and author of' The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom', found that conservatives could more readily put themselves in the shoes of liberals and understand morally where they were coming from. The reverse was not true of liberals. They have little understanding of those with opposing views to their own. He says :

“I think of liberals as colorblind,” ...“We have finely tuned sensors for harm and injustice but are blind to other moral dimensions. Look at the way the word 'wall' is used in liberal discourse. It's almost always related to the idea that we have to knock them down.”
To reach that conclusion Haidt had to travel outside the US and see the country from another perspective . The view behind the walls of liberalism prevented him from seeing the possibility of another way. He wrote “When an artist submerges a crucifix in a jar of his own urine, or smears elephant dung on an image of the Virgin Mary, do these works belong in an art museum?”... “Imagine that a conservative artist had created these works using images of Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela instead of Jesus and Mary.”

Arthur Brooks, published a book based on his research, "Who Really Cares", . He documented that conservatives, on average, are 30% more generous with their time, talent, and treasure in giving to private charities than are liberals. Conservatives, he found, also donated blood at a 17% higher rate than liberals -- in fact, Brooks found "if liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the US would jump by 45%". It's easy to be empathetic by using the State to force other people to give away their earnings .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

smears elephant dung on an image of the Virgin Mary

---

Did you read what this meant symbolically to the artist, what the purpose was?

It really doesn't matter what you call yourself, since the constitution or any rule of law only works when people work together.

The constitution is based on equal protection under the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Did you read what this meant symbolically to the artist, what the purpose was?

---

Yeah yeah the lame stuff about fertility... that is why he also surrounded the Virgin Mary with porno images . If he doesn't understand why that would be offensive then that just proves Haidt's point about the libs being blind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

It really doesn't matter what you call yourself, since the constitution or any rule of law only works when people work together.

The constitution is based on equal protection under the law.

---

Then why post something that suggests conservatism is some kind of mental disease ?

Hello Carol:

Quote:

---

Did you read what this meant symbolically to the artist, what the purpose was?

---

No, of course, he didn't. The motivation of the artist wouldn't matter anyway.. It's the SUBJECT that disturbs them.

Quote:

---

“Imagine that a conservative artist had created these works using images of Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela instead of Jesus and Mary.”

---

The above clearly demonstrates the disconnect. They believe that liberals view art just like they do. Of course, we don't.

Excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Carol:
No, of course, he didn't. The motivation of the artist wouldn't matter anyway.. It's the SUBJECT that disturbs them.The above clearly demonstrates the disconnect. They believe that liberals view art just like they do. Of course, we don't.

excon

---

So you would approve it ? Maybe you would ,but the emperor found a guy who made videos that insulted Mohammed and threw him in jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Carol:
No, of course, he didn't. The motivation of the artist wouldn't matter anyway.. It's the SUBJECT that disturbs them.The above clearly demonstrates the disconnect. They believe that liberals view art just like they do. Of course, we don't.

excon

---

Dear excon:

When I student taught back when rocks were cooling, it was a first grade in a parochial (Lutheran) school in the inner city, in a black neighborhood in Chicago. The attached Lutheran church had a Jesus-the-Good-Shepherd statue with outstretched arms standing above the altar. That Jesus statue was black.

My white conservative friends and relatives were aghast. "Jesus wasn't black. He was white, like us." In my white-neighborhood Lutheran church there is a similar statue above the altar. This Jesus statue could have been a double for George Clooney.

Carol

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

---

so you would approve it ?

---

Your use of the word "approve" further signifies the disconnect. I don't "approve" of art. I appreciate it, or not. I didn't appreciate the cross in the bucket of pee - NOT because it was a cross in a bucket of pee, but because it was bad art.

Excon

Hello again,

If the premise of the OP is incorrect, why can't Republicans achieve their objectives through normal political means? Why do they instead, threaten to blow it all up if they don't get their way?

I'll tell you why. The NORMAL political process involves COMPROMISE, and NO Republican is going to compromise. If he does, he's going to get called a RINO and he'll be primaryied. Right wingers don't argue about policy anymore. They argue who's righter than who. That's the death spiral right wingers are involved it. It's how the party is moving further, and further right. I think I made a thread entitled that.

excon

Patrick Henry said "Give me Liberty or Give me death" .He didn't say ,let's talk about it . To the Dems ,compromise =capitulation.. Yeah they will compromise as long as everything continues to trend in their direction. This has been ongoing for over 100 years . Not once have they compromised to trend things in a conservative trajectory . To them the natural "arch of history " leads us "Forward!" to their ideology . It' really just a question about how fast they take us there . Let's compromise on how fast we shrink the size of government. Let's compromise of how quickly we cut the tax rate ,let's set a schedule to bringing spending down . Let's compromise on which programs we eliminate instead of compromising on the rate of increase in the size of government... what ? Not so willing to compromise then are you.?.