CONCLUSION: Why I became a conservative

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I want Part III!

[Reaganfan]

The funniest thing about my political opinions are that many other Americans feel the same way as I, only they aren't as open about them, or they articulate them differently. I also understand that my humorous reputation is cause for the lack of seriousness with anything I say in a venue like this, and I expected that.

Keep in mind, the mainstream political bias against Republicans is the same thing. Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin....they're all attacked by the mainstream media in the same way someone like me is mocked and attacked on the forum. When did I ever say, "All liberals don't like the word or say the word God"? I didn't. But clearly, I highly doubt a female teacher in 1995 who was angered that a student said "God" was a conservative. Yet the argument against me is that I believe that "liberals don't say God." You're generalizing...hmmm......I thought I was accused of that. Also, what my pop culture references were getting at is the fact that everything else aside, I had a predisposition against pop culture that I later found out clearly conformed to the liberalism of the 1990s. I didn't think that at the time at all, but I clearly remember disliking it at the time. So it's a political reflection on the past, not a critique.

As the Bush era began roughly 10 years ago, I began to realize how easy to was to establish my political philosophy. Simple questions, simple answers. Are you for or against the death penalty? For. Are you for tax breaks for the middle and lower incomes and should rich people pay more, or should taxes be cut equally for all Americans regardless of income? Naturally, the latter. Why should the rich be made the bad guys just because they're rich. Keep in mind, I never disliked rich people. In fact, I'm envious of them and see Donald Trump as an American business success, not someone to mock. Why liberals do, I don't quite know. Perhaps they are so concerned about the little man that they falsely see the rich as the enemy of the lower and middle class.

Of course, this discussion is useless for many. Liberals think I lack the intelligence to come up with informative answers and opinions. That isn't the case at all. It's the question of whether or not I feel that type of intellect applies to certain situations, or whether a more laid-back, causal approach is the more reasonable route to take.  Take Election 2000 for instance. The reason why Al Gore lost wasn't because of anything other than the way he framed the debate.

GORE: I referred to the Dingle-Norwood bill. It is the bipartisan bill that is now pending in the Congress. The HMOs and the insurance companies support the other bill that's pending, the one that the Republican majority has put forward. They like it because it doesn't accomplish what I think really needs to be accomplished to give the decisions back to the doctors and nurses and give you a right of appeal to somebody other than the HMO or insurance company, let you go to the nearest emergency room without having to call an HMO before you call 911, to let you see a specialist if you need to, and it has strong bipartisan support. It is being blocked by the Republican leadership in the Congress. And I specifically would like to know whether Governor Bush will support the Dingle-Norwood bill, which is the main one pending.

BUSH: Well, the difference is is that I can get it done. That I can get something positive done on behalf of the people. That's what the question in this campaign is about. It's not only what's your philosophy and what's your position on issues, but can you get things done? And I believe I can.

Note the difference in lengthiness, articulation and simpleness of the answers. Clearly, if this were posted on the forum and I said what Bush said, I would mocked for simply responding "The difference is is that I can get it done." You know it's true. Yet, 50 million Americans elected that man, and 62 million Americans re-elected him. Does that make them all "stupid" or "simpletons"? You say I read into things alot, often times it is the liberals who over-analyze, over-critique and unfairly mock and ridicule people who might not want to frame a debate as if we're all in a college classroom.

Perhaps sometimes conservatives don't want to get intellectual, or don't feel it is necessary. Sometimes, most of the time, it isn't necessary.

When they say, "the jokes on him" or they would love a "psychiatrist to do an analysis" or they "feel pity for me" they are proving my point. This thread is a comedic thread. I created it to express opinions while implementing humor. It's the same when conservatives take Jon Stewart seriously as a left wing commentator when by his own admission, although his politics are left wing, he does it for comedic purpose. Those whose responses including things previously mentioned are missing the comedy of the thread are taking it too literally, too seriously, and trying to frame it in a liberal, psychological mindset. If this is the case, then I have news for them, the joke's on them. Thank you for proving my point and being the number one reason why I am a conservative.

[King]

[Paul Kemp]

I'm disappointed.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm disappointed.

In classic Naso fashion, the "CONCLUSION" isn't the end. Trust me.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I'm disappointed.

This is often the case with third parts. See Return of the Jedi or The Godfather Part III, for example.

[Torie]

This last episode is sort of like the parts of War and Peace where Tolstoy goes off on his grand unified theory of history, which was highly idiosyncratic and detracted from the plot. Here we are treated to Naso's theory that the essence of "conservatism" is anti-intellecualism, a theory that a host of red avatars around here would no doubt share!  

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Sorry, but I prefer presidents with actual solutions over 'git 'er dunn.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I want to know what happened to the bear

[Reaganfan]

I want to know what happened to the bear

For some people, the bear is easy to see. Other's don't see it at all.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I like to see things in the big picture.

Good for you, Naso. Too bad your efforts are largely unsuccessful.

[Paul Kemp]

Too bad your efforts are largely unsuccessful.

lol.

[Reaganfan]

I like to see things in the big picture.

Good for you, Naso. Too bad your efforts are largely unsuccessful.

Didn't you lose power? Dammit Irene...

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I want to know what happened to the bear

For some people, the bear is easy to see. Other's don't see it at all.

Cool.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I like to see things in the big picture.

Good for you, Naso. Too bad your efforts are largely unsuccessful.

Didn't you lose power? Dammit Irene...

Not this part of the world. Probably you should finally look at some map to make your picture slightly bigger.

[Link]

I hate to admit it, but one thing that did, was that I was always very impressed by Richard Nixon. I liked the way he framed his arguments. 

That's probably because Nixon was actually quite reasonable on a lot of topics.

[I Am Feeblepizza.]

This may be late, but I have to say that I don't think you saying "God" was what angered your teacher. I think it's the fact that you said "Oh my God," which is an oft cited example of "speaking the Lord's name in vain" or whatever you choose to call it. Your teacher, then, may very well have been a faithful person or even--gasp!!--a conservative like yourself.

[Iosif]

Is Naso mentally unstable or just a terrific wind up?