posted 10-02-2003 07:33 PM            

Why do they support tax breaks for the rich when so many of their fellow citizens are in dire straits? Why do they applaud John Ashcroft and his post-9/11 curtailment of civil liberties? Why do they oppose laws that address historic wrongs and enforce constitutionally guaranteed rights? Why do they respond to a societal drug problem with incarceration and expanded prison construction? Why do they gut regulations that are meant to protect the environment? Why do they invest more than half of our tax dollars in the military? Why are they so mean-spirited? In other words, why do conservatives do what they do? Are they nuts?

No, not according to a fascinating new study in Psychological Bulletin, “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition.” Conservatives do, however, possess certain psychological traits and motives that no one in their right (or is that left?) mind would want to share.

The study’s four authors, John T. Jost, Jack Glaser, Arie W. Kruglanski, and Frank J. Sulloway, write, “People embrace political conservatism (at least in part) because it serves to reduce fear, anxiety and uncertainty; to avoid change, disruption and ambiguity; and to explain, order and justify inequality among groups and individuals.” To come to this conclusion the authors examined 88 different psychological studies conducted between 1958 and 2002 that involved 22,818 people from 12 different countries. They boiled that information down into a number of psychological attributes that are closely associated with people who are politically conservative.

Rigid and closed-minded

“Dogmatism has been found to correlate consistently with authoritarianism, political-economic conservatism, and the holding of right wing opinions,” write the authors. Conversely, studies have found that conservatives in general have little tolerance for ambiguity. A fact that helps in decoding this statement that George W. Bush made in Geneoa, Italy: “I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right.”

Such thinking could explain why the Bush administration officials ignored those intelligence reports that failed to support going to war with Iraq. “[Conservatives’] intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic clichés and stereotypes,” write the authors.

Numerous studies have also shown that conservative policy makers entertain less cognitively complex thoughts than their liberal or moderate counterparts. A study of speeches made in the House of Commons in 1984 found that “the most integratively complex politicians were moderate socialists.” Their complexity of thought was found to be significantly higher than that of extreme socialists, moderate conservatives or extreme conservatives. Similarly, in the United States, a study of speeches on the floor of the Senate in 1975 and 1976 found that senators with liberal or moderate voting records exhibited significantly more complex thinking than their conservative counterparts.

That explains a lot, doesn’t it. Bush again comes to mind. As he told a British reporter, “Look, my job isn’t to try to nuance. My job is to tell people what I think.”

Further studies show that conservatives have been found to shun new, stimulating experiences and to avoid situations where the outcome is uncertain.

The authors write that the fact that conservatives are “less tolerant of ambiguity, less open to new experiences, and more avoidant of uncertainty” may help explain why “congressional Republicans and other prominent conservatives in the United States have sought unilaterally to eliminate public funding for the contemporary arts.”

From an early age, conservatives demonstrate a personal need for order and structure. One study has shown that conservative teens are more likely to say they are “neat, orderly and organized” than are liberal adolescents. The authors note that this desire for set rules correlates with the examples of mental rigidity mentioned above, and can be seen in the political realm when conservatives attempt to order their own and other’s lives by advocating drug testing, core educational curriculum, controls on people with AIDS, and strict parental control of children.

Impulsively aggressive

R.A. Altemeyer, a psychologist who has extensively studied people with right-wing beliefs, has observed:
[Right-wing authoritarians] see the world as a dangerous place, as society teeters on the brink of self-destruction from evil and violence. This fear appears to instigate aggression in them. Second, right-wing authoritarians tend to be highly self-righteous. They think themselves much more moral and upstanding than others—a self perception considerably aided by self-deception. … This self-righteousness disinhibits their aggressive impulses and releases them to act out their fear-induced hostilities.
George Will seems steeped in that fear. To illustrate that point the authors quote this passage from an essay by Will: “Conservatives know the world is a dark and forbidding place where most new knowledge is false, most improvements are for the worse.” Psychological studies back Will up. People with right-wing personalities hold more pessimistic views and left-wing personalities hold more optimistic ones. And that pessimism and optimism appears to inform how conservatives and liberals view their fellow humans. A 1984 survey of “emotional reactions to welfare recipients” found that conservatives “expressed greater disgust and less sympathy” than liberals.

While this propensity of conservatives to be threatened and fearful does not appear to induce neurotic behavior, one study of dream lives discovered that Republicans had three times as many nightmares as Democrats, indicating that fear, anger and aggression might be a factor in the subconscious motivations of conservatives.

The authors speculate that this susceptibility to fear “may help explain why military defense spending and support for national security receive much stronger backing from conservative than liberal political leaders.”

Afraid of loss

It has long been known that conservatives resist change while progressives accept change. Indeed, according to studies, this is the most common way that people from both groups self-define themselves.

“To the extent that conservatives are especially sensitive to the possibilities of loss—one reason why they wish to preserve the status quo—it follows that they should be generally more motivated by negatively framed outcomes (potential losses) than by positively framed outcomes (potential gains).”

Consequently, conservatives respond better to threats. In a study conducted five days before the 1996 presidential election, researchers presented voters with persuasive arguments that stressed either the potential rewards of voting (“it is a way to express and live in accordance with important values”) or the potential losses from not voting (“not voting allows others to take away your right to express your values”). More generally, the authors suggest that “framing events in terms of potential losses rather than gains leads people to adopt cognitively conservative, as opposed to innovative, orientations.”

Haunted by death

Of course, the greatest personal loss is death. Studies demonstrate that the people who most fear death are the most conservative. More generally, the fear of death and the resulting protective posture that such a threat engenders cause people to become conservative and to strongly “defend culturally valued norms and practices” and “to distance themselves from, and even to derogate, out-group members to greater extent.” Similarly, the fear of death has also been linked to “system-justifying forms of stereotyping and enhanced liking for stereotype-consistent women and minority group members” and “greater punitiveness, and even aggression, toward those who violate cultural values.” Applying that knowledge, the authors write, “High profile terrorist attacks such as those of September 11, 2001, might simultaneously increase the cognitive accessibility of death and the appeal of political conservatism.”

While trying to retain the impartiality of scientists, albeit social ones, the authors warn that the available evidence indicates that governments can manipulate people’s conservative tendencies by raising the specter of death. They write, “Priming thoughts of death has been shown to increase intolerance, out-group derogation, punitive aggression, veneration of authority figures and system justification.”

That is what we have seen in the wake of 9/11 as public opinion and media coverage took a sharp turn to the right, setting the stage for pre-emptive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The authors acknowledge what has long been assumed by sociologists, economists, and political scientists: people adopt conservative beliefs to serve their own self-interests. They agree that this helps explain the conservatism of “upper-class elites.” However, the authors hold that the personal need to “reduce fear, anxiety, dissonance, uncertainty or instability” better explains why a vastly greater number of people who are not part of the elite, and particularly those who are disadvantaged or from low-status groups, “might embrace right-wing ideologies.”

The authors also take issue with the common notion that people inherit ideological beliefs from their parents. A statistically significant correlation exists between the two, but it is far from overwhelming. The authors maintain, “Conservative ideologies, like virtually all other belief systems, are adopted in part because they satisfy various psychological needs.”

Conservatives have not taken kindly to “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition.” Will, perhaps fearing the truth, ridiculed the study in the Washington Post, making fun of the authors’ academic jargon.

posted 10-02-2003 09:21 PM            

quote
Why do they support tax breaks for the rich when so many of their fellow citizens are in dire straits?

So what is your alternative, take from the wealthy give to the poor or otherwise known as the famous redistribution of wealth.

quote

Why do they gut regulations that are meant to protect the environment?

Lets see in Klamath Falls Oregon two years ago whacky enviromentalists stopped the farmers from irrigating their own crops all to save sucker fish or what you would call carp. Then you got them trying to single handedly put the timber industry out of business for the spotted owl. And lets not forget ANWR< we'd be an oil rich nation capable of slashing oil prices worldwide if we could drill in to a micron in the bucket of oil thats in Alaska alone.
For powerplants coal is cheap and a hell of a lot cleaner than it use to be (the burn process) you people don't want nuclear so whats your solution windmills?

quote

Rigid and closed-minded

“Dogmatism has been found to correlate consistently with authoritarianism, political-economic conservatism, and the holding of right wing opinions,” write the authors. Conversely, studies have found that conservatives in general have little tolerance for ambiguity. A fact that helps in decoding this statement that George W. Bush made in Geneoa, Italy: “I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right.”

Yes shouldn't we all?
All in all just another biased namecalling leftist tactic of generalizing an entire movement.

posted 10-02-2003 10:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by the professor:
The first paragraph alone reeks communism and extreme enviromentalism.

---

Extreme environmentalism? is that like extreme breathing? Leave it up to Neo-Cons, and we'd pave over everything with cement.

Professor's first statement stinks of Mussolini Classic Corporate Fascism.

quote:

---

So what is your alternative, take from the wealthy give to the poor or otherwise known as the famous redistribution of wealth.

---

No, we'll take from the Middle Class to support the rich and poor. I get it, dog eat dog world. The rich are the Chosen Ones. Where have I heard that before?

quote:

---

we'd be an oil rich nation capable of slashing oil prices worldwide if we could drill in to a micron in the bucket of oil thats in Alaska alone.
For powerplants coal is cheap and a hell of a lot cleaner than it use to be (the burn process) you people don't want nuclear so whats your solution windmills?

---

Typical Far Right Corporate Fascist statement. Destroy a beautiful land for the greed of backward looking Neo-Cons, who cannot see hydrogen fuel cells, splitting of water in hydrogen and oxygen by-product, solar, wind, and geo-thermal are the way of the future. KNOW-THIS 's statement of being rigid and fearful and unable to except change is correct again. Nuclear power-as long as the professor doesn;t live near one. LOL!!

quote:

---

All in all just another biased namecalling leftist tactic of generalizing an entire movement.
Oh yes BTW the military does cost money and hey there doing a hell of a job!

---

Oh but the Professor doesn't generalize......." reeks communism and extreme enviromentalism."................"All in all just another biased namecalling leftist tactic"

I forgot, you Neo-Cons are always correct and are the Keepers of The Gate of truth.....Bull**it.

The military is not protecting citizens, it's protecting Oil Companies and defense Contractors pocketbooks and accounts.

posted 10-02-2003 10:14 PM            

better us than an untrustworty socialist. So who were your great socialistic role models?

another funny quote
No, we'll take from the Middle Class to support the rich and poor. I get it, dog eat dog world. The rich are the Chosen Ones. Where have I heard that before?

posted 10-02-2003 10:19 PM            

Typical Far Right Corporate Fascist statement. Destroy a beautiful land for the greed of backward looking Neo-Cons, who cannot see hydrogen fuel cells, splitting of water in hydrogen and oxygen by-product, solar, wind, and geo-thermal are the way of the future. KNOW-THIS 's statement of being rigid and fearful and unable to except change is correct again. Nuclear power-as long as the professor doesn;t live near one. LOL!!

I lived within 10 miles of one for eight years. You assume so much and yet are usually well actually always wrong with your assumptions. And I wouldn't talk if I were you , you don't know what the hell your talking about as far as raping the land for oil, I lived in Alaska and know first hand that the pipeline running through the state isn't harming the wild life. In the future why don't you comment on something you know more about like making sucky music.

posted 10-02-2003 10:27 PM            

Einstein

Jesus

Firesign Theater

Ghandi

Helen Caldicott

Albert Schweitzer

So that would explain your genetic defects then, living close to a Nuke reactor.

And again, thank you for paying attention and hating my music. You just give me more fuel and material to write about. Better than ignoring it I say.

posted 10-02-2003 10:29 PM            

Einstein

Jesus

Firesign Theater

Ghandi

Helen Caldicott

Albert Schweitzer

So that would explain your genetic defects then, living close to a Nuke reactor.

posted 10-02-2003 10:39 PM            

"It's relatively simple for me, Star Spangled Banner. I like Whitney Houston's version."

That stupid, howling, drug addicted wench sounds like a cat in heat inside a bagpipe. Terrible, boring lyrics, and a blank stare.

Her aunt, Dionne Warwick was a much nicer and better singer.

The Star Spangled Banner....

a quote by Laurie Anderson

posted 10-02-2003 10:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by the professor:
Jesus wasn't a socialist btw , you fall into the same category as calling him a communist. You know if you don't like us drilling for oil why don't you do your part and quit driving your dart and quit using any electrical power and if you also feel so generous like you try to make yourselves out to be (I can't stop laughing at that idea) you and mech should vacate your homes and give them up to some homeless guy who could use it. You know it's just redistribution.

---

Jesus was a person for the people
(socialist), and not the Roman Empire (Fascism).

I give money to needy programs. we are smaller versions of a George Soros, who gives away money to help things. We make a good living, so don't fret, probably more than you do. When I see a homeless person, i'll give them some money. everybody is not a greedy capitalist when it comes to money. and everybody is not looking for a handout.

You have become detached from the downtrodden. I was born in Newark, NJ, and I don't forget where my roots are.

So don't give me your Little Hitler approach to money and the world. You have no idea of the respect i get in the music, high tech, and social world, and I will never become the greedy machine you have programmed yourself to be.

posted 10-02-2003 10:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by the professor:
quote
"A stupid little song about a fire"

And yet you claim your a patriot/constitutionalist but hate the nations anthem, your a class act! you should America if you hate it that much. Whitney may be a stoner but she can at least sing in key even while dropping octaves.
You should maybe invest in a pitch shifter that might make your band sound better but then again who am I kidding? psst you practise a little more than shoot off your mouth with your anti America veiws.

---

I should America? you mean "Love it or Leave it" You far Right fanatics have the last say, and are The Chosen Ones, sorry my error....

Whitney Houston is a Coke addict, not so much a stoner. She has no soul. Just a voice with nothing there.

you and a couple of Bush Supporters seem to be the only ones who hate theta's voice. since your favorite singger is the Witless Ass, your opinion is even less validated than before. Quit while you're a little behind, before I completely dismantle your musical tastes.

I am a Constitionalist, but not on your terms. Ah, the Rigidity of Neo-Cons

it's still a stupis little song about a fire

posted 10-02-2003 10:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by the professor:
Prove that I'm greedy and that I don't give. lets see you prove your accusation on this. Usually the who boasts of all his/her great doings has usually done the least, why else would they boast of themselves as if they wanted to be looked on favorably.

---

Now a pop psychologist. Actually you have a inferiority complex that's manifesting in a god complex in reverse. Better activate your right brain lobe, you're getting a little too Linear.

posted 10-02-2003 11:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by the professor:
Jesus wasn't a socialist btw , you fall into the same category as calling him a communist. You know if you don't like us drilling for oil why don't you do your part and quit driving your dart and quit using any electrical power and if you also feel so generous like you try to make yourselves out to be (I can't stop laughing at that idea) you and mech should vacate your homes and give them up to some homeless guy who could use it. You know it's just redistribution.

---

Jesus was a person for the people
(socialist), and not the Roman Empire (Fascism).

I give money to needy programs. we are smaller versions of a George Soros, who gives away money to help things. We make a good living, so don't fret, probably more than you do. When I see a homeless person, i'll give them some money. everybody is not a greedy capitalist when it comes to money. and everybody is not looking for a handout.

You have become detached from the downtrodden. I was born in Newark, NJ, and I don't forget where my roots are.

So don't give me your Little Hitler approach to money and the world. You have no idea of the respect i get in the music, high tech, and social world, and I will never become the greedy machine you have programmed yourself to be.

posted 10-03-2003 08:50 AM            

As you read in KNOW-THIS "What music do you listen to thread", I am proud of themusic I listen to.

You are the other hand are a chicken-crap. What's the matter, afraid I'll dismantle you're phoney christian front?

Amazing, I'm being called a liberal by one, and a militia person by another. You rsponding exactly the way I want. Keep it up, I love confusing you, but that;'s actually not that hard.

posted 10-03-2003 10:08 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by the professor:

Why do they gut regulations that are meant to protect the environment?

Lets see in Klamath Falls Oregon two years ago whacky enviromentalists stopped the farmers from irrigating their own crops all to save sucker fish or what you would call carp. Then you got them trying to single handedly put the timber industry out of business for the spotted owl. And lets not forget ANWR< we'd be an oil rich nation capable of slashing oil prices worldwide if we could drill in to a micron in the bucket of oil thats in Alaska alone.?[/B]

---

Environmental Protection Agency http://www.em.doe.gov/timeline/the70s.html
Signed into law by Richard Nixon (R) http://www.em.doe.gov/timeline/dec1970.html http://www.epa.gov/epahome/aboutepa.htm#history
>Our History
In July of 1970, the White House and Congress worked together to establish the EPA in response to the growing public demand for cleaner water, air and land.< http://www.em.doe.gov/timeline/jan1970.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by the professor:

For powerplants coal is cheap and a hell of a lot cleaner than it use to be (the burn process) you people don't want nuclear so whats your solution windmills?

---

I used to drive past the hundreds of acres of windmills between Livermore and Stockton CA.
They make a significant contribution to the energy grid, as does geothermal.
Personally.
I believe nuclear power caould be safe;
If we followed the
French model.

I've worked on five nukes.
I always quit when they brought fuel on site.
Too many shortcuts deliberately violating regulations, seen with my own eyes, to trust nukes.
eg:
Diablo Canyon unit II. http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/DIAB2/diab2_pim.html
(memorable because it's built near a fault line, and sits on a bluff overlooking the ocean/ We used to throw food over the cliff tot he gulls at lunch time)
If we built new nukes, using French designs, only disposal of spent fuel is a problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the professor:

Yes shouldn't we all?
All in all just another biased namecalling leftist tactic of generalizing an entire movement.

---

Leaving for last:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the professor:
The first paragraph alone reeks communism and extreme enviromentalism.

quote
Why do they support tax breaks for the rich when so many of their fellow citizens are in dire straits?

So what is your alternative, take from the wealthy give to the poor or otherwise known as the famous redistribution of wealth.

---

WWJS?

What Would Jesus Say?

"...go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor,..."

Mark 10
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

WWJS?

What Would Jesus Say?
Matthew 6
19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

"Compassionate Conservatism"/ tax cuts for the rich, coupled with reduced assistance for he poor:
Proverbs 22:16
He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want.
Job 27:8
For what is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul?

It's neo-cons' 'self-righteousness' coupled with lust for wealth that disgusts me most when their wealthy leaders claim to be 'Christians':
2 Corinthians 9:9
"As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever."

IMHO:
Jesus may not have invented Liberalism,
but He sure taught it to his followers.

BTW:
Regards Rush/ G Gordon/ Savage. et al depiction of 'Liberals' as vile, despicable and the cause of all problems.

I suggest Conservative commentators' use of the word "Liberal" (like German Conservatives' use of the word "Juden")
is contrary to scripture:

"Isaiah 32
5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.
6 For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.
7 The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.
8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand."

Your turn Professor.

posted 10-03-2003 10:50 AM            

Jesus was not a person he is the divine son of God. A deity, third part of the triune God. Sorry, if that doesn't fit with your particular view of the world and universe. Truth doesn't change. Sure, you can write this off as my opinion and that is fine. You have the right to worship Gaia, mother earth, Lucifer, Ala, even atheisms,( yes, there is no God is a religion unto itself) or anything you wish.

posted 10-03-2003 11:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:
Jesus may not have invented Liberalism,
but He sure taught it to his followers.

---

And the Military-Industrial Complex/Fascist state of the time, Rome, did not care for that.

Much the same as now.

posted 10-03-2003 11:18 AM            

You know you can hop in anytime, and you don't have to defend your beliefs, because I know you mean what you say, and that's good enough for me.

I think Jesus was a man who had psychic powers brought on by whatever means. He used these powers to help people, and to have them "look within" to the Kingdom of God. There have been many people throughout history that taught understanding and compassion, and used similar means to assist those in need. There were people before Jesus that taught good things, and after.

I feel we are all children of Stardust, or God, or Aliens, or Nothingness, or Love. The name doesn't matter of your particular belief system. They are all based on a personal concept of the Universe, and that shouldn't matter. Every culture knows what Hatred looks like, but also knows a smile when they see it.

Freedom of any thought is paramount. If a person believes in little elves, demons, angels, The Bible, Marvel Comics, Science Fiction, The Bhagavad Gita, The Hopi Scriptures, their family, Music and Art, technology, The Koran, or Food, and is kind, then that is all that matters to me. I would never say I know what I know to be the infallible truth, but listen to all the Truth and/or Myth Systems, and incorporate them all to a certain degree.

You are correct in that true Conservatism has been overthrown by NWO stooges. Likewise true Liberalism has been hijavked by the NWO agenda. SOme of the most vicious opponents to the concept of a New World Order are Libs. As a matter of fact, I have been called a Right Winger by some Liberals for what I believe. And some Neo-Cons on this board and elsewhere have called me a stinkin' Liberal. Go figure.

Rave Act, NAFTA, GATT, PAtriot Act, Drug War, and Gay marriage Ban(Lieberman!!)-Not Liberal.

posted 10-03-2003 11:37 AM            

Personally,
I'm offended at the use of "warped conservative";
That is if anyone takes that to mean all Conservatives,
or real Conservatives, instead of today's "neo-cons".

As far as my railing against Republicans:
I refer to the current leadership of the Party,
and not to impugn individual members.

"Many fine decent people are Republicans." President Bill Clinton
(at a 1996 'Town Hall' televised meeting/
in response to a woman who called Republicans evil.

Quoting of sources, references, are my way of making an argument, by showing where my opinions were developed from or bolstered (IMHO) by.

No personal offense to any individual is intended.

posted 10-03-2003 07:24 PM            

You are the other hand are a chicken-crap. What's the matter, afraid I'll dismantle you're phoney christian front?

posted 10-03-2003 07:30 PM            

Now you are getting delusional.

FL KooK:

" OK, too many confuse "republicans" and "neocons" with conservatives. I don't have the time to go in to this now but if you can't straighten it out for yourselves with a simple google search send me a message and I'll be glad to enlighten you."

"True conservatism has been overthrown by the globalist, neocon agenda. CFR member presidents on both sides for the last 45 years has seen to that. So I understand how it is easily confused. Both sides are headed down the same path today. THIS IS NOT TRUE CONSERVATIVE THOUGHT.
Gun control, UNESCO, open borders, NAFTA, NATO, etc... NOT conservative."