Proof Conservatives Know They're Done

[Jackstar]

In hopes of keeping this going Nowhere, I'll attack Bobby Jindal.

Jesus, where have you been? 2008 called, it wants its pogrom back. :rolleyes:

[Jackstar]

The fact is, it's not safe to release these people unless multiple psychiatrists say it's safe to.

Jesus. Have you ever read Battlefield Earth? Just checking.

[SciFiAuthor]

Jesus. Have you ever read Battlefield Earth? Just checking.

You quit your bitching right now or I'm sending Bobby Jindal after you with his scissors.

[Jackstar]

You can imagine my trepidation.

*vague, dismissive hand-wanking gestures*

[SciFiAuthor]

You can imagine my trepidation.

*vague, dismissive hand-wanking gestures*

Dude, if you're going to troll for reactions, strive to be better and more humorous than that. You gotta justify the time invested, otherwise you're just a poser fishing for bullshit.

[Jackstar]

I am not con-trolling at all--that is actually, exactly how I feel about Bobby Jindal.

What's your excuse?

*vague, dismissive hand-wanking gestures*

^^^ THIS


(also: you have not yet answered my question--but that's fine.)
:rolleyes:

[wr250]

Dude, if you're going to troll for reactions, strive to be better and more humorous than that. You gotta justify the time invested, otherwise you're just a poser fishing for bullshit.

weak is his troll-fu

[NowhereInTime]

SciFi - describe what it is like to debate a cinder-block please. I am curious how you find the discipline to do it!

Karl, don't you have children to oogle or minorities to harass?

[RealCool Daddio]

Good to see conservatives standing up for science.  State rep. Hickey, Republican from the great state of South Dakota, stands with PB and SciFi in their healthy scepticism of science, and tows the party line when reading from the conservative playbook (there's that rightwing groupthink again).

" I’m asking the doctors who practice in our state, is the science really settled on this issue or is it more the case that you feel silenced and intimidated?"

Thank goodness there are upright conservatives to ensure the property scrutiny of matters scientific, calling BS on climate change and evolution.  Or, you know, where people put their dicks:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/05/02/steve_hickey_republican_south_dakota_legislator_pens_fantastically_crude.html

What the hell is it with conservatives and their endless obsession with other people's sex lives?

[SciFiAuthor]

Good to see conservatives standing up for science.  State rep. Hickey, Republican from the great state of South Dakota, stands with PB and SciFi in their healthy scepticism of science, and tows the party line when reading from the conservative playbook (there's that rightwing groupthink again).

In science, you're supposed to be skeptical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

It doesn't work if you aren't. Yet, somehow skepticism in this one case of climate science is incomprehensibly discouraged, derided and mocked while scare tactics are employed to get the public to buy into it. It doesn't take a genius to see that there's a problem there.

" I’m asking the doctors who practice in our state, is the science really settled on this issue or is it more the case that you feel silenced and intimidated?"

Thank goodness there are upright conservatives to ensure the property scrutiny of matters scientific, calling BS on climate change and evolution.  Or, you know, where people put their dicks:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/05/02/steve_hickey_republican_south_dakota_legislator_pens_fantastically_crude.html

What the hell is it with conservatives and their endless obsession with other people's sex lives?

You've got the wrong conservative. I don't give a shit what consenting adults do in the bedroom. Hickey's either pandering to a base that he believes is inherently homophobic or is manifesting through transference his own latent bisexual or homosexual tendencies. As they say, he who smelt it dealt it.

[PB the Deplorable]

... What the hell is it with conservatives and their endless obsession with other people's sex lives?

Interesting - the people I hear continually going on about it are the Libs.

You know, the same people who have an endless obsession with race.

[RealCool Daddio]

...You've got the wrong conservative. I don't give a shit what consenting adults do in the bedroom. Hickey's either pandering to a base that he believes is inherently homophobic or is manifesting through transference his own latent bisexual or homosexual tendencies. As they say, he who smelt it dealt it.

But SciFi, that presupposes that you can be a conservative, yet pick and choose the conservative principles that you either reject or hold as absolute truths - an intellectual luxury that you won't allow liberals to have.  If you hold all liberals to the beliefs of some liberals, why can't you hold yourself to the beliefs of some conservatives?  What is it that allows you to treat right wing thought as some buffet of high concept that you can cherry pick from, yet accuse liberals of some single minded lack of objectivity?

Almost everything you post is sullied by this intellectual dishonesty.

The simple fact is that is you and your ilk on the right that have eroded the standards of scientific education in North America, through ideologically motivated "skepticism" in fundamental science - whether it be in evolution (or conservative intelligent design nonsense), ecology (through industry led initiatives that ignore the need for renewable resource strategies) to faith based initiatives to regulate biology and morality.  It is high time that you find the courage to own the broader beliefs of your brethren, of have the stones to admit that you are a dilettante, with no actual convictions at all.

[PB the Deplorable]

But SciFi, that presupposes that you can be a conservative, yet pick and choose the conservative principles that you either reject or hold as absolute truths - an intellectual luxury that you won't allow liberals to have.  If you hold all liberals to the beliefs of some liberals, why can't you hold yourself to the beliefs of some conservatives?  What is it that allows you to treat right wing thought as some buffet of high concept that you can cherry pick from, yet accuse liberals of some single minded lack of objectivity?

Almost everything you post is sullied by this intellectual dishonesty...

Conservatives don't agree on everything.  They mostly want a small limited government and to be left alone by it if they aren't doing anything wrong.  They understand the universal truth that government by it's nature is not competent to make decisions for everyone on all matter of issues, that people will make better decisions for themselves and will spend the money they earn more wisely than a bureaucracy will.

They also understand there are certain things only government can do, or does better than the private sector can, but that that list is a short one - "the government that governs least governs best" said Thomas Jefferson.

They believe local government is more responsive and accountable and should solve local issues - not faraway Washington DC

Within those various principles, and outside of them, is plenty of room for disagreement.


The American Left on the other hand is a very carefully crafted coalition of interests.  They know the only way they survive is to agree to support each other.  Many if not most of their issues are important and are supported generally by most people, including Conservatives - such as the environment, civil rights, etc.  Most people are for peace, for peoples right to unionize, and so on. 

But much within that has become like so many of their other issues - contrived or distorted or created to enflame and distract.  And to divide.  So we've ended up with environment groups that instead are now 'Progressive' front groups.  Same with gay rights groups, same with groups that claim to be for civil rights - like the NAACP, the Congressional Black Congress, the ACLU, People For the American Way, on and on.  Feminist groups, anti-war groups, anti-gun groups, anti-capital punishment groups, unions, you name it. 

They don't really take a non-partisan approach to the areas they claim to stand for anymore - they are now 'Progressives' first, and the issues these groups were created to champion are a distant second.  It's all about politics now, and they march in lockstep.



As far as being skeptical of some of the 'science' brought forth by the 'Progressives' - these people have been trying to do away with industrialization for 100 years.  The middle class is in their way on the road to Utopia.  They want everyone to be equally impoverished, with themselves as the 'elite' making all decisions. 

They've given us endless gloom and doom predictions over the years.  As their heroic regimes have failed (the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, etc), they've returned to scare tactics regarding the sustainability of the Earth.  Overpopulation, 'Silent Spring', Global Cooling, Global Warming.  When nothing came about from that they doubled down and started spreading hysteria about 'Climate Change'.

They've had lies exposed, there has been collusion to play up certain statistics and collusion to downplay other statistics which was also exposed.  'Mistakes' and 'errors' in their reports oddly always seem to be in the direction of alarm.  None of this is science, it's politics. 

A very dangerous game to get us to hand over just enough power so they will be able to seize the rest.

[onan]

The point being made is government is corrupt due to group consensus. And I agree that is always a possibility. But to assume smaller is better is probably just as dangerous. Let's not forget tarring and feathering, or lynching... all under the auspices of small government. Bribery, graft, extortion all happen in local governments as well.

I would love to live in a world where government had no reason to interfere in my life... the early 1800's and before are gone. They wont be back by popular demand. Government may carry a big stick but I trust them more than I do the militia men in Nevada, or Exxon for that matter. 

If you want to organize to simplify and reduce taxes... count me in. If you want to organize to let each state be their own kingdom... I am not interested.

[RealCool Daddio]

Conservatives don't agree on everything.  They mostly want a small limited government and to be left alone by it if they aren't doing anything wrong.  They understand the universal truth that government by it's nature is not competent to make decisions for everyone on all matter of issues, that people will make better decisions for themselves and will spend the money they earn more wisely than a bureaucracy will.

They also understand there are certain things only government can do, or does better than the private sector can, but that that list is a short one - "the government that governs least governs best" said Thomas Jefferson.

They believe local government is more responsive and accountable and should solve local issues - not faraway Washington DC

Within those various principles, and outside of them, is plenty of room for disagreement.


The American Left on the other hand is a very carefully crafted coalition of interests.  They know the only way they survive is to agree to support each other.  Many if not most of their issues are important and are supported generally by most people, including Conservatives - such as the environment, civil rights, etc.  Most people are for peace, for peoples right to unionize, and so on. 

But much within that has become like so many of their other issues - contrived or distorted or created to enflame and distract.  And to divide.  So we've ended up with environment groups that instead are now 'Progressive' front groups.  Same with gay rights groups, same with groups that claim to be for civil rights - like the NAACP, the Congressional Black Congress, the ACLU, People For the American Way, on and on.  Feminist groups, anti-war groups, anti-gun groups, anti-capital punishment groups, unions, you name it. 

They don't really take a non-partisan approach to the areas they claim to stand for anymore - they are now 'Progressives' first, and the issues these groups were created to champion are a distant second.  It's all about politics now, and they march in lockstep.



As far as being skeptical of some of the 'science' brought forth by the 'Progressives' - these people have been trying to do away with industrialization for 100 years.  The middle class is in their way on the road to Utopia.  They want everyone to be equally impoverished, with themselves as the 'elite' making all decisions. 

They've given us endless gloom and doom predictions over the years.  As their heroic regimes have failed (the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, etc), they've returned to scare tactics regarding the sustainability of the Earth.  Overpopulation, 'Silent Spring', Global Cooling, Global Warming.  When nothing came about from that they doubled down and started spreading hysteria about 'Climate Change'.

They've had lies exposed, there has been collusion to play up certain statistics and collusion to downplay other statistics which was also exposed.  'Mistakes' and 'errors' in their reports oddly always seem to be in the direction of alarm.  None of this is science, it's politics. 

A very dangerous game to get us to hand over just enough power so they will be able to seize the rest.

The level of outright paranoia on the right is shocking.  And you always have to find someone to blame. You don't understand science, it scares you, so you blame the left for spreading fear. 

You don't like people who are different than you (black, brown, women, Muslems, etc.) because they scare you, so you blame "progressives" for having the temerity to support equality, and civil rights. 

You don't understand Marxism or communism, and that scares you, so you wrongly accuse others of being Marxist, because that is what you think people on the right should do for some reason.

You know that most people on the left are smarter than you, and that scares you, so you will try to change the subject when confronted with facts you don't understand (example: I don't understand that the science behind climate change is as sound as the science behind evolution, so, uh,umm, industrial revolution, yeah, that's the ticket.).

[Jackstar]

... so basically, what you're all saying is, none of you believe that both the Democratic and the Republican political parties are directly controlled from the top on down by a shadowy, overarching organization?

Okay, just checking. Carry on.

[Tarbaby]

Somebody needs to study the correlation between hormones and behavior, between testosterone and aggression.

[Jackstar]

How are we going to find money in the budget for that, in this wintry economic climate?

Quick, form a sub-committee... I know just who to staff it with. So do they.

[SciFiAuthor]

But SciFi, that presupposes that you can be a conservative, yet pick and choose the conservative principles that you either reject or hold as absolute truths

One can. And I do pick and choose them. Conservatives are a vibrant mix of libertarians, neoconservatives, classical conservatives, constitutionalists, religious right, and so on united by a set of common issues that we all agree on. Paper outlined them well. This is a healthy thing.

- an intellectual luxury that you won't allow liberals to have.  If you hold all liberals to the beliefs of some liberals, why can't you hold yourself to the beliefs of some conservatives?  What is it that allows you to treat right wing thought as some buffet of high concept that you can cherry pick from, yet accuse liberals of some single minded lack of objectivity?

Because I haven't seen any indication that you guys disagree with each other despite having such a widely varying and disconnected set of pet issues. The environment has nothing to do with racism, yet one doesn't see anti-racism liberals that also happen to be climate change deniers. And I have no doubt that the few that might exist would be subject to harsh derision by the other liberals. More, the harder I seem to press, the more lock-step the liberals here seem to become. You guys are bobble heads controlled by a pop culture media setting your agenda and you won't entertain any possibility that parts of that agenda might be wrong and doing damage. You yourself bring up science, but you won't address or even acknowledge that skepticism itself is part of the scientific method and that same skepticism seems absent in climate science. This is dangerous for the human race, especially for developing nations, and you guys have a social responsibility to set a higher bar. You've been had before, I went into great detail about The Population Bomb for that very reason and detailed the damage it did. Same with DDT. You're being had again, and you're costing the world billions for no reason.

You guys didn't used to be like this. Liberalism used to be a hotbed of infighting and ideas. It never used to be lock step like this.

Almost everything you post is sullied by this intellectual dishonesty.

Intellectual dishonesty is when you read something, realize that person is absolutely right, and then come back and not acknowledge it. I've lost debates here. Onan got me thinking during an abortion debate regarding sentience. I could find absolutely nothing wrong with the position he proposed and have altered my view accordingly. Onan changed my mind on something. If policy ever becomes based on that argument, then I could compromise on abortion. There are conservatives that will disagree with me on that, but that's ok. Or, more broadly, I was wrong about Noory back in the good old days. While I think I was right in regards to his treatment, I now believe that I shouldn't have bothered because he didn't seem to be backing it all up with anything positive, rather he or people he could have influenced were being nefarious towards Art and apparently Wells. I am not always right.

The simple fact is that is you and your ilk on the right that have eroded the standards of scientific education in North America, through ideologically motivated "skepticism" in fundamental science - whether it be in evolution (or conservative intelligent design nonsense), ecology (through industry led initiatives that ignore the need for renewable resource strategies) to faith based initiatives to regulate biology and morality.  It is high time that you find the courage to own the broader beliefs of your brethren, of have the stones to admit that you are a dilettante, with no actual convictions at all.

I vehemently opposed intelligent design. Actually, many of the religions, including Roman Catholicism, opposed it. It was a bizarre episode much like the temperance movement where no one bought it, yet it managed to end up at the top of the heap because Bush thought it was a good thing. Well, it was a fiasco.

You don't need renewable energy sources. You're mere decades from limitless fusion energy. It's already proven capable of a net gain. The renewable resources that you are pursuing are dead ends. Put the money into accelerated fusion research and thorium nuclear reactors in the mid-term. That sort of energy, if implemented on a sufficient scale, will drop energy prices and electric cars will become more attractive and viable from a purely personal economic standpoint. Bam, problem solved and everyone can quit worrying about it and it's all completely carbon dioxide free. Realize that solutions like that are not taught in schools because of you, instead scare tactics are employed to keep people scared shitless that we're all going to die from climate change and that all solutions must be difficult, expensive, and the resultant life meager and "sustainable". It's all crap. You're teaching the kids crap.

[SciFiAuthor]

The level of outright paranoia on the right is shocking.  And you always have to find someone to blame. You don't understand science, it scares you, so you blame the left for spreading fear. 

You don't like people who are different than you (black, brown, women, Muslems, etc.) because they scare you, so you blame "progressives" for having the temerity to support equality, and civil rights. 

You don't understand Marxism or communism, and that scares you, so you wrongly accuse others of being Marxist, because that is what you think people on the right should do for some reason.

You know that most people on the left are smarter than you, and that scares you, so you will try to change the subject when confronted with facts you don't understand (example: I don't understand that the science behind climate change is as sound as the science behind evolution, so, uh,umm, industrial revolution, yeah, that's the ticket.).

That reads like a laundry list of stereotypes.

[SciFiAuthor]

The point being made is government is corrupt due to group consensus. And I agree that is always a possibility. But to assume smaller is better is probably just as dangerous. Let's not forget tarring and feathering, or lynching... all under the auspices of small government. Bribery, graft, extortion all happen in local governments as well.

I would love to live in a world where government had no reason to interfere in my life... the early 1800's and before are gone. They wont be back by popular demand. Government may carry a big stick but I trust them more than I do the militia men in Nevada, or Exxon for that matter. 

If you want to organize to simplify and reduce taxes... count me in. If you want to organize to let each state be their own kingdom... I am not interested.

I would only point out though that when big government goes bad, it goes way the fuck crazy bad. Nazi Germany, Stalin, Mao, WWI, Napoleon. I mean, when a powerful government tips over a certain edge, it ends up wwwaaaaayyyy worse than a tarring and feathering and lynching here and there. It becomes that same thing on a grand scale. I haven't seen anything that suggests to me that this sort of thing is impossible in the modern world, on the contrary, since the great recession and then Putin going into Ukraine it's felt more like living in 1938. 

I trust government of a certain size and power less than I would Exxon or the militia men because government of that type has gone wrong on a much more giant scale in the not-too-distant past. It seems like we could have that happen again. So I say medium government! Medium government is the answer!

Now let's get to shrinking the fucker.

[Jackstar]

Jesus, I thought I was bad.  :

[PB the Deplorable]

... You know that most people on the left are smarter than you, and that scares you...

Dang, one day the Libs are lining up to insist their voters are too stupid to get photo ID's, next they're talking about how much smarter they are than the rest of us. 

Go figure.

[onan]

Dang, one day the Libs are lining up to insist their voters are too stupid to get photo ID's, next they're talking about how much smarter they are than the rest of us. 

Go figure.

I don't remember ever saying that. I did say that voter fraud is a non issue. As did Rand Paul; and as the story goes he is losing republican support for his views?

[Jackstar]

"Hello, Pot? Meet Kettle! Did you know? You're both being cooked on the same stove."

[NowhereInTime]

Dang, one day the Libs are lining up to insist their voters are too stupid to get photo ID's, next they're talking about how much smarter they are than the rest of us. 

Go figure.

No, you misheard. I was saying conservatives were too stupid to realize their hypocrisy wanting all the blacks and browns to have ID cards to vote while insisting that getting ID cards for their guns infringes on their constitutional rights. Dumbasses.

And, given the level of posting on these boards lately, you included (you are waaay off your game lately), I think Liberals don't have to crow about being smarter; its just self-evident.

[NowhereInTime]

That reads like a laundry list of stereotypes.

And we don't like stereotypes, do we?

[SciFiAuthor]

And we don't like stereotypes, do we?

You're not supposed to, no.

[bigchucka]

You're not supposed to, no.

But I like being a bigot!

[PB the Deplorable]

The point being made is government is corrupt due to group consensus. And I agree that is always a possibility. But to assume smaller is better is probably just as dangerous. Let's not forget tarring and feathering, or lynching... all under the auspices of small government. Bribery, graft, extortion all happen in local governments as well.

I would love to live in a world where government had no reason to interfere in my life... the early 1800's and before are gone. They wont be back by popular demand. Government may carry a big stick but I trust them more than I do the militia men in Nevada, or Exxon for that matter. 

If you want to organize to simplify and reduce taxes... count me in. If you want to organize to let each state be their own kingdom... I am not interested.

I don't think the government - or the people in it - are more corrupt than the private sector, it's just that the private sector can inherently do most things more efficiently than government can.  And, in general, smaller more local government is more likely to prioritize better and do things more to the satisfaction of the local residents than larger more distant government can.

To be sure, there is a certain select group of activities only government can do, and certain activities only a larger central government can do.


The profit motive is the difference - it is what causes private enterprise to operate as efficiently as they do, and the lack of it is what prevents govt from doing so, especially in the areas is has no business being involved in.

As far as local govt vs the central govt, the difference is accountability and an understanding of what the local people value most