Squeamish people are more likely to be conservatives? Really?

Conservatives = emotionally handicapped

I've known that ever since I was a little kid.

The article referenced embraces the simplistic contrast between liberals and conservatives :

"that liberals seem to be drawn to chaos and novelty—for instance, they tend to support social change—whereas conservatives prefer reassurance and structure, and thus like to maintain the status quo."

If this common misconception were true, then it would be conservatives who wanted to leave Roe v. Wade alone, now that it has been the law of the land for 40 years and liberals would be the ones interested in overturning that "status quo".

Are conservatives the ones fighting to preserve the "status quo" of Medicare, Social Security, affirmative action, funding of the United Nations, etc., etc. and liberals the ones striving to overturn the status quo? Of course not.

For a truly insightful analysis of the REAL differences between liberalism and conservatism, see my http://liberalslikejesus.org/definitions .

Liberator_Rev

Interesting.

When I first read your question I thought "That certainly isn't the case with me!" But when I read a bit more of the specifics I saw that it was taling about SOCIAL conservatives! Those who are disgusted by abortion or homosexuality are more likely to be disgusted by filth and blood.

I am only FISCALLY conservative. And I am not squeamish at all! My favorite shows are Bones and CSI. And I am not squeamish about homosexuality either.

My boyfreind is moderately squeamish. He won't throw up over a gross scene, but he certainly doesn't enjoy them. And he is moderate on the homosexuality issue. He is only grossed out when it is in his face. He has no problem with being around homosexuals but he would be grossed out by them kissing in front of him.

I guess that explains Barack Obama and Bill Clinton having been the only two presidents since FDR to never have served in the armed forces. Those Democrats are such tough masculine fellows <rolls eyes> God bless.

Sorry, I dont see the prejudice, I see a scientific learn. yet its no longer probably new perception. Scientists have been analyzing the brains of appropriate-wingers for years. You appropriate-wingers think of the media is liberal because of the fact they document fact, and fact has a liberal bias. working example, if a newspaper comments that Bush began a conflict in keeping with nukes that dont exist, you blame the newspaper fairly of George Bush. The media has a appropriate-wing bias, if something. regardless of each little thing, the yankee media is a team of huge firms. What do try to be directly to think of that huge American firms (HACs) lean to the left? Oxycontin, i assume...

This is such a ridiculous question and your example is even more absurd. But it gives me two points.

Oh and by the way ck

U R right Republicans are not happier than Democrats, not until Pelosi, Reed, Barney, and friends are gone.

I'm going to disagree and think party affiliation has nothing to do with it. I work in a hospital and every young nurse I know that is conservative, is well, a nurse and can see blood, guts, whatever. My father a conservative police officer is, well, a police officer.

Though interesting, I do not think it is true.

Liberal Democrats support men who wear leather that stick their penisises in each other's filthy anuses and liberal Democrats are the masculine ones ? If that's your idea of masculine, I'd hate to see what you see as feminie.

It's not entirely a shock that Democrats are content to wallow in filth. It fits their personality perfectly.

I remember when conservatives were running around saying "Poll says Republicans are happier than Democrats!"

Now, it's funny, I don't see any Republicans admitting that they are squeamish, why is that?