dogstank

I often sample content from RW radio stations and from Conservative websites. The constant theme from all is one of: America is failing, America is less than she used to be, America is becoming a nation of parasites and moochers, American economic collapse and a "race-war" is fast approaching, you need to buy guns and prepare for Doomsday, you need to build a doomsday bunker, the U.S President is a secret radical Muslim / Communist who hates Whites and hates America, things in the economy are only getting worse and any positive economic news is a lie, the lives of your grandchildren are being ruined, Blacks and Hispanics are ruining America, soon English will no longer be spoken, America is quickly becoming a God-less nation that no longer places emphasis on values or morality,you should be outraged & angry, government cannot do anything correctly, government is ruining your life, taxes and regulations are making it impossible to have a successful business or become wealthy, Liberals are ruining a once great nation, things were so much better in the past, you have little reason to live anymore.

Do Conservatives find any of that pessimistic and depressing? Do Conservatives ever desire to reject such negativeness and pessimism and instead show optimism, courage, strength, and fortitude? Or do Conservatives prefer to wallow in negativity, doom, gloom, and pessimism?

Do Conservatives think that "America sucks and it's all _________'s FAULT!!" is a winning formula?

Is there any good character remaining on the political Right or is there only poor character that wallows in negativeness, seethes, outrages, blames, cries persecution, predicts further demise, behaves hysterically, and expresses contempt & vitriol?

"I honestly think that left wingers in general have a serious problem with generalizing"

This dichotomy thing is not only idiotic, it is destructive. Individuals fall all over the political spectrum, but most fall in the middle and we share more in ideology than we differ in ideology. Anyone here opposed to allowing citizens to vote? Anyone here want no government at all? The labels are all relative anyway. So you say you are a Libertarian and are all in favor of Liberty. Does that mean you oppose laws denying the "liberty" to create child porn? You say you are a Conservative and you are ALL about "Freedom!l. Does that mean you support the freedom of Mexicans to cross the U.S. border undocumented?

The obvious answers would be anonymity and Evil ( in religious terms).

But I guess I am more asking if it is something new in society, and if it is, what brought it about ( in terms of the collective psychology of society ). My own theory is that it has come about because of all of the ease of life that has accompanied modernity. There is less humility as a result of fewer serious concerns for many in modern society and there is less humility as a result of their being less mystery in the world because of advances in knowledge of the world- If you are not afraid of being killed by a dragon, you tend to be more of a prick towards others. My experience is that peoples of poor nations or nations suffering warfare tend to be more humble, while people living comfortable & modern lives tend to be more arrogant and more often of the personality that trolls or is ugly towards others.

Were people in the U.S. in 1800 as likely as people today to say "you suck!" to someone else purely for the kick they get out of it? Did people respect each other more in the past, or is that just my modern misconception and cynicism?

I read the comment sections to news articles and they are littered with racist comments about Obama. Same with internet forums. And then there were the countless incidents of GOP politicians / Tea Party leaders passing around racist depictions of President Obama. I rarely see a comment from someone who is politically liberal that is racist. ( emphasis on "rarely", as it does happen ). The frequency of racism on the political Right far surpasses the frequency of racism on the political Left.

If true, it's only logical to some extent in that the political Right is more opposed to social programs that go to poor Blacks. And the political Right is more "states rights", a ideology that goes all the way back to the Confederacy. In fact, prominent Conservatives such as William F. Buckley argued against the Civil Rights Act on the grounds of states rights. So Conservative ideology and Republican positions on issues would be more attractive to someone who is racist towards Blacks. And someone who is racist in regard to Blacks is unlikely to support a party that twice elected a Black man. ( yeah, I know, "half Black" )

I know that Conservatives get tired of hearing the charge of racism. But it's all over the place on the political Right. From comments to articles by RWers, to comments by RWers on forums, to Tea Party leaders and supporters, to actual GOP politicians.

Not all or even a significant percentage of Republicans are racist. But my experience and observation is that the vast majority of those who are racist in regard to Blacks are Republicans. On the order of 98%.

Where have I gone wrong, if I have gone wrong in your opinion?

While modern American Conservatism is masculine?

That is, Liberalism features more feminine qualities while Conservatism features more masculine qualities. Female / Liberal qualities: nurturing, pacifism, caring, compassion, empathy, community, emphasis on intellect. Male / Conservative qualities: individualism, selfishness, aggression, bullying, cruelty, callousness, machismo, indifference, emphasis on physical strength. ( yes, I am showing my bias here ).

If this sounds absurd, consider how Right Wingers are frequently calling Liberals "lispy", "girly", "effeminate", "gay", "pussy", etc. And consider how Right Wingers generally make for better soldiers as they are more aggressive, less likely to be reluctant to kill, more macho, more likely to be into guns, weapons, and killing machines.

I submit that the female is the better of the two genders. Females are less likely to be cruel. Females are less likely to bully. Females are less likely to abandon a child, Females are less likely to commit adultery. Females are less likely to commit murder. Females are less often serial killers. Females are more likely than Males to be thoughtful. Females are less likely to steal. Females are more likely to be respectful of others. Females are more likely to be polite. Females are more likely to be caring and tolerant.

And thus, Liberalism is the "better" of the two...Liberalism is "better" than Conservatism. Would there be fewer wars and less cruelty in the world if all humans were females? I say yes. And likewise, there would be fewer wars and less cruelty in the world if all humans were of a Liberal personality.

In current American politics there is much discussion of self-reliance and the desire for "free stuff". But in the animal world there does not appear to be much desire to be self-reliant. Few animals have any problem with "free stuff". A lion would not pass on a kill left over from another animal because of some desire on the part of the lion to only eat that which the lion killed itself. Even in the human world, liking "free stuff" appears to be human nature. The desire to reject "free stuff" and instead acquire it by working for it appears to be antithetical to human nature. In that regard, it is unnatural. In the animal world, there is no desire to "work". In fact, animals do whatever they can to AVOID doing work. Likewise, it goes against human nature to reject free and instead work for that which one can acquire for free, without doing work to get it.

Is doing work counter to human nature? Is the desire for "free" human nature? And thus, self-reliance actually runs counter to both human nature and the survival instinct of both animals and humans?

Is "self pride" ( self pride from doing work and rejecting that which is "free" ) a concept that mankind has artificially imposed upon society?

Some condemn those who accept "free stuff" ( food stamps ), but isn't accepting free stuff just human nature? Few, if any of us, would rather die than accept something for free. The survival instinct trumps self-pride every time, no? In fact, choosing to work for that which can be obtained without work is counter to Nature and counter to human nature.

Looking to pick up either Bradshaw or Williams.

Upside with Bradshaw is:

* he's put up a HUGE game, something Williams has yet to do.

* with Jacob's history of injuries, Bradshaw is more likely to become the feature back than Williams is.

* on a 5-0 team

-downside with Bradshaw:

* he's been battling nagging injuries

* aside from the one huge game, he's averaged less fantasy points per week than Williams

* he's not the pounding type of back that Williams is

Ricky Williams upside-

* averaging more fantasy points per week than Bradshaw

* not battling any injuries.

Ricky Williams downside-

* less likely than Bradshaw to become featured back

* averaging less yds per carry than Bradshaw

* doesn't have Eli Manning at QB

* on a 2-3 team that although improving, is still not the Giants

PPR league...which one do you like for the rest of the season?