Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by SaturnFX
The major difference is, a strong libertarian type conservative will look at the constitution and see that is the absolute pinnicle of society...that it is perfect, and nothing more should ever be added..basically our civilization peaked hundreds of years ago and all we can hope to achieve is a holding pattern for eternity.

I am not sure where you drawing this wisdom from on this premise. Care to elaborate?

Well, mostly from the fact that its always a talk about rolling back to the founders original intent verses discussing if we should collectively try something new.
Social security..lets use this as an example.
Its a damn good idea..and its an idea that came for two purposes
First, it was a semi-underhanded scam admittedly. getting a nice pension at an age that at the time was pretty high up there...sort of a reward for attaining old age in rough times.
But
It also addressed an actual problem..that being elderly people whom simply couldn't bring home a paycheck living and dying in the streets after a lifetime of blue collar working.

The concept is a good concept. it should be preserved, but the hard libertarians are suggesting it should be nuked because its not part of the constitution, nor did the founding fathers envision it..therefore, scrap it.

This to me is a holding pattern with no room for bettering our society.
The first half sentence of the preamble says it all and is overlooked by the far right
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..."
Stop right there and contemplate
Why doesn't it say "in order to make the most perfect union ever.." or "in order to make a meh, slight improvement"..no, everything that follows is them attempting to use the wisdom and knowledge of the day to make a -more perfect- union..knowing they will still fall short and perhaps the wisdom of later generations will add and enhance for an even more perfect union.

The rollback to 1865 mindset is a mindset that not only wants to destroy any wisdom of governance we have learned from decade to decade, but arguably goes further against the original founding fathers intent...to continue working and perfecting this union.

For a liberal (not all, but I like to think the intelligent ones), its never about removing constitutional rights, its about preserving them, and adding on to continue the original movement of perfecting this endless work in progress called a nation.

-waves a flag and all that stuff-

We aren't even working with Liberal or Conservative here. We are working with ideological constructs defined by political parties. That would be Republican and Democrat. There has been no real liberal representation in the U.S. since the end of Vietnam. Some may bring up Pelosi and Obama. Pelosi voted for 80% of what Bush wanted when he was was in office during her term. That doesn't sound very liberal. Most of Obama policies are not that unlike those of Bush. So where are all these much vaunted liberals? Colleges? Which Ones? I've been to college, only met one guy who might have been liberal.

There is nothing rational about politics. If there was we wouldn't be in this mess. Everything about it is emotional. It doesn't matter who is smarter. Listen to the speeches, they are not designed to stimulate your intellect. They are designed to hit on fears or hopes. So yeah, keep stroking yourself about how smart you are because you vote for X guy. The likelihood you voted for anyone based on rational, intelligent logic is very slim. That's not an insult, that's just how humans work. Feeling trumps logic almost every time. Why even talk about intelligence when it's so obvious no one is using it?

Originally posted by antonia
There is nothing rational about politics. If there was we wouldn't be in this mess. Everything about it is emotional. It doesn't matter who is smarter. Listen to the speeches, they are not designed to stimulate your intellect. They are designed to hit on fears or hopes.

That sounds close to it!

Originally posted by antonia
The likelihood you voted for anyone based on rational, intelligent logic is very slim. That's not an insult, that's just how humans work. Feeling trumps logic almost every time.

Not all humans are conservatives you know?

Conservatives are pro life, believes in personal responsibility, self reliance I don't see anything wrong with that.

Originally posted by HangTheTraitors
Most CONservatives proudly display that they still believe in fairy tales involving TALKING SNAKES...

...and believe in imaginary friends claiming that "god" talks to them.

Many still feel bitter that women and minorities are now allowed to vote.

Many think that everyone in the world who isnt like them should be blown up.

Many of them do not care for the environment, workers rights, fair wages and health coverage.

And, of course... EDUCATION doesn't rank too high on their list of priorities. Go figure!

Whats that tell ya about them?

Thats just the tip of the iceberg. They havent evolved much since the stone-age.

edit on 4-2-2012 by HangTheTraitors because: (no reason given)

I am a conservative, with a bachelor degree and everything you said is an absolute falsehood. I don't think ANY of those things, never have. I am in medicine, an artist, a spiritualist, and a lover of all animals and nature. Now, I don't see any of the things listed here that resemble anything you said. So that makes you look like a prejudice fool, true sign of a liberal.

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
I am a conservative, with a bachelor degree and everything you said is an absolute falsehood. I don't think ANY of those things, never have. I am in medicine, an artist, a spiritualist, and a lover of all animals and nature. Now, I don't see any of the things listed here that resemble anything you said. So that makes you look like a prejudice fool, true sign of a liberal.

I hate to point out the obvious here but he said "most."

You are not most. You are not all. You are not even some. You are just you. An intelligent person would know the difference. Conservative you say? Just keeping notes.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Well, mostly from the fact that its always a talk about rolling back to the founders original intent verses discussing if we should collectively try something new.

Now here -- no matter your political ideology is something that most can adhere to. But what happens is one group takes a statement that was made by another -- say "original intent" and skew it to their liking. This isn't what I am saying you are doing, but I am explaining what happens.

While many, including myself would argue that an adhering to the original intent would be more favorable -- it isn't a call for a static and non-modifiable document in which we cannot shape to fit the type of governance we desire as a whole.

Social security..lets use this as an example.
Its a damn good idea..and its an idea that came for two purposes
First, it was a semi-underhanded scam admittedly. getting a nice pension at an age that at the time was pretty high up there...sort of a reward for attaining old age in rough times.
But
It also addressed an actual problem..that being elderly people whom simply couldn't bring home a paycheck living and dying in the streets after a lifetime of blue collar working.

Then -- since we are on the topic of Social Security and the US Constitution -- would they not just amend the Constitution and put into place a valid function of Government?

The concept is a good concept. it should be preserved, but the hard libertarians are suggesting it should be nuked because its not part of the constitution, nor did the founding fathers envision it..therefore, scrap it.

The first half sentence of the preamble says it all and is overlooked by the far right
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..."
Stop right there and contemplate

I will as soon as I address first what "group" are we discussing? Is it the far right? Libertarian Conservatives (whatever that is)?

Why doesn't it say "in order to make the most perfect union ever.." or "in order to make a meh, slight improvement"..no, everything that follows is them attempting to use the wisdom and knowledge of the day to make a -more perfect- union..knowing they will still fall short and perhaps the wisdom of later generations will add and enhance for an even more perfect union.

Still contemplating what you said -- but also drawing back to your example of Social Security. If you quote the Preamble and then not question why your very government made no attempt to place into the Law of the Land a valid and Constitutional function of Government; then you are being selective in just exactly how to apply the Constitution.

Which leads us back to your original premise. You led with that "original intent" is the desire that we want to forever live in the 18th century. That Government was at the height of its glory and that nothing more could ever be added and/or removed as society moved forward. Never mind missing the whole argument that adhering to the original intent would also mean adhering to the Constitutional function of the Amendment process.

Unfortunately I have to leave -- and I will finish my argument later.

I personally think liberals and conservatives are wired differently.
I also think that this wiring creates a tendencies in the thought process
and I feel I have seen enough to have a very solid opinion regarding
the core of the liberal, conservative dichotomy. In the end, when you govern,
you are only able to consider so much, understand so much, I believe this is where
the wiring takes over.

It is only when the wiring is coupled with mystical, magical ideas, that I question things.
It is not intelligence per say, it is a intentionally cultivated stupidity, because a one line
idea or slogan can do a great deal to severe critical thought, especially when considering
a thing like governing hundreds of millions of people.

Now spiritually, I am not sure why any body looks at life, existence on this Earth as one long
business transaction, this is that part that fires me up, the part that I thing is wrong and
pathetic as to the state of man kind. Why anyone should die, or go hungry due to lack of
money, money which is fake I might add, is insanity, not stupidity, insane...

Gracias

Originally posted by User8911

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki
Well my IQ is around 145 (higher than about 99.7% of the world) and I tend to favor the Republican party. However, both sides are corrupt, so I really don't even pay much attention anymore. In my opinion it's all rigged anyway.

What the hell, I got like 142, I know I'm intelligent in many fields but I would almost feel bad if I was in the 1% top...I'm canadian and I'm mostly left in my thinking.

Both sides are indeed corrupted, sadly intelligence doesn't come with ego balancing and impossible to corrupt.
Theses are things everyone should learn intelligent or less.

edit on 5-2-2012 by User8911 because: (no reason given)

Dude, I don't know about you, but I can't walk down my driveway without running into 15 retarded apes.

....so yea, top 0.3% it is. Welcome to the club. I'm surprised you don't notice it more, especially on the internet, and especially on this site. No offense to the others reading, as there are definitely some intelligent people on here, but there's also an abundance of looney tunes as well. I mean, John Lear thought there were holograms that flew into the world trade centers for god's sake, we got people who STILL don't believe we went to the moon, etc etc.

Anyway, I can't imagine what people with even higher IQ's must feel. Must be hell.