You’re a conservative because you’re impractical, irrational and immoral

View Comments (24)

• Perhaps it's because you conservatives are so greedy. Academians do not make much money for their education level. That's not very appealing to a conservative, and most drop out of the process to go make money in the corporate world, or choose career paths like engineering where an advanced degree is not necessarily required for the job they desire.

  • Here you go - a study by ABC which is blatantly liberal - http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

    Conservatives give 30% more despite making less. Kind of puts the kabash on the whole conservatives are greedy argument.

    Ironically conservatives work and pay taxes to fund academic studies by liberals to determine that liberals don't donate as much as conservatives.

  • Conservatives are greedy? Study after study shows conservatives donate at least 30% more of thier income and time to charity than liberals. Go ahead and google it. It's part of our work and spiritual ethic - meanwhile liberals which have neither are there for the handouts. As for people going into engineering because they don't require an advanced degree - I would need to spend 24 hours in a thesaurus to come up with a string of adjectives to describe how remarkably ignorant that comment is. Tell you what - let's go ahead and divide the country into two - red state vs blue state. In three years the liberal states will be bankrupt, third world cesspools - but at least they won't be a drain on the rest of us that work and live responsibly.

    • I was about to point that out and glad that someone did already. Even though it is of course possible that there are real conservatives out there who are at worst greedy yet at least let's say they hoard what they earn (or are not as free with their giving let's say), most conservatives especially when it comes to social issues tend to be more given of their earnings to charities, churches, organizations than non-conservatives. It is a fact.

      Conservatives see the solution primarily in family, community and in their own abilities (usually spiritual or G-d fearing conservatives find the solution in their beliefs first and self/community/family second and the government a weak and very distant last resort), whereas liberals see solutions stemming primarily from the government, and if govt cannot or will not help then everybody just needs to deal with what they got... which is lame in my opinion. Then there are those liberals that do donate a good chunk of funds, but it is usually to other liberal organizations who use of the funds is suspect or to governments which results in more corruption than anything. It is a vicious thing.

      It is possible for liberal organizations to be good responsible givers (don't laugh), but the contrast is amazing. Liberal organizations tend to spend hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars ORGANIZING SOMETHING whereas the sum that is garnered for the need itself usually doesn't reflect the same amount wasted in given the party to get people together to give. When it would have been better had the organization just kept things simple and be less wasteful to get as much help into the hands that need it. Point in case, I see most liberal organizations always wanting to give me something for free for giving a donation (???). I don't need a new hand bag or backpack Green Peace (ugh)... If I want one I will go to the store and buy it, why do I have to give you money so I can get a back pack that states that I gave you money? (Weird) whereas most conservatives organizations do not feel the need to bribe people into given them donations nor spend funds sending me ridiculous address labels and notepads.

      I wish sometimes that either conservative states could either secede or push the liberal states out of the union, because the liberal states ARE dragging the rest of the country down and that sucks.

  • I think of myself as a very frugal person. To pay tenured professors well over 100k a year is wasteful. When you have people like Larry Summers, a former Harvard president, saying idiotic things like "increasing taxes on the rich shall increase job growth," you can see that he is not qualified to make minimum wage. Greedy? Hardly. The description for which you search is "NOT STUPID."

  • Not sure if serious...

    But if you are: I love it when libs think they understand conservative motivations. It's so adorable. Unfortunately their inherent thick-headedness does not allow them to open their minds (oh the irony) and realize their erroneous one-dimensional perception of us.

• I love you geico cave man...

• Professor Jere P. Serber..."And I forgot to add, I have never run a business, met a payroll, done an inventory, and I have never, never held a job in the private sector. And thanks to Obama, and my Teachers Union, the Stimulus saved my job. America's a great country!"

• Please . . . . liberals are that way because the are lazy. Shoot, I guess we conservatives are simplistic too.

  • Congratulations, Novinews. You get the award for the funniest comment of the day.

• I think the point Hogberg is trying to make deals with the credibility of ideas when put to a test. If an idea fails it then is an artifact of reality. In the face of failure authors of the ideas are not penalized, no matter the damage the idea inflicts upon society. Rather, they withdraw into their respective groups of like-minded “intellectuals” and reinforce each others failed ideas rather than scrapping them and reformulating better, more robust ones. This serves only to reinforce the false validity of failed ideas and sooner or later the “intellectuals” will again try to foist them upon society. Socialism is a prime example. It's an idea that continually fails but grows in strength with each decade.

• There was a recent article in the NYT (I know, I know) discussing why most professors are liberal. Their theory is that it basically comes down to typecasting. Article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.html

  "To Mr. Gross, accusations by conservatives of bias and student brainwashing are self-defeating. "The irony is that the more conservatives complain about academia’s liberalism, the more likely it's going to remain a bastion of liberalism.""

• I do understand, and I agreed with your original point, too. I just am sick to death of the South getting the bum rap for DEMOCRAT racism. Call it what it was always. And I live in Mississippi, those same good ol' Democrats run things here, despite the national media saying that we are the most red state, Republicans have NEVER been a majority in our state house, ever. Still not, either.

• Paul-that is "nuancing" my point! Funny!

  the point was simple-the parties differed in their desire to continue on with slavery-that started the civil war-NO NUANCE TO THAT.

  I was generalizing for the sake of making the simple point that there is not much nuance to history, save bits and pieces of the cold war, etc.

  Cut and dried events that forced decisions/actions and had ramifications. There may have been nuance to the process of those decisions-but the events of history are not nuanced. That was the point.

  As for who and where slavery was accepted, etc-that is not where I was going with the point!

• Not to range too far from the post's topic, but to conclude that the South was the only area profiting from slavery ignores the actual states that allowed slavery. New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and also, the District of Columbia are not considered to be the South. All were originally slave states. Delaware and Maryland (DC, too) were slave states until the 13th Amendment.

  Just saying.

• Thallus-to lump journalists in with "intellectuals" is to overstate the power of the grossly retarded brain.
  Not that the liberal "elite" who clog the halls of what were once learning institutions, and are now purveyors of "nuance" and unsubstantiated conjecture, rather than knowledge, are "intellectuals. But I will give them their due, that in many cases, they have had their noses in books for decades! That fact however, does not guarantee intellectual growth, or objective thinking. The subjective nature of all of these "intellectuals" makes them ignoramuses, too smug to really learn, and blind to the real world, as they never leave the hallowed halls of the institutions they so clog with narrow minded thoughts concerning the nuance of human history. And I may be speaking a little out of my league, but as a history buff, I see NO nuance in major occurrences during for instance, US history. Things happened due to specific actions that were devoid of nuance! They were very specific events with very specific ramifications. There is no nuance in a group of REPUBLICANS who want to end slavery, when the DEMOCRATS want to maintain slavery. Where is the nuance here? What was nuanced about the Southerners having an entire economy of scale rooted in human slavery? They didn't want to work themselves, or share their revenue with employees so they chose to enslave. History is full of examples like this, which have no underlying nuance. There is no nuance for instance in Newton's Law. There is no nuance to the space race-Kennedy didn't want us to be shown up further by the Russians, etc. I could go on for a decade. The overuse of the word and meaning of "nuance" by the left is laughable, and is their way of protecting themselves when they speak ignorantly of a subject. They claim nuance between the lines of their writings or speech, which actually means they have no freaking idea what they are saying.