Why do people hate Liberals?

[thanatos144]

Yea, ask the Dixie Chicks...

Calling someone a stupid bitch for what they say is not the same as saying they cant say that...... Progressives silence free speech conservatives tell you what they think of what you said.

As far as I know, conservatives succeeded in black-balling, forgive me if that term has racial connotations, I mean nothing disrespectful, the Dixie Chicks from the radio. The station I listen to, WQYK in Tampa, a Clear Channel affiliate, thankfully hasn't played one of their songs in years.

Immie

Thats called protesting with your wallet. They never said they couldnt stay stupid shit that doesn't mean we have to buy their music...Truthfully even if they said nothing they would be over cause they sucked.

 

[francoHFW]

Conservatives believe in more freedom for the greedy idiot rich to screw everyone else, PERIOD.

OP- "People" LOL hate liberals because they don't like to be shown they're brainwashed chumps of the greedy idiot rich, and that everything they "know" is PUBCRAPPE..

 

[Immanuel]

Calling someone a stupid bitch for what they say is not the same as saying they cant say that...... Progressives silence free speech conservatives tell you what they think of what you said.

As far as I know, conservatives succeeded in black-balling, forgive me if that term has racial connotations, I mean nothing disrespectful, the Dixie Chicks from the radio. The station I listen to, WQYK in Tampa, a Clear Channel affiliate, thankfully hasn't played one of their songs in years.

Immie

Thats called protesting with your wallet. They never said they couldnt stay stupid shit that doesn't mean we have to buy their music...Truthfully even if they said nothing they would be over cause they sucked.

But how was that any different than what progressives did with regard to Chik-Fil-A?

Immie

 

[thanatos144]

As far as I know, conservatives succeeded in black-balling, forgive me if that term has racial connotations, I mean nothing disrespectful, the Dixie Chicks from the radio. The station I listen to, WQYK in Tampa, a Clear Channel affiliate, thankfully hasn't played one of their songs in years.

Immie

Thats called protesting with your wallet. They never said they couldnt stay stupid shit that doesn't mean we have to buy their music...Truthfully even if they said nothing they would be over cause they sucked.

But how was that any different than what progressives did with regard to Chik-Fil-A?

Immie

So? Let them boycott. They failed at it. Why? Because chik fil a's customer base was varied. The dixie chicks quite literally pissed off 90% of their customer base.... It would be like Popeye's making a commercial with the spokesman being a Klan member. You just cant fix stupid.

 

[Intense]

The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.

The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.

I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.

Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.

Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.

And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?

The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.

If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.

Moved to Philosophy Forum. Zone 3 Posting Rules apply.

 

[Immanuel]

Thats called protesting with your wallet. They never said they couldnt stay stupid shit that doesn't mean we have to buy their music...Truthfully even if they said nothing they would be over cause they sucked.

But how was that any different than what progressives did with regard to Chik-Fil-A?

Immie

So? Let them boycott. They failed at it. Why? Because chik fil a's customer base was varied. The dixie chicks quite literally pissed off 90% of their customer base.... It would be like Popeye's making a commercial with the spokesman being a Klan member. You just cant fix stupid.

But the point is that you said there was a difference between left and right. You stated the left wanted to remove right and I think your words were that conservatives wanted to enhance freedoms. I have to say that when it comes to extremes, I simply do not see it.

Immie

 

[thanatos144]

But how was that any different than what progressives did with regard to Chik-Fil-A?

Immie

So? Let them boycott. They failed at it. Why? Because chik fil a's customer base was varied. The dixie chicks quite literally pissed off 90% of their customer base.... It would be like Popeye's making a commercial with the spokesman being a Klan member. You just cant fix stupid.

But the point is that you said there was a difference between left and right. You stated the left wanted to remove right and I think your words were that conservatives wanted to enhance freedoms. I have to say that when it comes to extremes, I simply do not see it.

Immie

not buying their stuff is just are saying what they said was stupid. No one silenced or with malicious intent trying to destroy them.

 

[Immanuel]

So? Let them boycott. They failed at it. Why? Because chik fil a's customer base was varied. The dixie chicks quite literally pissed off 90% of their customer base.... It would be like Popeye's making a commercial with the spokesman being a Klan member. You just cant fix stupid.

But the point is that you said there was a difference between left and right. You stated the left wanted to remove right and I think your words were that conservatives wanted to enhance freedoms. I have to say that when it comes to extremes, I simply do not see it.

Immie

not buying their stuff is just are saying what they said was stupid. No one silenced or with malicious intent trying to destroy them.

That is exactly what conservatives did to the Dixie Chicks. Progressives attempted the same thing with Chik-Fil-A. What I am trying to understand is how anyone can see a difference between the two incidents.

Immie

 

[Dragonlady]

So? Let them boycott. They failed at it. Why? Because chik fil a's customer base was varied. The dixie chicks quite literally pissed off 90% of their customer base.... It would be like Popeye's making a commercial with the spokesman being a Klan member. You just cant fix stupid.

But the point is that you said there was a difference between left and right. You stated the left wanted to remove right and I think your words were that conservatives wanted to enhance freedoms. I have to say that when it comes to extremes, I simply do not see it.

Immie

not buying their stuff is just are saying what they said was stupid. No one silenced or with malicious intent trying to destroy them.

Yes they did. The Dixie Chicks were received death threats, their families were threatened. People threw stuff at them. They were treated horribly and frightened badly, for exercising their right to free speech, and this was done by conservatives who worship at the alter of the Constitution.

 

[thanatos144]

Are you sure it was conservatives that made the death threats? Because truth be told that sounds more like a libertarian to me

Welcome to my nightmare

 

[Foxfyre]

As far as I know, conservatives succeeded in black-balling, forgive me if that term has racial connotations, I mean nothing disrespectful, the Dixie Chicks from the radio. The station I listen to, WQYK in Tampa, a Clear Channel affiliate, thankfully hasn't played one of their songs in years.

Immie

Thats called protesting with your wallet. They never said they couldnt stay stupid shit that doesn't mean we have to buy their music...Truthfully even if they said nothing they would be over cause they sucked.

But how was that any different than what progressives did with regard to Chik-Fil-A?

Immie

Did conservatives go after the Dixie Chicks' advertisers, promoters, record companies and attempt to get them dumped? Did they attempt to destroy the Dixie Chicks means of making a living by attempting to block access to their fans or intimidate their fans or threaten anybody who sold their records? Did they organize loud, disruptive protests outside of Dixie Chicks concerts?

If they did they were as bad as the progressives going after Chik-fil-a.

But if they voiced their indvidual displeasure and contempt, chose not to buy Dixie Chik singles or albums, and turned off their radios, then they were much different that those progressives going after Chik-fil-a or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Paula Deen.

And once the Dixie Chicks apologized--which they did--that should have ended it and everybody moves on.

Back during the 70's, the Nestle Corporation was engaged in reprehensible marketing of infant formula in poor third world countries. And we did organize a boycott of all Nestle products. No threats. No angry disruptive protests. We just didn't buy their products. And Nestle did finally come around and stopped doing it.
And we all started buying Nestle products again.

That too is very different than Progressives trying to punish Chick-fil-a or any of the others for simply being politically incorrect.

In the l980's, millions of us chose not to do business with those corporations who were doing business in South Africa. We didn't threaten them or try to shut them down, but we divested ourselves of their stock and tried not to buy their products. And that, among many other factors of world opinion, persuaded South Africa to stop cruel and indefensible policies of apartheid. Once done, we all could resume business with South Africa.

There are right and wrong ways to express our displeasure or criticism. Conservatives more often seek to correct unacceptable behavior. Liberals more often seek to destroy whomever offends them.

 

[Bfgrn]

Thats called protesting with your wallet. They never said they couldnt stay stupid shit that doesn't mean we have to buy their music...Truthfully even if they said nothing they would be over cause they sucked.

But how was that any different than what progressives did with regard to Chik-Fil-A?

Immie

Did conservatives go after the Dixie Chicks' advertisers, promoters, record companies and attempt to get them dumped? Did they attempt to destroy the Dixie Chicks means of making a living by attempting to block access to their fans or intimidate their fans or threaten anybody who sold their records? Did they organize loud, disruptive protests outside of Dixie Chicks concerts?

If they did they were as bad as the progressives going after Chik-fil-a.

But if they voiced their indvidual displeasure and contempt, chose not to buy Dixie Chik singles or albums, and turned off their radios, then they were much different that those progressives going after Chik-fil-a or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Paula Deen.

And once the Dixie Chicks apologized--which they did--that should have ended it and everybody moves on.

Back during the 70's, the Nestle Corporation was engaged in reprehensible marketing of infant formula in poor third world countries. And we did organize a boycott of all Nestle products. No threats. No angry disruptive protests. We just didn't buy their products. And Nestle did finally come around and stopped doing it.
And we all started buying Nestle products again.

That too is very different than Progressives trying to punish Chick-fil-a or any of the others for simply being politically incorrect.

In the l980's, millions of us chose not to do business with those corporations who were doing business in South Africa. We didn't threaten them or try to shut them down, but we divested ourselves of their stock and tried not to buy their products. And that, among many other factors of world opinion, persuaded South Africa to stop cruel and indefensible policies of apartheid. Once done, we all could resume business with South Africa.

There are right and wrong ways to express our displeasure or criticism. Conservatives more often seek to correct unacceptable behavior. Liberals more often seek to destroy whomever offends them.

You are full of such self righteous and pious horseshit I can smell the stench over the internet. The FACTS are when Bush was in office there was NOTHING government could that was wrong. NOTHING. And anyone who questioned your beloved despot was attacked. Authoritarianism and authoritarian followers is deeply rooted in conservatism, and overwhelmingly a conservative orientation.

Liberalism is the antithesis of authoritarianism.

You keep touting about being libertarians. Well John Dean is a libertarian and was a close friend of the late Senator Barry Goldwater, a real libertarian. Dean wrote a book "Conservatives Without Conscience" that was originally going to be a collaboration with Goldwater, but Goldwater died before the book was completed...

Here is what Dean found and had to say in an interview:

DEAN: Goldwater Republicanism is really R.I.P. It's been put to rest by most of the people who are now active in moving the movement further to the right than it's ever been. I think that Senator [Goldwater], before he departed, was very distressed with Conservatism. In fact, it was our conversations back in 1994 that started this book. That's really where I began. We wanted to find answers to the question, "Why were Republicans acting as they were?" -- Why Conservatives had taken over the party and were being followed as easily as they were in taking the party where [Goldwater] didn't want it to go.

OLBERMANN: What did you find? -- In less than the 200 pages that the book goes into.

DEAN: I ran into a massive study that has really been going on 50 years now by academics. They've never really shared this with the general public. It's a remarkable analysis of the authoritarian personality. Both those who are inclined to follow leaders and those who jump in front and want to be the leaders. It was not the opinion of social scientists. It was information they drew by questioning large numbers of people -- hundreds of thousands of people -- in anonymous testing where [the subjects] conceded their innermost feelings and reactions to things. And it came out that most of these people were pre-qualified to be conservatives and this, did indeed, fit with the authoritarian personality.

OLBERMANN: Did the studies indicate that this really has anything to do with the political point of view? Would it be easier to impose authoritarianism over the right than it would the left? Is it theoretically possible that it could have gone in either direction and it's just a question of people who like to follow other people?

DEAN: They have found, really, maybe a small, 1%, of the left who will follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it's just overwhelmingly conservative orientation.

OLBERMANN: And the idea of leaders and followers going down this path or perhaps taking a country down this path requires -- this whole edifice requires and enemy. Communism, al Qaeda, Democrats, me... whoever for the two-minutes hate. I overuse the Orwellian analogies to nauseating proportions. But it really was, in reading what you wrote about, especially what the academics talked about. There was that two-minutes hate. There has to be an opponent, an enemy, to coalesce around or the whole thing falls apart. Is that the gist of it?

DEAN: It is one of the things, believe it or not, that still holds conservatism together. There is many factions in conservatism and their dislike or hatred of those they betray as liberal, who will basically be anybody who disagrees with them, is one of the cohesive factors. There are a few others but that's certainly one of the basics. There's no question that, particularly the followers, they're very aggressive in their effort to pursue and help their authority figure out or authority beliefs out. They will do what ever needs to be done in many regards. They will blindly follow. They stay loyal too long and this is the frightening part of it.


Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwater

 

[Immanuel]

Thats called protesting with your wallet. They never said they couldnt stay stupid shit that doesn't mean we have to buy their music...Truthfully even if they said nothing they would be over cause they sucked.

But how was that any different than what progressives did with regard to Chik-Fil-A?

Immie

Did conservatives go after the Dixie Chicks' advertisers, promoters, record companies and attempt to get them dumped? Did they attempt to destroy the Dixie Chicks means of making a living by attempting to block access to their fans or intimidate their fans or threaten anybody who sold their records? Did they organize loud, disruptive protests outside of Dixie Chicks concerts?

If they did they were as bad as the progressives going after Chik-fil-a.

But if they voiced their indvidual displeasure and contempt, chose not to buy Dixie Chik singles or albums, and turned off their radios, then they were much different that those progressives going after Chik-fil-a or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Paula Deen.

And once the Dixie Chicks apologized--which they did--that should have ended it and everybody moves on.

Back during the 70's, the Nestle Corporation was engaged in reprehensible marketing of infant formula in poor third world countries. And we did organize a boycott of all Nestle products. No threats. No angry disruptive protests. We just didn't buy their products. And Nestle did finally come around and stopped doing it.
And we all started buying Nestle products again.

That too is very different than Progressives trying to punish Chick-fil-a or any of the others for simply being politically incorrect.

In the l980's, millions of us chose not to do business with those corporations who were doing business in South Africa. We didn't threaten them or try to shut them down, but we divested ourselves of their stock and tried not to buy their products. And that, among many other factors of world opinion, persuaded South Africa to stop cruel and indefensible policies of apartheid. Once done, we all could resume business with South Africa.

There are right and wrong ways to express our displeasure or criticism. Conservatives more often seek to correct unacceptable behavior. Liberals more often seek to destroy whomever offends them.

Whether or not it was conservatives is up to debate. One thing is for certain, they were supporters of George W. Bush and in regards to your first paragraph's three questions, yes, they did on all three counts. Around here at least they contacted the radio stations and threatened to quit listening to those channels that continued to play Dixie Chicks' music.

While I generally agree with your final two sentences, who has the right to define "unacceptable behavior" and can it not be said that progressives (as the extreme versions of liberals) are simply seeking to correct unacceptable behavior as opposed to destroying whomever offends them? Do those last two statements you made, in fact, simply reflect our (note I said "our" not "your" and it was not a typo) own personal biases? One could very easily interchange those two phrases: "correct unacceptable behavior" and "destroy whomever offends them" or use either one for both sentences.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

But how was that any different than what progressives did with regard to Chik-Fil-A?

Immie

Did conservatives go after the Dixie Chicks' advertisers, promoters, record companies and attempt to get them dumped? Did they attempt to destroy the Dixie Chicks means of making a living by attempting to block access to their fans or intimidate their fans or threaten anybody who sold their records? Did they organize loud, disruptive protests outside of Dixie Chicks concerts?

If they did they were as bad as the progressives going after Chik-fil-a.

But if they voiced their indvidual displeasure and contempt, chose not to buy Dixie Chik singles or albums, and turned off their radios, then they were much different that those progressives going after Chik-fil-a or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Paula Deen.

And once the Dixie Chicks apologized--which they did--that should have ended it and everybody moves on.

Back during the 70's, the Nestle Corporation was engaged in reprehensible marketing of infant formula in poor third world countries. And we did organize a boycott of all Nestle products. No threats. No angry disruptive protests. We just didn't buy their products. And Nestle did finally come around and stopped doing it.
And we all started buying Nestle products again.

That too is very different than Progressives trying to punish Chick-fil-a or any of the others for simply being politically incorrect.

In the l980's, millions of us chose not to do business with those corporations who were doing business in South Africa. We didn't threaten them or try to shut them down, but we divested ourselves of their stock and tried not to buy their products. And that, among many other factors of world opinion, persuaded South Africa to stop cruel and indefensible policies of apartheid. Once done, we all could resume business with South Africa.

There are right and wrong ways to express our displeasure or criticism. Conservatives more often seek to correct unacceptable behavior. Liberals more often seek to destroy whomever offends them.

You are full of such self righteous and pious horseshit I can smell the stench over the internet. The FACTS are when Bush was in office there was NOTHING government could that was wrong. NOTHING. And anyone who questioned your beloved despot was attacked. Authoritarianism and authoritarian followers is deeply rooted in conservatism, and overwhelmingly a conservative orientation.

Liberalism is the antithesis of authoritarianism.

You keep touting about being libertarians. Well John Dean is a libertarian and was a close friend of the late Senator Barry Goldwater, a real libertarian. Dean wrote a book "Conservatives Without Conscience" that was originally going to be a collaboration with Goldwater, but Goldwater died before the book was completed...

Here is what Dean found and had to say in an interview:

DEAN: Goldwater Republicanism is really R.I.P. It's been put to rest by most of the people who are now active in moving the movement further to the right than it's ever been. I think that Senator [Goldwater], before he departed, was very distressed with Conservatism. In fact, it was our conversations back in 1994 that started this book. That's really where I began. We wanted to find answers to the question, "Why were Republicans acting as they were?" -- Why Conservatives had taken over the party and were being followed as easily as they were in taking the party where [Goldwater] didn't want it to go.

OLBERMANN: What did you find? -- In less than the 200 pages that the book goes into.

DEAN: I ran into a massive study that has really been going on 50 years now by academics. They've never really shared this with the general public. It's a remarkable analysis of the authoritarian personality. Both those who are inclined to follow leaders and those who jump in front and want to be the leaders. It was not the opinion of social scientists. It was information they drew by questioning large numbers of people -- hundreds of thousands of people -- in anonymous testing where [the subjects] conceded their innermost feelings and reactions to things. And it came out that most of these people were pre-qualified to be conservatives and this, did indeed, fit with the authoritarian personality.

OLBERMANN: Did the studies indicate that this really has anything to do with the political point of view? Would it be easier to impose authoritarianism over the right than it would the left? Is it theoretically possible that it could have gone in either direction and it's just a question of people who like to follow other people?

DEAN: They have found, really, maybe a small, 1%, of the left who will follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it's just overwhelmingly conservative orientation.

OLBERMANN: And the idea of leaders and followers going down this path or perhaps taking a country down this path requires -- this whole edifice requires and enemy. Communism, al Qaeda, Democrats, me... whoever for the two-minutes hate. I overuse the Orwellian analogies to nauseating proportions. But it really was, in reading what you wrote about, especially what the academics talked about. There was that two-minutes hate. There has to be an opponent, an enemy, to coalesce around or the whole thing falls apart. Is that the gist of it?

DEAN: It is one of the things, believe it or not, that still holds conservatism together. There is many factions in conservatism and their dislike or hatred of those they betray as liberal, who will basically be anybody who disagrees with them, is one of the cohesive factors. There are a few others but that's certainly one of the basics. There's no question that, particularly the followers, they're very aggressive in their effort to pursue and help their authority figure out or authority beliefs out. They will do what ever needs to be done in many regards. They will blindly follow. They stay loyal too long and this is the frightening part of it.


Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwater

Sorry, have to disagree with you. Today's "liberalism" is nothing short of an attempt to enslave the masses. The gay rights issue is a very good example. Those who disagree with today's politically correct liberalism are excoriated in all aspects of society. One who dares to say "Marriage is between one man and one woman", will be verbally flogged if not physically flogged. Those who dare to speak out against abortion are as well and are accused of wanting to keep a woman "barefoot and pregnant". God help the man or woman who says that contraceptives should not be given by middle schools or that kindergarten should not be teaching sex education!

I can't and won't say that was liberalism from day one, but it is most definitely what conservatives have to put up with today. I admit, conservatives aren't really all that different, but liberalism as it stands today is nothing short of forced enslavement of the masses. Maybe you like to think that it is different because you support their causes, but don't you dare disagree with them on any subject.

Immie

 

[thanatos144]

But how was that any different than what progressives did with regard to Chik-Fil-A?

Immie

Did conservatives go after the Dixie Chicks' advertisers, promoters, record companies and attempt to get them dumped? Did they attempt to destroy the Dixie Chicks means of making a living by attempting to block access to their fans or intimidate their fans or threaten anybody who sold their records? Did they organize loud, disruptive protests outside of Dixie Chicks concerts?

If they did they were as bad as the progressives going after Chik-fil-a.

But if they voiced their indvidual displeasure and contempt, chose not to buy Dixie Chik singles or albums, and turned off their radios, then they were much different that those progressives going after Chik-fil-a or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Paula Deen.

And once the Dixie Chicks apologized--which they did--that should have ended it and everybody moves on.

Back during the 70's, the Nestle Corporation was engaged in reprehensible marketing of infant formula in poor third world countries. And we did organize a boycott of all Nestle products. No threats. No angry disruptive protests. We just didn't buy their products. And Nestle did finally come around and stopped doing it.
And we all started buying Nestle products again.

That too is very different than Progressives trying to punish Chick-fil-a or any of the others for simply being politically incorrect.

In the l980's, millions of us chose not to do business with those corporations who were doing business in South Africa. We didn't threaten them or try to shut them down, but we divested ourselves of their stock and tried not to buy their products. And that, among many other factors of world opinion, persuaded South Africa to stop cruel and indefensible policies of apartheid. Once done, we all could resume business with South Africa.

There are right and wrong ways to express our displeasure or criticism. Conservatives more often seek to correct unacceptable behavior. Liberals more often seek to destroy whomever offends them.

You are full of such self righteous and pious horseshit I can smell the stench over the internet. The FACTS are when Bush was in office there was NOTHING government could that was wrong. NOTHING. And anyone who questioned your beloved despot was attacked. Authoritarianism and authoritarian followers is deeply rooted in conservatism, and overwhelmingly a conservative orientation.

Liberalism is the antithesis of authoritarianism.

You keep touting about being libertarians. Well John Dean is a libertarian and was a close friend of the late Senator Barry Goldwater, a real libertarian. Dean wrote a book "Conservatives Without Conscience" that was originally going to be a collaboration with Goldwater, but Goldwater died before the book was completed...

Here is what Dean found and had to say in an interview:

DEAN: Goldwater Republicanism is really R.I.P. It's been put to rest by most of the people who are now active in moving the movement further to the right than it's ever been. I think that Senator [Goldwater], before he departed, was very distressed with Conservatism. In fact, it was our conversations back in 1994 that started this book. That's really where I began. We wanted to find answers to the question, "Why were Republicans acting as they were?" -- Why Conservatives had taken over the party and were being followed as easily as they were in taking the party where [Goldwater] didn't want it to go.

OLBERMANN: What did you find? -- In less than the 200 pages that the book goes into.

DEAN: I ran into a massive study that has really been going on 50 years now by academics. They've never really shared this with the general public. It's a remarkable analysis of the authoritarian personality. Both those who are inclined to follow leaders and those who jump in front and want to be the leaders. It was not the opinion of social scientists. It was information they drew by questioning large numbers of people -- hundreds of thousands of people -- in anonymous testing where [the subjects] conceded their innermost feelings and reactions to things. And it came out that most of these people were pre-qualified to be conservatives and this, did indeed, fit with the authoritarian personality.

OLBERMANN: Did the studies indicate that this really has anything to do with the political point of view? Would it be easier to impose authoritarianism over the right than it would the left? Is it theoretically possible that it could have gone in either direction and it's just a question of people who like to follow other people?

DEAN: They have found, really, maybe a small, 1%, of the left who will follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it's just overwhelmingly conservative orientation.

OLBERMANN: And the idea of leaders and followers going down this path or perhaps taking a country down this path requires -- this whole edifice requires and enemy. Communism, al Qaeda, Democrats, me... whoever for the two-minutes hate. I overuse the Orwellian analogies to nauseating proportions. But it really was, in reading what you wrote about, especially what the academics talked about. There was that two-minutes hate. There has to be an opponent, an enemy, to coalesce around or the whole thing falls apart. Is that the gist of it?

DEAN: It is one of the things, believe it or not, that still holds conservatism together. There is many factions in conservatism and their dislike or hatred of those they betray as liberal, who will basically be anybody who disagrees with them, is one of the cohesive factors. There are a few others but that's certainly one of the basics. There's no question that, particularly the followers, they're very aggressive in their effort to pursue and help their authority figure out or authority beliefs out. They will do what ever needs to be done in many regards. They will blindly follow. They stay loyal too long and this is the frightening part of it.


Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwater

the only shit i smell comes from your direction

Welcome to my nightmare

 

[Foxfyre]

But how was that any different than what progressives did with regard to Chik-Fil-A?

Immie

Did conservatives go after the Dixie Chicks' advertisers, promoters, record companies and attempt to get them dumped? Did they attempt to destroy the Dixie Chicks means of making a living by attempting to block access to their fans or intimidate their fans or threaten anybody who sold their records? Did they organize loud, disruptive protests outside of Dixie Chicks concerts?

If they did they were as bad as the progressives going after Chik-fil-a.

But if they voiced their indvidual displeasure and contempt, chose not to buy Dixie Chik singles or albums, and turned off their radios, then they were much different that those progressives going after Chik-fil-a or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Paula Deen.

And once the Dixie Chicks apologized--which they did--that should have ended it and everybody moves on.

Back during the 70's, the Nestle Corporation was engaged in reprehensible marketing of infant formula in poor third world countries. And we did organize a boycott of all Nestle products. No threats. No angry disruptive protests. We just didn't buy their products. And Nestle did finally come around and stopped doing it.
And we all started buying Nestle products again.

That too is very different than Progressives trying to punish Chick-fil-a or any of the others for simply being politically incorrect.

In the l980's, millions of us chose not to do business with those corporations who were doing business in South Africa. We didn't threaten them or try to shut them down, but we divested ourselves of their stock and tried not to buy their products. And that, among many other factors of world opinion, persuaded South Africa to stop cruel and indefensible policies of apartheid. Once done, we all could resume business with South Africa.

There are right and wrong ways to express our displeasure or criticism. Conservatives more often seek to correct unacceptable behavior. Liberals more often seek to destroy whomever offends them.

Whether or not it was conservatives is up to debate. One thing is for certain, they were supporters of George W. Bush and in regards to your first paragraph's three questions, yes, they did on all three counts. Around here at least they contacted the radio stations and threatened to quit listening to those channels that continued to play Dixie Chicks' music.

While I generally agree with your final two sentences, who has the right to define "unacceptable behavior" and can it not be said that progressives (as the extreme versions of liberals) are simply seeking to correct unacceptable behavior as opposed to destroying whomever offends them? Do those last two statements you made, in fact, simply reflect our (note I said "our" not "your" and it was not a typo) own personal biases? One could very easily interchange those two phrases: "correct unacceptable behavior" and "destroy whomever offends them" or use either one for both sentences.

Immie

Well in this area there were no demands for radio stations to stop playing Dixie Chick music that I know of. I don't disbelieve that you observed that in your area. I just did not personally experience it so I don't know whether that was a widespread thing or what. I do know that the liberal (as we define it) European press was cheering them on as were the more rabid of the anti-Bush and/or anti-war protesters here and abroad. Sort of like the same sorts of people were cheering on Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War while others of us despised what she did.

But there is a difference between a personal choice to express our personal disapproval or criticism of somebody's actions and in attempting to destroy that person's reputation, relationships, and livelihood for making a politically incorrect statement. Most especially when no apology is deemed good enough and the mob mentality to attack and demolish continues unabated.

I have no problem with the former and I don't think you do either. And no matter who is doing it, I have a huge problem with the latter and I hope you do too.

 

[Immanuel]

Did conservatives go after the Dixie Chicks' advertisers, promoters, record companies and attempt to get them dumped? Did they attempt to destroy the Dixie Chicks means of making a living by attempting to block access to their fans or intimidate their fans or threaten anybody who sold their records? Did they organize loud, disruptive protests outside of Dixie Chicks concerts?

If they did they were as bad as the progressives going after Chik-fil-a.

But if they voiced their indvidual displeasure and contempt, chose not to buy Dixie Chik singles or albums, and turned off their radios, then they were much different that those progressives going after Chik-fil-a or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Paula Deen.

And once the Dixie Chicks apologized--which they did--that should have ended it and everybody moves on.

Back during the 70's, the Nestle Corporation was engaged in reprehensible marketing of infant formula in poor third world countries. And we did organize a boycott of all Nestle products. No threats. No angry disruptive protests. We just didn't buy their products. And Nestle did finally come around and stopped doing it.
And we all started buying Nestle products again.

That too is very different than Progressives trying to punish Chick-fil-a or any of the others for simply being politically incorrect.

In the l980's, millions of us chose not to do business with those corporations who were doing business in South Africa. We didn't threaten them or try to shut them down, but we divested ourselves of their stock and tried not to buy their products. And that, among many other factors of world opinion, persuaded South Africa to stop cruel and indefensible policies of apartheid. Once done, we all could resume business with South Africa.

There are right and wrong ways to express our displeasure or criticism. Conservatives more often seek to correct unacceptable behavior. Liberals more often seek to destroy whomever offends them.

Whether or not it was conservatives is up to debate. One thing is for certain, they were supporters of George W. Bush and in regards to your first paragraph's three questions, yes, they did on all three counts. Around here at least they contacted the radio stations and threatened to quit listening to those channels that continued to play Dixie Chicks' music.

While I generally agree with your final two sentences, who has the right to define "unacceptable behavior" and can it not be said that progressives (as the extreme versions of liberals) are simply seeking to correct unacceptable behavior as opposed to destroying whomever offends them? Do those last two statements you made, in fact, simply reflect our (note I said "our" not "your" and it was not a typo) own personal biases? One could very easily interchange those two phrases: "correct unacceptable behavior" and "destroy whomever offends them" or use either one for both sentences.

Immie

Well in this area there were no demands for radio stations to stop playing Dixie Chick music that I know of. I don't disbelieve that you observed that in your area. I just did not personally experience it so I don't know whether that was a widespread thing or what. I do know that the liberal (as we define it) European press was cheering them on as were the more rabid of the anti-Bush and/or anti-war protesters here and abroad. Sort of like the same sorts of people were cheering on Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War while others of us despised what she did.

But there is a difference between a personal choice to express our personal disapproval or criticism of somebody's actions and in attempting to destroy that person's reputation, relationships, and livelihood for making a politically incorrect statement. Most especially when no apology is deemed good enough and the mob mentality to attack and demolish continues unabated.

I have no problem with the former and I don't think you do either. And no matter who is doing it, I have a huge problem with the latter and I hope you do too.

You didn't experience it? I have to ask... do you listen to Country Music or that other "stuff". j/k on the "stuff". I generally like all kinds of music, but prefer music that tells a story. Anyway, if you don't listen to CM, then I would expect that you would not have heard the bitching that went on. If you do, when was the last time you heard the chicks on the radio? Think hard!

Immie

 

[Bfgrn]

Did conservatives go after the Dixie Chicks' advertisers, promoters, record companies and attempt to get them dumped? Did they attempt to destroy the Dixie Chicks means of making a living by attempting to block access to their fans or intimidate their fans or threaten anybody who sold their records? Did they organize loud, disruptive protests outside of Dixie Chicks concerts?

If they did they were as bad as the progressives going after Chik-fil-a.

But if they voiced their indvidual displeasure and contempt, chose not to buy Dixie Chik singles or albums, and turned off their radios, then they were much different that those progressives going after Chik-fil-a or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Paula Deen.

And once the Dixie Chicks apologized--which they did--that should have ended it and everybody moves on.

Back during the 70's, the Nestle Corporation was engaged in reprehensible marketing of infant formula in poor third world countries. And we did organize a boycott of all Nestle products. No threats. No angry disruptive protests. We just didn't buy their products. And Nestle did finally come around and stopped doing it.
And we all started buying Nestle products again.

That too is very different than Progressives trying to punish Chick-fil-a or any of the others for simply being politically incorrect.

In the l980's, millions of us chose not to do business with those corporations who were doing business in South Africa. We didn't threaten them or try to shut them down, but we divested ourselves of their stock and tried not to buy their products. And that, among many other factors of world opinion, persuaded South Africa to stop cruel and indefensible policies of apartheid. Once done, we all could resume business with South Africa.

There are right and wrong ways to express our displeasure or criticism. Conservatives more often seek to correct unacceptable behavior. Liberals more often seek to destroy whomever offends them.

You are full of such self righteous and pious horseshit I can smell the stench over the internet. The FACTS are when Bush was in office there was NOTHING government could that was wrong. NOTHING. And anyone who questioned your beloved despot was attacked. Authoritarianism and authoritarian followers is deeply rooted in conservatism, and overwhelmingly a conservative orientation.

Liberalism is the antithesis of authoritarianism.

You keep touting about being libertarians. Well John Dean is a libertarian and was a close friend of the late Senator Barry Goldwater, a real libertarian. Dean wrote a book "Conservatives Without Conscience" that was originally going to be a collaboration with Goldwater, but Goldwater died before the book was completed...

Here is what Dean found and had to say in an interview:

DEAN: Goldwater Republicanism is really R.I.P. It's been put to rest by most of the people who are now active in moving the movement further to the right than it's ever been. I think that Senator [Goldwater], before he departed, was very distressed with Conservatism. In fact, it was our conversations back in 1994 that started this book. That's really where I began. We wanted to find answers to the question, "Why were Republicans acting as they were?" -- Why Conservatives had taken over the party and were being followed as easily as they were in taking the party where [Goldwater] didn't want it to go.

OLBERMANN: What did you find? -- In less than the 200 pages that the book goes into.

DEAN: I ran into a massive study that has really been going on 50 years now by academics. They've never really shared this with the general public. It's a remarkable analysis of the authoritarian personality. Both those who are inclined to follow leaders and those who jump in front and want to be the leaders. It was not the opinion of social scientists. It was information they drew by questioning large numbers of people -- hundreds of thousands of people -- in anonymous testing where [the subjects] conceded their innermost feelings and reactions to things. And it came out that most of these people were pre-qualified to be conservatives and this, did indeed, fit with the authoritarian personality.

OLBERMANN: Did the studies indicate that this really has anything to do with the political point of view? Would it be easier to impose authoritarianism over the right than it would the left? Is it theoretically possible that it could have gone in either direction and it's just a question of people who like to follow other people?

DEAN: They have found, really, maybe a small, 1%, of the left who will follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it's just overwhelmingly conservative orientation.

OLBERMANN: And the idea of leaders and followers going down this path or perhaps taking a country down this path requires -- this whole edifice requires and enemy. Communism, al Qaeda, Democrats, me... whoever for the two-minutes hate. I overuse the Orwellian analogies to nauseating proportions. But it really was, in reading what you wrote about, especially what the academics talked about. There was that two-minutes hate. There has to be an opponent, an enemy, to coalesce around or the whole thing falls apart. Is that the gist of it?

DEAN: It is one of the things, believe it or not, that still holds conservatism together. There is many factions in conservatism and their dislike or hatred of those they betray as liberal, who will basically be anybody who disagrees with them, is one of the cohesive factors. There are a few others but that's certainly one of the basics. There's no question that, particularly the followers, they're very aggressive in their effort to pursue and help their authority figure out or authority beliefs out. They will do what ever needs to be done in many regards. They will blindly follow. They stay loyal too long and this is the frightening part of it.


Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwater

Sorry, have to disagree with you. Today's "liberalism" is nothing short of an attempt to enslave the masses. The gay rights issue is a very good example. Those who disagree with today's politically correct liberalism are excoriated in all aspects of society. One who dares to say "Marriage is between one man and one woman", will be verbally flogged if not physically flogged. Those who dare to speak out against abortion are as well and are accused of wanting to keep a woman "barefoot and pregnant". God help the man or woman who says that contraceptives should not be given by middle schools or that kindergarten should not be teaching sex education!

I can't and won't say that was liberalism from day one, but it is most definitely what conservatives have to put up with today. I admit, conservatives aren't really all that different, but liberalism as it stands today is nothing short of forced enslavement of the masses. Maybe you like to think that it is different because you support their causes, but don't you dare disagree with them on any subject.

Immie

No Immie. Liberalism is an attempt to FREE the masses. EVERY man or woman has the right to fall in love with who THEY choose, not who conservatives deem acceptable. EVERY woman has the right to decide what SHE chooses to do with her uterus, not what conservatives deem she can do with her uterus and her life.

Conservatives have the right to their opinion, but not the right to write laws that TAKE AWAY people's rights.

Conservatives have launched a frontal assault on unions, public employees, women's rights, immigrants, the environment, health care, voting rights, food safety, pensions, prenatal care, science, public broadcasting, and on and on.

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.

 

[Foxfyre]

Whether or not it was conservatives is up to debate. One thing is for certain, they were supporters of George W. Bush and in regards to your first paragraph's three questions, yes, they did on all three counts. Around here at least they contacted the radio stations and threatened to quit listening to those channels that continued to play Dixie Chicks' music.

While I generally agree with your final two sentences, who has the right to define "unacceptable behavior" and can it not be said that progressives (as the extreme versions of liberals) are simply seeking to correct unacceptable behavior as opposed to destroying whomever offends them? Do those last two statements you made, in fact, simply reflect our (note I said "our" not "your" and it was not a typo) own personal biases? One could very easily interchange those two phrases: "correct unacceptable behavior" and "destroy whomever offends them" or use either one for both sentences.

Immie

Well in this area there were no demands for radio stations to stop playing Dixie Chick music that I know of. I don't disbelieve that you observed that in your area. I just did not personally experience it so I don't know whether that was a widespread thing or what. I do know that the liberal (as we define it) European press was cheering them on as were the more rabid of the anti-Bush and/or anti-war protesters here and abroad. Sort of like the same sorts of people were cheering on Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War while others of us despised what she did.

But there is a difference between a personal choice to express our personal disapproval or criticism of somebody's actions and in attempting to destroy that person's reputation, relationships, and livelihood for making a politically incorrect statement. Most especially when no apology is deemed good enough and the mob mentality to attack and demolish continues unabated.

I have no problem with the former and I don't think you do either. And no matter who is doing it, I have a huge problem with the latter and I hope you do too.

You didn't experience it? I have to ask... do you listen to Country Music or that other "stuff". j/k on the "stuff". I generally like all kinds of music, but prefer music that tells a story. Anyway, if you don't listen to CM, then I would expect that you would not have heard the bitching that went on. If you do, when was the last time you heard the chicks on the radio? Think hard!

Immie

Since the mid 90's our favorite radio station went all news/talk and doesn't play any music at all. If we listen to music at all on the radio, it will generally be golden oldies or country--both Mr. Foxfyre and I are country fans. But we were never part of the Dixie Chick cult before their "London event" and despite a huge music collection of our own, I don't believe we have ever owned a Dixie Chick song even on a multi-artist album. And I don't recall hearing them on the radio before or since the "London event".

They aren't on the radio these days though because they haven't recorded anything I think since 2005 or so? The last I heard was two or three years ago they were going on tour with the Eagles and Keith Urban. I don't know whether they've done anything since though seems I did read somewhere that the Chicks have a new album out sometime this summer?

But the point is, not I nor anybody I know in real life or in any other medium ever attacked the Dixie Chicks or tried to ruin their career. Their comments in London were inexcusable and I condemned those remarks at the time. But in my conservative soul, those comments didn't damn all that they have ever said or will ever say. I don't really care whether they succeed or fail as they will not have my help either way. And that does not have anything to do with the London event but simply with the fact that I have never been a fan. Nor one out for their blood.

To most liberals, once they damn you, though, you are never to be forgiven anything. You are damned and to be unforgiven forever.

 

[thanatos144]

You are full of such self righteous and pious horseshit I can smell the stench over the internet. The FACTS are when Bush was in office there was NOTHING government could that was wrong. NOTHING. And anyone who questioned your beloved despot was attacked. Authoritarianism and authoritarian followers is deeply rooted in conservatism, and overwhelmingly a conservative orientation.

Liberalism is the antithesis of authoritarianism.

You keep touting about being libertarians. Well John Dean is a libertarian and was a close friend of the late Senator Barry Goldwater, a real libertarian. Dean wrote a book "Conservatives Without Conscience" that was originally going to be a collaboration with Goldwater, but Goldwater died before the book was completed...

Here is what Dean found and had to say in an interview:

DEAN: Goldwater Republicanism is really R.I.P. It's been put to rest by most of the people who are now active in moving the movement further to the right than it's ever been. I think that Senator [Goldwater], before he departed, was very distressed with Conservatism. In fact, it was our conversations back in 1994 that started this book. That's really where I began. We wanted to find answers to the question, "Why were Republicans acting as they were?" -- Why Conservatives had taken over the party and were being followed as easily as they were in taking the party where [Goldwater] didn't want it to go.

OLBERMANN: What did you find? -- In less than the 200 pages that the book goes into.

DEAN: I ran into a massive study that has really been going on 50 years now by academics. They've never really shared this with the general public. It's a remarkable analysis of the authoritarian personality. Both those who are inclined to follow leaders and those who jump in front and want to be the leaders. It was not the opinion of social scientists. It was information they drew by questioning large numbers of people -- hundreds of thousands of people -- in anonymous testing where [the subjects] conceded their innermost feelings and reactions to things. And it came out that most of these people were pre-qualified to be conservatives and this, did indeed, fit with the authoritarian personality.

OLBERMANN: Did the studies indicate that this really has anything to do with the political point of view? Would it be easier to impose authoritarianism over the right than it would the left? Is it theoretically possible that it could have gone in either direction and it's just a question of people who like to follow other people?

DEAN: They have found, really, maybe a small, 1%, of the left who will follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it's just overwhelmingly conservative orientation.

OLBERMANN: And the idea of leaders and followers going down this path or perhaps taking a country down this path requires -- this whole edifice requires and enemy. Communism, al Qaeda, Democrats, me... whoever for the two-minutes hate. I overuse the Orwellian analogies to nauseating proportions. But it really was, in reading what you wrote about, especially what the academics talked about. There was that two-minutes hate. There has to be an opponent, an enemy, to coalesce around or the whole thing falls apart. Is that the gist of it?

DEAN: It is one of the things, believe it or not, that still holds conservatism together. There is many factions in conservatism and their dislike or hatred of those they betray as liberal, who will basically be anybody who disagrees with them, is one of the cohesive factors. There are a few others but that's certainly one of the basics. There's no question that, particularly the followers, they're very aggressive in their effort to pursue and help their authority figure out or authority beliefs out. They will do what ever needs to be done in many regards. They will blindly follow. They stay loyal too long and this is the frightening part of it.


Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwater

Sorry, have to disagree with you. Today's "liberalism" is nothing short of an attempt to enslave the masses. The gay rights issue is a very good example. Those who disagree with today's politically correct liberalism are excoriated in all aspects of society. One who dares to say "Marriage is between one man and one woman", will be verbally flogged if not physically flogged. Those who dare to speak out against abortion are as well and are accused of wanting to keep a woman "barefoot and pregnant". God help the man or woman who says that contraceptives should not be given by middle schools or that kindergarten should not be teaching sex education!

I can't and won't say that was liberalism from day one, but it is most definitely what conservatives have to put up with today. I admit, conservatives aren't really all that different, but liberalism as it stands today is nothing short of forced enslavement of the masses. Maybe you like to think that it is different because you support their causes, but don't you dare disagree with them on any subject.

Immie

No Immie. Liberalism is an attempt to FREE the masses. EVERY man or woman has the right to fall in love with who THEY choose, not who conservatives deem acceptable. EVERY woman has the right to decide what SHE chooses to do with her uterus, not what conservatives deem she can do with her uterus and her life.

Conservatives have the right to their opinion, but not the right to write laws that TAKE AWAY people's rights.

Conservatives have launched a frontal assault on unions, public employees, women's rights, immigrants, the environment, health care, voting rights, food safety, pensions, prenatal care, science, public broadcasting, and on and on.

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.

do you even understand what conservative actually means or what it is to conserve? because quite frankly you don't sound like you know much of anything

Welcome to my nightmare