Why is the conservative right so angry?

reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary

In rebuttal to your long winded post.
You have your liberal opinions and as I stated before I will not argue with you about it since it is obvious that we will not change eachother's minds.
(to be honest with you I just kind of glanced through your post since your responses are exactly what I expected)

Historically speaking and I mean in the broad sweep of history not just modern American political history.... the right wing conservative is almost always angry in that they feel that something vital and precious about their society is being destroyed.

At the same time using the same sweep of history it can be argued that the left is almost always indignant and righteous about wanting to fix what they see as injustices within their society.

Using the same approach it can be shown that conservatism is always on the losing side of history.

They are pissed that they are gona loose control of this country! They are pissed that they will no longer have control of all our lives. They are pissed John McCain is 72yrs old and Sara Palin is clueless! I could go on and on....

reply to post by OuttaHere


You have an entire news channel and most talk radio shows are conservative.

Consider this also:

Most artists are liberal by nature. That includes painters, writers, singers, song writers, etc. These are the people who make the media go round. It's not all a giant conspiracy.

And how can you marginalized? Republicans have had congressional control for 12 out of the last 16 years. They had congressional control and executive control for 6 out of the past 8 years.

Liberals may get more press by nature, but we get slammed by the electoral college. The middle states that carry large electoral votes minimalize a large portion of this country.

Incidentally, I think the US needs to get rid of the party system. After all, that's what most of our founding fathers believed (especially GW).

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by scientist
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary

 

sheesh, don't you realize that these well thought out rebuttals, and healthy debate will in most cases kill a thread? You have to at least make the illusion that your argument is vulnerable. Sort of the same concept as, if you don't let the other kids win once in a while, they won't want to play with you anymore.

Well said!

lol, I will have to remember that next time and try not to articulate my positions so firmly. Thanks for the vote of confidence. It took me a little while but allowed me to get a few things off my chest.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by BluegrassRevolutionary]

Originally posted by deathhasnosound
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary

 

In rebuttal to your long winded post.
You have your liberal opinions and as I stated before I will not argue with you about it since it is obvious that we will not change eachother's minds.
(to be honest with you I just kind of glanced through your post since your responses are exactly what I expected)

Sorry so "long winded", you made lots of points and I felt it would be rude to not address each one of them. Besides, it gave me a chance comment on many of the frustrations I have heard lately coming from the right.

I do agree with you however that I felt there was little chance that anything I said would change you mind about even a single point you made. However, I do feel it was rather inconsiderate of you to only "glance" over my post, I obviously took the time to evaluate YOUR post in its entirety. That being said, it was what I expected, typical response from the right...change the subject or turn a blind eye. Not surprisingly, you chose the later. By the way, in case you missed it, I actually agreed with you on a couple of the things you said.

OP, I'm mad as hell cause I was duped. I didn't get my money's worth. I was lied to. I am now pissed off.

Yep, I voted for Bush. Twice. I'm a moron.

reply to post by tmbandt


It's alright. We all make mistakes. I can see how some might have voted for Bush in 2004.

Many of the scandals had not yet occurred, and it wouldn't have been ridiculous to give him and his administration the benefit of the doubt in those days.