Thank you for making this observation. I think one reason Sam might have a hard time comprehending it is his own personality. He spent the 8 Bush years here as a cheerleader for economic policies that led us right into the shitter, urging us to clap hard if we believe all the while. Right wingers are much more authoritarian, so if their preferred leader tells them, for instance, that deficits don’t matter, they don’t matter, until that deficit becomes the responsibility of someone they view as an opponent.
All of the above is a lie, especially the part about leaders and the deficit.
Regards,
Shodan
I think Hentor is both honest and reasonably accurate here.
If you push past Republicans (who are not necessarily Conservatives) you get to what I call “hard-line Energy Conservatives”, who even though they may, or may not (mostly not) believe in AGW, are nonetheless very strongly motivated to push renewable energy, sustainable energy, environmental protection, and efficiency. If I had to summarize their philosophy, it would be one of “we need to be able to end ALL energy imports, stop using our non-renewable energy and keep it in reserve, stop funding Muslim terrorists by sending trillions of dollars to their home countries, stop shitting in our own environmental back yard, and stop being so damn wasteful.” While they are concerned about business and economic impacts, they’re more concerned about the 100-year view, about national security via true energy independence, about ending the self-destructive shallow philosophy of “consume! Buy stupid gadgets! Waste! Trump my neighbours by being more of an idiot than them! Football, big trucks, and USA! No way am I a loser!” and about rallying the nearly dead Spirit of America to have us lead this world again in energy and the environment.
These people are pro-nuclear, pro-solar, pro-wind, pro-biofuels, pro-efficiency. These are the people (like my coworkers) who rig up homemade solar water heaters and PV arrays, specify 2x8 walls in their new house so they can get super insulation levels, and who xeriscape their lawns to save water.
People like me fall into this category, with the caveat that I also believe that AGW is happening. I meet a lot of these “hard-line Energy Conservatives” in my Professional life, and I even work with several of them. Most of the Decision Makers out there are not these sort; they’re the more Republican obstructionist sort instead. This unfortunately lends itself to folks with no professional qualifications or experience throwing around the “All conservatives believe this about energy and the environment blah blah whinney moo neigh…” These hardliners are out there, and in my two decades of work in the area, they seem to be growing.
Sam’s been saying for a year or more that Canada’s economic policies have been proven to be superior to the USA’s. He’s also on record as preferring Canada’s position on any number of social policies as well, such as gay marriage.
I’d like to see you and/or Hentorshow your evidence for the assertion that fiscal conservatives are “more authoritarian” than fiscal liberals. Thanking you in advance.
I’ve posted this material before. Do a search of the literature in social psychology on political orientation and authoritarianism.
Of course, you can also look out the window. Recall the rampant “party before country” attitude that pervaded the right during the Bush years, and contrast it with the ability of those on the left to actually criticize Obama based on their beliefs about what is right.
By the way, you’re welcome in advance.
He isn’t, as evidenced by all the “Bush is a terrible President because he ran a deficit” and “Obama is a great President even though he doubled the deficit”.
Followed, of course, by several pages of rationalization.
Regards,
Shodan
Hentor, you are failing to separate out fiscal conservatives from “right-wingers.” You think that just because Sam supports fiscally conservative policies, then that means he’s a right-winger, and that means that he supports those policies only because the right-wing leaders tell him to, because right-wingers are more “authoritarian” (by which you apparently mean that they believe one should listen to authority).
If you had the ability to think critically you would see that the above line of analysis doesn’t hold together. Sam can support policies that also happen to be supported by a group for reasons wholly independent of Sam’s membership in or identification with that group. Therefore, just because he supports fiscally conservative policies does no t mean that he’s a right-winger that only supports those policies because the right-wing leaders tell him to. Your analysis here boils down to “Sam is bad because he is bad.”
Why Rand Rover, So Sam Stone, the one that is telling us that AGW is real is correct?
Glad we could confirm that.
(And yes, the point here is that you are such a dunderhead that you can not even notice when the ones you are defending are actually saying that guys like you are full of hot air)
I’m very familiar with Sam, thanks you newbie douchebag. I had to wait for what was it, five years… more… before I finally got him to admit to making a false claim about the Bushes and NASA. thanks for your opinion, however. I’ll give it all of the attention it is due.
In a previous post, I asked Sam to link to show the record of his great concern for the deficit when Bush (either one) was in office.
Sam also thought the economy was okay 6 months before the great recession came crashing down. That vaunted Austrian Economics didn’t help on that prediction.
Two years on this message board makes him a “newbie?” :dubious:
Some people are just born to be newbs forever.
You can pick em out when they start bragging about their $500 dollar ties and such.
That would sure be good evidence. Can you please point to it? Or did it never happen? And you accuse me of lying? What a pathetic little bot you are.
Aww, c’mon, he never did that! Seriously? Only a neutron density asshole would do a thing like that. Sure, the guy’s a total douche, but not that bad!
No, but being a bright but socially inept teenager, apparently with a tax attorney dad who’s taught him some lingo, who wants the grownups on some message board to take him seriously so he tries to pretend he’s one, does.
Newbieism is a state of mind, nothing chronological - little **Randy’**s gonna be a newbie until he finds something to fuck that’s not on the end of his arm.
Back to the OP topic, Sam lost any claim to credibility when he was peddling every single Bush lie about Iraq’s WMD’s as if it were obvious truth, and urging the Americans to go kick Saddam’s ass so he could cheer from the comfort of his TV room. The suggestion that he come down and enlist, something he was eligible to do, never got an answer from him, though. And he still, to this day, won’t admit he was so badly fooled.
We don’t even need to get into his endless, thoughtless partisan choler over domestic US matters that have exactly zero effect on Canada.
Sheesh, has it really been 2 years that Rand has graced us with his presence? Wow!
Nevertheless, I have a pretty long period of familiarity with Sam to know who and what I’m talking about.
Too bad you don’t have such a familiarity with logic and reason. You are saying that every fiscal conservative is a right-winger that simply bases their beliefs on what the head right-wingers say they should believe. That is beyond idiotic, and obviously so.
Y
please cite me having said that. Until you do, you can take your assessment of my ability to use logic and reason and jam it up your urethra.