True. But given that we’re living in a closely-connected global economy that’s getting more tightly connected every day, is an American-centric policy really the best for the long term? Especially if it means doing dangerously stupid things like supporting the Contras?
(Not to hijack my own tread, but I still can’t grasp why Conservatives vilify Clinton for lying about a blow-job, yet hail Reagan as a hero for selling arms to Iran…)
I’ve often expressed respect for liberal points of view. I’d even suggest that this is not an uncommon stance for a conservatative.
What do you suppose we think about this, and by extension, you?
Personally, I just get embarassed for my reasonable, considerate, and intelligent, liberal friends.
I doubt you’ll get any high fives from them.
I think the misunderstanding about progressives is mainly caused by Rush Limbaugh, whose broad claims and assertions have been debunked almost word for word, even by a logician who logged hundreds of his favorite fallacies. Of course, Rush (not his original name) is really a freshman dropout who never could keep a job until syndicated by Capitol Cities (a conservative network) to spoon-feed garbage to the opinionated anti-intellectuals across the bible belt (who were born and bred to be disinformed and are deathly afraid of CHANGE). What were they afraid of? What weren’t they afraid of? Hillary, Chelsea (whom Rush called a “dog”), environmentalists, Hollywood, gays, everyone who wasn’t rich and powerful and self-righteous. FYI, ultra-conservatives are generally stupid, not merely unintelligent. They tend to flaunt their self-glorified mythology about the racist and depression-addled “good old days” when crime didn’t exist and everyone was happy to be poor and a penny really did bring you good luck. Their infantile fears are legendary, and they could count them on both hands as to never forget, just like the ten commandments.
Actually, there’s a biography of Limbaugh here
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/7/0,5716,125457+1+115204,00.html?query=rush%20limbaugh
It seems to suggest that his real name IS Rush Limbaugh, and that, while he was fired a bunch, he didn’t become successful when he was syndicated by Capitol Cities/ABC, but before that, in Sacramento, which is why ABC picked him up. Also, Brian, why would you call Capitol Cities/ABC a particularly conservative network?
Short answer to the OP: No.
Long answer: No, and quit making generalizations. You’re making the rest of us look bad, like xeno said.
Full answer: No, but… While it’s not fair to say that most conservatives are dumb, it’s demonstrably true the lower their education, the more socially conservative people tend to be. It’s also true that the higher their income, the more fiscally conservative people tend to be. (There are, obviously, many many exceptions.)
Make of that what you will.
Further disproving your own dumb premise. I really don’t think too many conservatives call Reagan a hero for “selling arms to Iran;” I think they call him a hero for other reasons.
Now to address Mr. Clinton’s lying. Is it not the height of stupidity to continually repeat an action (his lying) that is detrimental to your own character? Does his repetitive act of lying again and again while expecting different results (not getting caught … this time) not show stupidity? It at least shows an inability to learn from your mistakes. And is this not one of the foundations of intelligence?
Permit me to rephrase rjung’s question, then:
I still can’t grasp why conservatives vilify Clinton for lying about a blow-job, yet continue to hail Reagan as a hero despite the strong likelihood that he lied about selling arms to Iran. (Specifically, he said he wouldn’t and then his administration, y’know, did anyway.)
Sorry, guess I missed the last “Officially Approved Groupthink Talking Points” bulletin there. 
Besides, as my OP suggested, this was partially meant as a tongue-in-cheek issue anyway (I sure don’t expect any major investigation into the issues, because I know that they’re all rather subjective and can’t really be plumbed anyway).
Can’t wait to see the responses to this one…
That’s a fair restatment, Gadarene. But why didn’t rjung say what (s)he meant then? Or shall I chalk your poor grasp of English in the disproof column, too?
As for my own opinion of Reagan, I think I expressed it in a recent thread. But that ain’t what this thread is about, is it? It’s about a stupidly generalized “tongue-in-cheek” opinion.
Wonderful. “Four legs good, two legs bad” is always a fine premise for debate.
Brian’s mention of “Ol’ Rushbo” Limbaugh is oddly appropriate, as one of the show’s most annoying characteristics is its tendency to demonize everyone on the left as dumb, overbearing and downright evil. This tactic is bankrupt no matter who uses it.
By the way, while I’ve said elsewhere that other Presidents (i.e. Nixon, Reagan) have committed acts far more egregious than Clinton, it does get tiresome to hear critics of Bubba’s presidency described as Republicans bent out of shape about a blowjob. Sounds reminiscent of those who derided Watergate as a “third-rate burglary”.
According to the Biography series on A&E, Rush was raised in the Midwest as Jeff Lindsay, or something damn close to that. The biography actually was the life of a sad character who envied the jocks, people with good grades and girlfriends, and generally was motivated to please anyone, sort of like his audience now. When I see the covers to his magizines in the library they always feature him 100 lbs lighter and buff doing some heroic thing or two. To me, it seems like a lame attempt at a joke, but to Rush, I’m convinced it is a twisted self-image.
They think differently than we–am I correct in assuming that you are a liberal?–do. Besides, I think there are all kinds of conservatives. Some are economically conservative, others morally conservative, conservative in international relations, etc. There are conservatives that, in all honesty, don’t give a flying shit about Bill Clinton’s sexual habits. There are also those conservatives that are interested in his sex habits for other reasons 
–Gabe
You have it backwards. Limbaugh used a pseudonym, Jeff Christie, as a radio DJ. That’s not uncommon. A lot of DJs and other entertainers use stage names, especially if their names are unusual or hard to pronounce. BTW, he has lost weight.
I, for one, am simply confused about the OP’s assertion that Conservativism is “short-sighted”. It’s always been my impression (as a half-conservative, half-liberal hybrid) that conservative views - truly conservative views, which ignores crap spawned by religious weirdness - operate from a Big Picture point of view. The drawback, of course, is that it would allow suffering in the present in favor of greater rewards in the future.
Religious views just seem to throw a wrench in the works… ::grumble grumble stupid Religious Right grumble grumble::
While it is true that Limbaugh’s show ain’t exactly the epitome of accuracy, I think “Ol’ Rushbo” is mentioned only to demonize the right. “All conservative’s are like Limbaugh, so they’re all horrible and evil!”
Here’s a hint… not all Republicans think Limbaugh is an oracle of truth.
Actually, conservative thought, by it’s very definition, tends to focus one’s vision into the past in order to gauge present situations. Contrasted with “truly liberal views”, which tend to embrace change over tradition, conservatism, while it couldn’t fairly be termed any more or less “short-sighted”, is definitely less forward thinking.
This is not a slam on conservatives or conservative thought, merely a comment on the differences in outlook between conservative and liberal philosophies. (We’ve examined those differences fairly recently in GD; I’ll try and find the thread.) IMHO, neither political philosophy has a “Big Picture” advantage over the other, just a different approach to the same concerns.
I would think that members of a political ideology that continually, unwaveringly, repeat phrases such as,
“… all for lying about a blowjob.”
“Count the votes! They didn’t count the votes! They stopped counting the votes!”
“Gore won the election.”
“Bush stole the election.”
and/or
“The U.S. Supreme Court stole the election for Bush.”
… despite how completely such statements have been repeatedly refuted, ad nauseum, need to do their own intelligence-check.
BTW, xeno: Don’t you think it’s a bit presumptuous of you to define conservatism? Any definitions I have given or would ever give about liberalism would clearly be my own opinion.
Making statements such as conservatism “is definitely less forward-thinking” and holding them out as some sort of self-evident truth … well, some of us disagree. It’s your opinion.
I truly appreciated your repudiation of this OP. Don’t go ruining it now.
And you people think Al Gore is an intellectual. Yeesh …
“Less forward-thinking” is certainly a contestable opinion, but I believe it’s supported by the commonly held definitions of “conservatism” and “liberalism”. Since there are commonly held definitions for both, it’s no more presumptious of me to define conservatism in general terms than it would be for me to define communism or Euclidean geometry in general terms.
Here’s what Brittanica.com says:
Admittedly, of course, the Brittanica gives a definition of “classic” liberalism, which resembles modern libertarianism more than modern liberal thought. However, liberalism still includes as a basic tenet an openness to change that conservatism discourages. In that sense, I think it’s justifiable to say that liberalism looks forward while conservatism looks back. (Both can be valid approaches to particular concerns.)
Thanks for the 'preciation. I’ll just note that your last post might be perceived by some as putting forth a slightly less conciliatory tone than my last. ( back atcha!)
BTW, these two threads: Conservative Philosophy (thread started by Scylla) and Liberalism (thread started by Libertarian) have a minimum level of childish name calling but overall do alot to establish SDMB concensus on the meaning of Conservatism/Liberalism.
…make that consensus, rather than “concensus”…
:o