Conservative Intellectualism

'''This page includes parody and satire. Many Liberapedia articles are parody. Remember a true word is often spoken in jest.'''

The worst oxymoron that does exist.

It is interesting to observe how the conservative ideology, and conservative arguments, appeal most to educated, informed persons who are short on intellectual achievements of their own (well...not most. The majority of conservatives are ill-educated and ill-informed, basing their opinions instead on the color of ties and the thumping of Bibles than any actual thought). Put another way, the biggest advocates of conservative arguments are the intellectual wannabees or pseudo-intellectuals.

Examples of not-quite-intellectuals who promote conservative arguments include:


 * George W. Bush
 * The worst President in the history of the USA, also quite possibly the worst public speaker. He may had, however, read 12 "Shakespeares".


 * George H.W. Bush
 * Rich man who couldn't decide what state to be from. Went on to father the source of all of the world's problems and be a ridiculously ineffectual leader.


 * Mitt Romney
 * Sold a whole lot of bullshit to a whole lot of stupid people without ever actually saying anything intelligent about anything. Thinks the entire point of a volunteer army is to keep his sons out of said army.


 * Ronald Reagan
 * B Movie actor that everyone likes for some reason.


 * Ann Coulter
 * Escaped mental patient who pretends to be intelligent. Lots of people pretend to agree with her because they find her to be physically attractive.


 * Bill O'Reilly
 * Conservative talk show host whose limited vocabulary includes a very incorrect understanding of even simple terms such as "fair", "balance", and "last word".


 * Stephen Colbert
 * Highly qualified genius who chose to direct his efforts towards furthering the conservative agenda instead of something that wouldn't lead to humanity's ultimate destruction. Our secret liberal wiretapping program has revealed that he might be somewhat liberal, but we cannot get a good reading due to his sarcasm interfering with the equipment.


 * Dick Cheney
 * Can't tell the difference between birds and the faces of his friends.


 * Andrew Schlafly
 * May actually be an angry 9 year old in the body of an adult man.


 * Sean Hannity
 * College dropout who, although lacking a real education insists he has a real understanding of politics and somehow his point of view means anything.

Please add other examples.

Motivation
There are two primary motivations for the conservative advocacy by pseudo-intellectuals:


 * conservatives control the media, and these people find it much easier to thrust themselves into the national spotlight by pretending to be smart in front of a camera than actually doing anything intelligent.


 * they genuinely fail to understand certain abstractions, such as:


 * how government is something created by the people, for the people, instead of for the neocons
 * how guns are weapons, for crying out loud. You can't honestly say that weapons make things safer.  That just doesn't make any sense.  Look up the definition of "weapon".  It's built to cause harm.  You're not safe if you're being harmed.  Look up the definition of "safe".
 * how taking away human liberties doesn't make them more free, no matter how you spin it.
 * how war is good for absolutely nothing
 * how they are not entitled to all of the money and power in all of existence.
 * how proof is something that has to be factual, and not totally made up.


 * they expect superficial, flawed logic to persuade others, such as:


 * the lord created the world out of nothing in just six days.
 * George W. Bush was elected President.
 * Marriage as a whole is something that will be totally ruined if gay people ever get to do it (what, the "all men are created equal" part of the DoI really meant all people??)
 * Insisting that there is no way the government can possibly help the people who need help directly, instead that all help has to go through the super-wealthy in such a way that only a small portion of said help, if any at all, ever discriminates down to those who need it, and that portion is split amongst a huge number of people, whereas the vast majority of the original help must be maintained by a small group who didn't need it in the first place.

Please add to these lists.