Why does the world hate American conservatives?
Most people in the world seem whipped into obedience by their government masters.
Like a broken slave, when offered freedom, they respond, "but what would I do without my master"?
So, freedom, limited government, limited taxation are likely heretical ideas to them.
Last edited by LoveNotHate on 26 May 2016, 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,692
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
I was going to say because they're light-skinned (thus fair targets) and they typically won't kill you for speaking out against them. I only included light-skinned in that of course because any other color conservative gets destroyed by the media rather quickly so they typically don't last long as public figures.
_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.
Sounds like BS.
Media is 90%+ liberal, and focuses on the small percentage of crazy conservatives to the exclusion the vast majority who are perfectly normal people with a differing set of political beliefs. Even urban liberals in the US often have little to no direct contact with actual conservatives, and get all their ideas about them from the media, without realizing that they're simply being told what they want to hear, that they're the smart ones, that their opponents are all a bunch of religious rubes, etc.
Personally, I could care less what the rest of the world thinks, it's just kind of annoying that the misinformation is so pervasive, I'm still deprogramming my Canadian girlfriend after years of exposure to this garbage.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Hmmm. Lots of interesting ideas. I'd like to point out that although the US has its cultural roots in Europe, some things are very different. We Europeans like to think that Americans are a lot like us, because we are so exposed to American culture, but that is not really the case.
I disagree that American media is dominated by liberals, though. I think it's dominated by corporations. As long as American citizens discuss the pros and cons of abortion and gay marriage, nobody pays attention to where the money goes.
That said, I think some political differences have roots in religious differences. American conservatives are so busy telling themselves that they are more religious than everyone else, and European social democrats are so busy telling themselves they are less religious than everyone else, that everyone ignores the religious foundation of their political ideas.
The US has a particular brand of protestantism that sees worldly goods as a sign of God's favor. As far as I understand, it is similar to the Islamic idea of accepting Allah's blessings and not questioning good fortune. In the rest of the Christian world, money is a dirty word (unless it belongs to the church, of course
). See Matthew 19:24. http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-24.htm
I grew up on that story, and that of the good Samaritan, and the prodigal son. The Orthodox churches have always stuck with the original Christian idea of sanctity through poverty, and it's been kept alive by controversial figures like St. Franciscus. From a European point of view, a lot of American Christians are worshipping Mammon instead of God.
American conservatives make an awful lot of fuss about how socialism is opposed to religion - but social policies like free education and healthcare are right in line with the Christian ideal of giving. Seen through the eyes of European Christians, Americans aren't giving quite hard enough. Americans could have the living standards and the low infant mortality of other industrialized countries, but they choose not to.
_________________
I sometimes leave conversations and return after a long time. I am sorry about it, but I need a lot of time to think about it when I am not sure how I feel.
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,692
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
Xenosparadox
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: 17 May 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 31
Location: The great Moons of Neptune
During his first time, he most certainly was(an insane warmonger). But partly it was hardliners in his cabinet(like Dick Cheney and Alexander Haig) who agitated for "limited nuclear war" back in 1982. This policy, combined with the 1983 star wars program, but particularly the limited nuclear war doctrine where the US would attempt to preemptively attack the USSR with nuclear weapons and actually win the cold war with direct military action is what lead to Yuri Andropov's paranoia that the US was plotting a sneak attack and nearly provoked war. First in September 26, 1983(Petrov affair) and then in early November that year with ABLE ARCHER(the most provocative maneuver by the US and NATO). I will give him credit for his "Reagan reversal" that led to the end of the (1st) cold war but his aggressive covert military interventionism should not be overlooked.
Particularly the covert US intervention in Afghanistan against the USSR(code named Operation Cyclone) would ultimately prove disastrous for the US because it paved the way for the 9/11 attacks as the CIA provided training to terrorists who would seek US targets in the 90s and strike successfully in 2001.
The Soviets were plenty provocative as well, a few months before those incidents the Soviets shot down KAL 007 with congressman Larry McDonald on board. Reagan should be given credit for his restraint especially considering the real insane warmongers he had in his administration as you noted. As I'm sure you know the covert war in Afghanistan was started under Jimmy Carter, Carter boycotted the Moscow Olympics and put an embargo to grain to Soviets both of which Reagan opposed. 'But you are right that our covert war in Afghanistan was a monumental mistake, it is a textbook example of blowback that we are still feeling today although I suppose you can ask the question as to how much bogging the Soviet's down in Afghanistan contributed to their collapse and what value you put on that.
Its a bit *T00* coincidental that KAL-007's flight # is the same as her majesties secret service agent James Bond.
That story is still not entirely complete because there are a number of possibilities as to why the jet strayed into Soviet airspace and at a time when US-Soviet tensions were heightened in part to due to the PsyOps that Reagan had been engaging with(such as sending entire squadrons of US warplanes right up to the boundaries of Soviet airspace to fool them into thinking a possible attack was about to ensue then pealing off before Soviet fighter jets could intercept). He does deserve credit for putting a stop to the insane hardliners in his administration at the beginning of 1984 and onwards.
Carter however, is not responsible for Operation Cyclone. He ordered the US boycott of the 1980 summer olympics as a protest but it was Reagan who was involved in arming and training Islamic terrorists.
Xenosparadox
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: 17 May 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 31
Location: The great Moons of Neptune
The US has a particular brand of protestantism that sees worldly goods as a sign of God's favor. As far as I understand, it is similar to the Islamic idea of accepting Allah's blessings and not questioning good fortune. In the rest of the Christian world, money is a dirty word (unless it belongs to the church, of course
I grew up on that story, and that of the good Samaritan, and the prodigal son. The Orthodox churches have always stuck with the original Christian idea of sanctity through poverty, and it's been kept alive by controversial figures like St. Franciscus. From a European point of view, a lot of American Christians are worshipping Mammon instead of God.
American conservatives make an awful lot of fuss about how socialism is opposed to religion - but social policies like free education and healthcare are right in line with the Christian ideal of giving. Seen through the eyes of European Christians, Americans aren't giving quite hard enough. Americans could have the living standards and the low infant mortality of other industrialized countries, but they choose not to.
GENAU!! !! !! !
Even the secular right(libertarians and particularly objectivists)has its ideological basis rooted in Calvinist protestantism. Way back in the 16th and into the 17th centuries before America became a nationstate, Calvinism took hold in certain parts of Northern Europe but not others. It never succeeded in England, Scandinavia, or Germany. But became rampant in its native Switzerland and really took hold in Scotland. Calvinist beliefs seem to go over well in honor cultures rather than highly centralized societies based on rule of law. Many Islamic nations also use the honor system as well.
That story is still not entirely complete because there are a number of possibilities as to why the jet strayed into Soviet airspace and at a time when US-Soviet tensions were heightened in part to due to the PsyOps that Reagan had been engaging with(such as sending entire squadrons of US warplanes right up to the boundaries of Soviet airspace to fool them into thinking a possible attack was about to ensue then pealing off before Soviet fighter jets could intercept). He does deserve credit for putting a stop to the insane hardliners in his administration at the beginning of 1984 and onwards.
Carter however, is not responsible for Operation Cyclone. He ordered the US boycott of the 1980 summer olympics as a protest but it was Reagan who was involved in arming and training Islamic terrorists.
Now I'm a bit partial to Larry McDonald, he was sort of the Ron Paul before there was a Ron Paul so it kind catches my ear that there was a conspiracy when its comes to the downing of KAL 007. Senator Jesse Helms was supposed to be on the flight actually as well so is it possible that Soviet's downed the plane just to kill Congressman McDonald? Maybe even more insidiously, maybe it wasn't the Soviet's plan. The bodies were never recovered either, there was no luggage, no anything, the is this possibility that the Soviet's took those passengers as prisoner or something I don't know.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
World War one: Woodrow Wilson -Democrat
World War I was started by Austria-Hungary (declaration of war on Serbia on 28 July 1914).
World War II was started by Nazi Germany (Invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939).
The Korean was was started by North Korea (invasion of South Korea on 25 June 1950).
The Vietnam War was started - initially as the First Indochina War - by the Viet Minh (At the Battle of Hanoi in 19 December 1946)
He didn't start the war. He ended it.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was started when the President of the United States of America - with no provocation - authorized the US Air Force to carry out an attack on Dora Farms (which failed, BTW) on the outskirts of Baghdad on 19 March 2003.
BTW, the 1991 Iraq was wasn't started by the US, either.... It was started by Iraq on 2 august 1990, when they invaded Kuwait.
And the MI6 warned the US that the Intel was unreliable as early as April 2002, more than a year before the invasion:
Source: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-WMD/pdf/GPO-WMD.pdf (see page 91)
(The false intel about Iraqi WMDs wasn't first reported by the MI6, BTW... It was the German BundesnachrichtendienstBND, but they didn't trust it... and they definitely didn't use it to start - or participate in - a war.)
I am not a Republican or Democrat, I just don't like reactionary nonsense
But you do like nonsense, it would seem...
Thank you! I constantly hear conservatives say how we've gotten into war under "peace loving" Democrats, without caring to mention how those Democrat Presidents weren't the ones who started those wars, but were only carrying out their oath to protect the American people from enemies both foreign and domestic.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
A previous poster may have been careless in his language, but you do know that there's a difference between starting a war and getting us into a war, yes?
_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand
As a lifelong atheist I suppose it's too much to hope that I'll ever make sense of theology. Just the same, it seems to me that if giving is held to be a moral ideal, then using the threat of prison in order to force others to give isn't the same thing at all.
Sure, why would I want to lower my living standards?
_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand
It's not difficult to prove, just look at the demographics of reporters; for that matter, even without busting out the stats, do you really think it's Iowa farm boys enrolling in J-school?
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Hello, WP world! |
30 Jun 2026, 4:12 pm |
| Are there a lot of crazy people in this world? |
11 Jul 2026, 4:07 pm |
