What is it with Regressive Conservatives anyways?

Post Reply New Topic

Well here is the thing, you argue for the same positions as a Communist Regime and along with other comments you have made leads one to believe you believe the same thing as a Communist does.



Least my sources didn't recently lose a lawsuit because they slandered someone. At least my sources weren't members of Journ'O'list. If you don't know what that is look it up, cause it ties several left wing sources (including your mainstream media) together in actually doing a smear campaign towards conservatives. That includes Politico before you use them as a source.

The thing you fail to realize or choose not to realize is that Fox News is correct on Obamacare. For starters the individual mandate is a power grab on a scale that has never before been seen. I am sure you remember me bringing up the Commerce Clause, well if they can punish someone for choosing not to participate in commerce they have unlimited power essentially. You can argue I'm wrong until you are blue in the face, but the facts on this are against you.

Further, you fail to realize that Fox News covered climategate appropriately too. I actually know more about the situation that you do and probably more than just about anyone else on this board. There were people being investigated at Goddard Space Flight Center where I was an intern over the summer due to climategate. This wasn't some hacked off wing nut conspiracy theory that you attempt to paint it as.



Uh, how am I a narcisist? You could argue I am a little arrogant, but you can't legitimately argue I am a narcistic elitist.

Idiotic comments like this are why you have no credibility, Inuyasha. You clearly don't have the first idea what Communism is.


Pretty sure I've said before that I didn't like the health care bill. Your criticisms of it are still exaggerated and based on ridiculous right-wing paranoia. I don't have any interest in engaging your regurgitated ultra-right talking points though, so I'll just leave it at that.


Um... you happened to be physically near some people who were tangentially involved, so you know more about the issue than people on this board who are actually educated in the relevant science and have been involved in research? I kind of doubt it.

The problem with that claim is that if you believe anything Orwell has said justifies the belief that he believes all evil in the world is caused by America then you're grasp of reality is very poor.



Is there anything in the OP that you'd like corroboration for? The racism section is based, largely, on an earlier dispute I had with ultraconservative John Browning where he defended several positions I'd regard as highly racist (i.e. that racial profiling is okay, that minorities would be better off if they only worked harder, that Obama was born in Kenya, that too much is made of problems facing Blacks) that polling data showed large numbers of Tea Partisans and conservatives held to.



Oil industry funded conspiracy theories do not equal proof of tampering with evidence.



I don't believe I've ever denied that I'm polemical, but I usually justify it in the context that if you go into an ideologically charge thread soft-spoken you'll end up effectively mute.



I sorta think the socially Darwinian strains in American conservatism (be it the sophisticated right or the wide-eyed utopian capitalists) makes it a necessarily intolerant philosophy when it comes to the downtrodden, whose failure is reduced merely to "laziness". This (as the tea party polls show) can also have the adverse effect of implying that any racial inequalities of wealth are due to "too many lazy people" being in certain ethnic groups.



So be it. My principle goal is base-energizing and perhaps influencing a few apolitical people out their.



I've admitted many times that I am (conversationally) intolerant of stupid and harmful ideas. Most ideas of the American right are stupid or harmful, hence my conversational intolerance of them.



I don't misrepresent the American right's ideas at all. I just illuminate the various logically neccessary implications of them.



Okay, Inuyasha, in what specific respects is my analysis of the conservative movement in America's attitude towards race wrong?

I'd also like to note that I've opposed Jon Stewarts Rally to Restore Fear of leftwing populism from the beginning.

I'd put more trust in someone who doesn't post sources than someone like you who clearly lives inside a propaganda bubble. Of course you can always deny the fact that you're living inside a propaganda bubble by appealing to the law of the universal dichotomy. Basically any information source that doesn't conform to your narrow preconceived ideological standards gets lumped into the catch-all category of "liberal". That way you can deny that you are the one living inside a propaganda bubble while simultaneously claiming that the entire universe existing outside your particular propaganda bubble is a homogeneous ideological enemy aligned against your "truth". Your modus operandi is that of a cultist.

A few telling examples of this include how anything that is tangentially associated with any organization receiving a miniscule amount of money from George Soros is suddenly "tainted". Another example of this would be the self-congraduation Inuyasha gave himself for "owning" Orwell with a supposedly "leftwing, pro-abortion source" which was "CBS" (I know, I was thinking he'd used the National Abortion Federation or some genuinely pro-choice group, but he didn't).

Well, I got it.

And there is a big difference between a serious talking of differences and propaganda.

In any case, good propaganda - which just means propagation of an ideology [yes I am being loose here] - like all class advertising takes not a little skill, intelligence, and knowledge of your product and your market.

You know what, I think I'm going to pick apart your statements piece by piece.

First conservatives don't deny racism does exist, we just find the entire concept of racism to be stupid. A person shouldn't be judged by the color of skin pigmentation to discriminate either in favor of someone or to hurt someone.

You want to spout bull about the Duke Lacrosse incident, consider the fact that one of the people accused couldn't possibly have been there because he was in a taxi, if I remember correctly heading to his girlfriend. It was further discovered that the players were wrongly accused. You may find it okay to convict people based on skin color but I don't.

Also for the record the Obama being from Kenya was started by Hillary Supporters. The reason it is relevant about where he was born is due to the fact you have to be a Naturally Born citizen to become President of the United States.



Sorry but you don't have your facts straight.

Most of America's millionaires are first-generation rich. How is it possible for people from modest backgrounds to become millionaires in one generation? Why is it that so many people with similar socioeconomic backgrounds never accumulate even modest amounts of wealth?

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/st ... naire.html

Okay so most rich people actually made the money themselves and didn't inherit it.



I seem to remember one of their people getting a shiver up their leg whenever Obama spoke. How you can honestly sit there and claim that MSNBC is such a good media outlet I have no idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPZdBv_F ... re=related



In other words they are calling him an ego-maniac which one could argue is true.

Anyways I'm not going through youtube to find his rants cause I just don't even bother listening to Olbermann, I don't hate the man, I just think he's not playing with a full deck.

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070216.asp#2



Actually that is quite mild compared to what has been seen over at CBS.



Riiiighhhttttt.... We must stop the invasion of the lizard men from Venus.

You really need to stop being so arrogant towards the right and get off your high horse. Being conversationally intolerant just because you don't agree with the ideas of the right wing makes you look like a huge douche who's deliberately trying to stir s**t up rather than address the issue. And for God's sakes, you make an ass of yourself whenever you call conservatives con-artists, implying that all their ideas are malicious. That's one of the most primitive flaws of logic in the book (Paint... all.. with... same... brush?).

Honestly, what do you know about the poor? Have you ever grown up in a ghetto? If so, you'd know that the rampant ghetto mentality is a dysfunctional mindset which consists of a low tolerance for frustration, sense of entitlement, reliance on government programs, instant gratification, and fatalism. Poverty is a mentality, and it's a joke when people think education will solve all problems.

One typical conservative misconception is that all it takes is to give yourself a little pep talk. This is a paradigm you're talking about, they literally have to adopt a new worldview and that means killing yourself and becoming a new person, which has to be done gradually. But yes, the rich aren't holding them down and one can definitely rise above the ghetto mentality with effort.

One thing about the bootstraps phrase that bothers me is that it's so vague. Do you mean giving yourself a little pep talk or going through the long and hard process of changing your worldview? That's one assumption I'd like to know behind the phrase.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 02 Jan 2011, 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

And Beck is? It's getting to the point where you're not even funny anymore.

I don't find this funny at all, I'm not the kind of person that finds humor at the expense of others. You know that video that xenon13 posted all over about Beck, turns out that if you look at the transcript, Beck looks to be quite rational and his opinions well thought out.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.actio ... 4978060978

Difference between conservatives and liberals is conservatives believe you have the right to pursue happiness. You don't have the right to be happy, whether you succeed or fail should be on your own merits. Liberals think government should step in and run things.

Here is what Nazism, Communism, and every two-bit dictator has in common; the state controls everything. You can argue that I'm being alarmist, but the facts are the facts. Conservatives believe in limited government to perserve freedom, not to oppress people.

Odd that they literally never follow through on their "beliefs," then. Reagan and Bush I grew government. Bush II grew government. None of them were particularly interested in limits on government, at least not when it came to violating civil liberties or killing people.

When conservatives say they want "limited government" they really mean they want to limit the extent to which government is able to act as a positive force within society, eg by providing a social safety net or other benefits for the public good. They do not want to limit the government at all when it comes to killing people halfway across the world, spying on people, getting in people's personal lives and interfering in personal decisions about reproduction, drug use, who one can and can't marry, etc.

Tell me how opposition to gay marriage and support for the drug war fit into your ridiculous notions of "limited government to preserve freedom, not to oppress people." Go ahead, I dare you. You are too deluded to realize it, but "small government" is nothing more than a slogan to the Republican Party. They do not actually believe in it. If you were interested in genuinely small government you might be a Libertarian, but you sure as hell would not be a Republican.

Uh, look at who controlled congress during Reagan and George H.W. Bush's presidencies. Congress controls the purse strings not the President. Criticizing George W. Bush on government growth is a little out of line from the standpoint of a lot of it was in reaction to 9/11. Again though, Beck has criticized George W. Bush on government growth too.



First, government acting as a "positive force" comes with a price, you need to realize that it comes with a price. Second, I don't care if my Government spys on nonUS citizens outside the United States (provide for the common defense remember). Also, reproduction decisions involve the life of the child too which makes it more than a personal decision. Drug use, including alcohol, can also affect other people (ever hear of drunk driving).



Gay Marriage opposition is due to the fact you open the door to all kinds of other things. Slippery slope, argument applies in this case and is actually valid. Furthermore, last I checked the homosexual lifestyle is condemned in several major religions should people be accused of hate crimes for preaching against that kind of a lifestyle. Part of homosexuality is a choice, you may be born with an attraction for the same gender, but you can choose not to act on it. If they came up with another name instead of gay marriage I have no problem with it. Call it a domestic partnership or something instead of something that people find objectionable.

Drug usage can put other people's lives in jeopardy, are you suggesting we shouldn't have drunk driving laws?

Depends on what type of conservative you're dealing with. Social conservatives want the government to expand to enforce their values, while fiscal conservatives are strictly about keeping the government limited in the financial side of things. The social side of things are more of an individual belief in fiscal conservatism.

What's up with everyone considering a conservative's abortion stance incongruent with their beliefs? Their belief in the government's role is in protecting the rights of citizens and the nation, so pro-life is consistent with protecting the baby's right to live. People also think pro-life is incongruent with supporting the death penalty. Well a crook's done something to deserve that as well as being a threat to other people's rights should the crook continue to live, while a baby has a clean slate. There's some weird false dichotomies out there...

It doesn't even matter what side you vote for anymore since both sides usually end up expanding the government. Bush II was one of the biggest spenders since LBJ.

Killing people across the world? Are you sure killing for it's own sake is the way the US military rolls or are they isolated incidents? Soldiers actually get put at risk so that civilian casualties are minimized.

@ Inuyasha: Yeaaahh exactly you can't have the best of both worlds when it comes to the government. You sacrifice freedom for security. How the hell is homosexuality a lifestyle though? That's like saying Asperger's is a lifestyle when it comes down to how we are wired. It's not even clear whether the nuclear family model is nature or social construction, so the least intrusive thing is to just let the gays get married... civilly united... whatever. I just don't believe in the government being involved in socially engineering. There's supposed to be a separation of state and religion, so I really don't give a s**t whats considered objectionable.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 02 Jan 2011, 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'd say it's a hell of a lot better of a bargain than the cost in treasure and blood of our non-existent Middle Eastern accomplishments.


Fail. That's not from a limited-government framework. That is the government getting involved in someone's personal life in the furtherance of a specific religious agenda. Now that is tyranny and an overreach of government.

Hate crime laws are not part of this discussion. I am more fanatically opposed to any restrictions on free speech than you could possibly realize. The question is specifically how theocratic moralizing enforced by government could possibly be defended within the framework of your alleged "limited government" mentality.


Never said that. People are obviously to be held responsible if they do something that can harm others; even the most hard-core libertarians recognize that. But you have the government telling you what you can and cannot do with your own body in your own time. How is that limited government? How is that liberty?

You're full of crap.

I'm less likely to criticize the actions of individual soldiers, as they are following orders while put into a difficult and dangerous situation. My issue is more with the broader policy that puts our young men and women in a position where they are forced to kill people, to no discernible end.

You're dead on in the gay marriage issue.