Conservatives

[Shuriken]

I want to write a well-argued, informed post about conservatives and the abuse of the truth by this Republican administration. However, I don't think that I can do it. The Bush administration's untruths — whether knowing or inadvertant (the former, I think) — are just too depressing to look into them with any objectivity. I'm not ready to say that the sky is falling yet, but it's getting awfully close.

Bush lied to take us to war. Intelligence told the administration one thing, and the administration turned around and said something else to the American people. And yet, so many conservatives are willing to excuse the administration for this. Why aren't they as concerned about the administration's lies as most liberals are?

It's one thing to base your worldview on the facts. It's another thing to twist the facts to suit your worldview. For example, the Bush administartion said before the invasion that the chief reason for going to war with Iraq was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to the U.S. This is a fact. Only after the invasion, when the administration's dire warnings were proved to be groundless, did the story change to Hussein's potential for weapons of mass destruction being one reason among many for the invasion. Yet many conservatives will not admit this. When I tried saying this in a respectful way to my father, he shouted me down and wouldn't let me complete my sentence.

I agree that seeing Hussein out of power is a good thing. But I am very disturbed by the means that the Bush administration used to overthrow him. I am also very disturbed by the mess that the Bush administration has made of its post-invasion of Iraq. But a conservative would just call me a doom-and-gloom pessimist who overlooks the "optimism" of last January's election. While I hope that the election begins a bright new chapter of Middle Eastern history, this is not a foregone conclusion. Don't forget that a supposedly "successful" election was held in South Vietnam in 1967, and things ultimately didn't turn out as the U.S. had hoped.

Now, official investigators have given up their search for weapons in Iraq, saying that they are most likely not there, and there's little outrage from the public. The woman who told the most brazen lies to the public has now been promoted to Secretary of State. The White House lawyer who rationalized torture has now been elevated to Attorney General. Hey, at least they didn't get caught having consensual sex with an intern.

But all of this is really beside the point. The crux is this: Most conservatives want to hear a particular kind of story. If the facts don't support that story, then they will buy into the lies that do. It's difficult to talk about this with Bush supporters because most of them will not ever admit to the administration being wrong — about anything.

Democracy — or at least a republic — depends on the honest exchange of facts and well-reasoned ideas to function well. The country is currently being run on lies and propaganda, and a lot of conservatives seem to like it that way; it helps them hold onto power.

If conservatives have to resort to intellectual dishonesty to advance their ideas, then their ideas may not be worth advancing. And if the current state of politics is the best that this country can do, we don't deserve to advance either.

[kimpossible]

Shouldn't the title reflect the Bush administration and its more fervent supporters? Not all conservatives favor Bush or the actions of his administration.

[Shuriken]

Shouldn't the title reflect the Bush administration and its more fervent supporters? Not all conservatives favor Bush or the actions of his administration.

Well, I did qualify my comments by saying "most conservatives," etc.

I also invite comments that talk about the more positive aspects of conservatism.

[Emperor_Mike]

People believe what they want to believe and it matters little whether they're conservatives, liberals, or moderates. At the end of the day, it's only a label.

Perhaps the better question to ask is what drives people to swallow the rot they're exposed to in the media without question.

The masses...are sheep. Since many either cannot think for themselves or can't be asked to, others need to do the thinking for them. It makes governing so much easier.

[Chu Chi]

I want to write a well-argued, informed post about conservatives...

Could you please define the word "conservative" in the yellowworld definitions thread.

CC

[hooligan]

The funny thing is, when APIA conservatives (most of them) hear about things like racism and discrimination they're usually the first to question and repudiate, but when the racism is clear and probably irrefutable, they're the most fervent about seeking justice.

What about the more subtle racism that we don't see?

[Chu Chi]

The funny thing is, when APIA conservatives (most of them) hear about things like racism and discrimination they're usually the first to question and repudiate, but when the racism is clear and probably irrefutable, they're the most fervent about seeking justice.

What about the more subtle racism that we don't see?

Yes, thats their "assignment", Do you think Ms. Malkin would even be known if she did not function in that capacity?

What I have noticed is that alot of non white people will question the existence of racism, UNTIL THEY GET MISTREATED.

Then all of the sudden its "real".

My favorite example:

"this is a hight tech lynching of an uppity Black man" --Clarence Thomas

CC

[Shuriken]

Okay, I did not come up with the most inspired title for this thread. If any YW mods can think of a better one, please feel free to retitle it.

[hooligan]

Yes, thats their "assignment", Do you think Ms. Malkin would even be known if she did not function in that capacity?

What I have noticed is that alot of non white people will question the existence of racism, UNTIL THEY GET MISTREATED.

Then all of the sudden its "real".

My favorite example:

"this is a hight tech lynching of an uppity Black man" --Clarence Thomas

CC

See, by your reasoning, that's simpley setting up stereotypes of all conservatives. What I think most progressives and liberals have to acknowledge is the fact that conservatives are here to try to help create a better community, but we just disagree on how to get there. Malkin, is an outlier, who seems to really want to just stir up trouble, most conservatives are a little ... more ... sane?

[Shuriken]

People believe what they want to believe and it matters little whether they're conservatives, liberals, or moderates. At the end of the day, it's only a label.

It seems to me that liberals are much more concerned with the facts, wherever they lead, than conservatives are. Books such as Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them are more thoroughly documented than their conservative counterparts.

[Yeahman]

It seems to me that liberals are much more concerned with the facts, wherever they lead, than conservatives are. Books such as Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them are more thoroughly documented than their conservative counterparts.
hahahahahhahahaha

Obviously you haven't read the liberal posts on YW. Facts are not a liberal strongsuit. For most liberals, veering off too much from the Democratic talking points is forbidden even when faced with facts. Same goes for many conservatives and the Republican party line.

Facts will never be Democratic or Republican, liberal or conservative. So when someone is so devoted to a party like many liberals are to the Democratic party, chances are that they are leaving a lot of facts behind and embracing a blind faith in their party.

If you think that liberals have a monopoly on the facts, then you are also clearly one of those who have been tricked by the liberal lies.

And I sure hope a book called "Lies and the lying liars who tell them" has a lot of research behind it. Franken would look pretty damn stupid if it had lies in it.


And are you really that naive to think that Democrats never lie? Did you really think that honest politicans exist? Remember Clinton lying under oath?

[deez nuts]

hahahahahhahahaha

Obviously you haven't read the liberal posts on YW. Facts are not a liberal strongsuit. For most liberals, veering off too much from the Democratic talking points is forbidden even when faced with facts. Same goes for many conservatives and the Republican party line.

Facts will never be Democratic or Republican, liberal or conservative. So when someone is so devoted to a party like many liberals are to the Democratic party, chances are that they are leaving a lot of facts behind and embracing a blind faith in their party.

If you think that liberals have a monopoly on the facts, then you are also clearly one of those who have been tricked by the liberal lies.

And I sure hope a book called "Lies and the lying liars who tell them" has a lot of research behind it. Franken would look pretty damn stupid if it had lies in it.


And are you really that naive to think that Democrats never lie? Did you really think that honest politicans exist? Remember Clinton lying under oath?

i agree. when it comes to politics, facts are subjective and people will believe what they want and choose to believe.

[hooligan]

hahahahahhahahaha

Obviously you haven't read the liberal posts on YW. Facts are not a liberal strongsuit. For most liberals, veering off too much from the Democratic talking points is forbidden even when faced with facts. Same goes for many conservatives and the Republican party line.

Facts will never be Democratic or Republican, liberal or conservative. So when someone is so devoted to a party like many liberals are to the Democratic party, chances are that they are leaving a lot of facts behind and embracing a blind faith in their party.

If you think that liberals have a monopoly on the facts, then you are also clearly one of those who have been tricked by the liberal lies.

And I sure hope a book called "Lies and the lying liars who tell them" has a lot of research behind it. Franken would look pretty damn stupid if it had lies in it.

And are you really that naive to think that Democrats never lie? Did you really think that honest politicans exist? Remember Clinton lying under oath?

I guess, you totally forgot about the facts that said that people who were brown, black, red and yellow were inferior to those of the white race. With that said, preach on brotha yell0!

[TB4000]

"It's an oxymoron, like free trade, or compassionate conservatism." -Porky
"It's comments like that that are killing us in the flyover states." - Daffy

Duck Dodgers tv series

[kimpossible]

I guess, you totally forgot about the facts that said that people who were brown, black, red and yellow were inferior to those of the white race. With that said, preach on brotha yell0!

Actually, he said the same about conservatives and the Republican party line. He didn't say one had more facts than the other. He was responding directly to Shuriken's claim that liberals had more facts than conservatives and disagreed. He didn't disagree and reverse the claim.

Same goes for many conservatives and the Republican party line.

[Emperor_Mike]

It seems to me that liberals are much more concerned with the facts, wherever they lead, than conservatives are. Books such as Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them are more thoroughly documented than their conservative counterparts.

Hmmm...no, not really. Lies...*ahem*...half-truths in politics aren't the exclusive domain of any one side of the ideological spectrum. Liberals lie, Conservatives lie, everybody lies when power, prestige and gainful employment in the government are at stake. We need to be pragmatic in these matters.

Here's something worth remembering: if you're too conservative or too liberal there's a good chance that you're fast approaching the point of irrational thinking. People should try giving critical thinking and reasoning a chance.

[Bhodi_Li]

It seems to me that liberals are much more concerned with the facts, wherever they lead, than conservatives are. Books such as Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them are more thoroughly documented than their conservative counterparts.*falls off his chair laughing*

We're still talking politicians right?

[Shuriken]

hahahahahhahahaha

If you think that liberals have a monopoly on the facts, then you are also clearly one of those who have been tricked by the liberal lies.

I just said that liberals are more concerned with facts and that liberal books are more thoroughly documented than conservative ones are.

I didn't say that Democrats don't lie.

Don't distort what I say.

[hooligan]

Actually, he said the same about conservatives and the Republican party line. He didn't say one had more facts than the other. He was responding directly to Shuriken's claim that liberals had more facts than conservatives and disagreed. He didn't disagree and reverse the claim.

My comment was directed at this comment.

Facts will never be Democratic or Republican, liberal or conservative. So when someone is so devoted to a party like many liberals are to the Democratic party, chances are that they are leaving a lot of facts behind and embracing a blind faith in their party.

And how things that we now know were wrong were once accepted as "facts". How facts can be twisted to lie. Given yell0's track record of neatly clipping facts to support his claims, I'm surprised he keeps up the "fact" based part of his arguments.

[Faithless]

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots (http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/05/185.html)

February 7, 2005
State Of The Obvious Edition

Ah, the State of the Union Address. Could it have been any more boring? So George W. Bush (1,3) is going to screw the planet... all right, all right, we get it already! Still, at least he didn't turn up pretending that he was actually an Iraqi, like some Shameless Morons (2). Meanwhile, the American Taliban, represented this week by Melissa Fryrear (5) and Donald Wildmon (10) are still on the warpath, Right-Wing Sex Machines (7) are turning out libidinous teenagers, and Judy Woodruff (8) can just kiss my ass. Welcome to this week's thrilling romp through the forest of dumb. Don't forget the key!

George W. Bush
It's official - George W. Bush's presidency has jumped the shark. He successfully enacted his first term domestic agenda by introducing budget-crushing tax cuts for the rich, under-funded his own big-government programs for education and homeland security, and he's successfully lined the pockets of his corporate cronies while cutting benefits to veterans, seniors, and the poor. On the foreign front, Osama's still missing and there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but hey, they did have an election. Unfortunately now that the election's over all we have to look forward to is several more years of flag-draped coffins trickling into Dover Air Force Base. So where does Bush go from here? Don't worry - if you missed his State of the Union Address last week you didn't miss much. There's going to be further raping of social programs, more money given to the super-wealthy, and the bells of freedom will soon be ringing in another yet-to-be-determined middle-eastern dictatorship. Blah blah blah. Let's face it - George's second term has only been going for five minutes, and it's already a bust. In fact, the State of the Union was so boring, many attendees were caught on camera trying to hail taxis to get them the hell out of there.

Shameless Morons
I'm joking of course. The Republicans in the photo above aren't trying to hail taxis, they're showing solidarity with the Iraqi people by putting blue ink on their fingers, just like Iraqi voters did last week. Of course, since everyone agrees that it's a good thing the Iraqi people voted, and since the Republicans didn't pass the ink pad around to their Democratic colleagues, what this actually is is a particularly lame-ass partisan photo-op, and a tacky one at that. It's also interesting that these Congressional Republicans are expressing their admiration for the democratic process since none of them are allowed to vote for anything other than the president's policies. But come on... it was a mere two years ago that George W. Bush stood in this very spot and declared that Iraq had "biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people," "materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure," "the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent," "several mobile biological weapons labs," and of course, "an advanced nuclear weapons development program." So we shat our pants, invaded Iraq, wasted $300 billion (and counting), sacrificed 1400 of our soldiers (and counting), and found... nothing. Don't worry though - the Republicans have got blue fingers. Way to go! We've replaced a weak secular dictatorship with a violence-stricken Islamic theocracy! Uh........ yay?

George W. Bush
The funny thing about getting your way all the time - something Our Great Leader is clearly used to - is that eventually you start acting like an arrogant, hubristic asshole. Some say that George W. Bush has been like this ever since he was given his first oil company; others say that he was born that way. But whatever - the upcoming battle over Social Security demonstrates that maybe, just maybe, even George W. Bush can go too far. Yes, Dubya's new plan for Social Security is a real wonder to behold - if you're a Wall Street fatcat, since that's who's going to be getting the real benefit from the plan. Speaking of benefits, did you know that Bush's new plan cuts guaranteed Social Security benefits by up to 40%? Talk about burning down the village in order to save it. Worried about the national debt? The plan increases the debt by $4.5 trillion. Are you listening, fiscal conservatives? Not only that, but Bush is selling this whole thing by lying about the current state of Social Security, declaring during the State of the Union Address that, "By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt." Lies, lies, damnable lies - that the Democrats rightly jeered.

Orrin Hatch
Alberto "Torture Boy" Gonzalez was approved by the Senate last week after a few stray Democratic senators apparently decided that electrified nipples make for good foreign policy. The Republicans, as mentioned previously, voted for Gonzalez in lockstep. But as with the Condoleezza Rice nomination, some Republicans were more than happy to throw the race card on the table in an attempt to cow their opponents. Orrin Hatch, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee ominously said that "Every Hispanic-American in the country is watching." The implication was clear: Never mind the torture, Alberto Gonzalez should become the next Attorney General because he is Hispanic. And if you don't vote for him, you're a racist. You know, it always cracks me up when Republicans try to pull this, considering that they've spent decades doing everything they can to crush the hopes and dreams of minorities. Actually it doesn't crack me up. It makes me want to vomit. Unfortunately Hatch's "every Hispanic-American" didn't appear to include the Hispanic Caucus, who refused to endorse Gonzalez. Oh well.

Melissa Fryrear
We noted last week that one prominent member of the American Taliban (the Family Research Council) employ a "homosexual detection expert," presumably for the purposes of rooting out evil-doers who belongs to the Axis of Tolerance (see Idiots 184). That's because "tolerance," according to the FRC, is a code word for creeping homosexuality. And creeping homosexuality is not to be ignored. Why, before you know it, homosexuality could be creeping down your chimney. But terrified heteros, take note: "tolerance" isn't the only word on the fundies' no-no list. Check out Focus on the Family "gender issues analyst" and alleged "former lesbian" Melissa Fryrear: "'Love' is one of the Trojan horses for the acceptance of homosexuality ... Gay activists are trying to find an argument that carries emotional weight: 'love,' after all, sounds good to everyone. The problem, though, is their definition of 'love' is carefully camouflaged to mean more than Cupid ever meant it to mean. Their definition is meant to mean the acceptance and the celebration of homosexuality." So let me get this straight... somehow the Christian right have gotten themselves into a situation where "tolerance" and "love" are now words that must not be spoken? How peculiar. To be fair though, I must admit that I've always wondered whether Jesus really meant it when he said "love thy neighbor," or whether he was secretly advertising a big gay gangbang at the house next door.

The White House
Of course you're all familiar with the ridiculous costs of the recent presidential inauguration - the most expensive in history - which took place in Washington a couple weeks ago (if not, see Idiots 181). The theme of the inauguration was "celebrate the troops," so lets take a look at how they were celebrated, shall we? Rebecca Lawson of West Babylon, NY, told MSNBC that her son attended the inauguration - because he was ordered to. When he got there, "He said there was no food provided for them, so they ate after the event at some fast-food restaurant ... He stayed at a local military base with the rest of the group, but they made him pay for the room." Huh. The White House spent $40 million on the inauguration, and they couldn't even feed or house the soldiers who were ordered to attend? Humbug.

Right-wing Sex Machines
Abstinence-only education programs have become increasingly popular since Born-Again Bush and the American Taliban came to power. Now, obviously there's something to be said for teaching teenagers that it might not be a bad idea to wait before having sex - provided, of course, that teenagers receive full and proper sex education without any of this "I don't know if HIV is transmissible via sweat or tears" rubbish. (Yes, Dr. Bill Frist, I'm looking at you.) But here's the thing about abstinence-only programs. According to Reuters, a recent study shows that the programs proposed by George W. Bush "have had no impact on teenagers' behavior in his home state of Texas." Had no impact? Actually, that's a bit misleading. It turns out that teenagers taking part in abstinence-only programs actually increased their sexual activity. "The study showed about 23 percent of ninth-grade girls, typically 13 to 14 years old, had sex before receiving abstinence education. After taking the course, 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex. Boys in the tenth grade, about 14 to 15 years old, showed a more marked increase, from 24 percent to 39 percent, after receiving abstinence education." So there you have it. Abstinence-only programs are actually sex factories. But I think I've got a solution! Since abstinence-only programs don't work, perhaps we could just make it so that women have to cover up every single piece of skin before they leave the house, and that way men won't find them attractive, and won't want to have sex with them at all. Like this:

What do you think, conservatives? Worth a try?

Judy Woodruff
Hi-jinks were the order of the day at a recent Bush event in Fargo, ND, when Karl Rove grabbed the microphone of CNN's John King and proceeded to do a little "reporting" of his own. "The president is making an incredible presentation to the audience here in Fargo, North Dakota," said Rove. "The crowd has received an overwhelming - his reform message of Social Security. The crowd broke into a strong applause when the president attacked the mainstream media..." King interrupted, "It's not bad. I'd keep your day job, but that's not bad." Not bad? How dare you, Mr. King! "I'd say more than not bad," gushed Judy Woodruff, back in the studio. "I think we're ready to hire Karl Rove right now. We'll start - we'll make the phone call right after the show." You know, I don't know what's worse... the idea that Karl Rove's spin is so similar to CNN's regular reporting that Judy Woodruff can't tell the difference, or Woodruff assuming CNN can employ someone they already work for.

The Bush Administration
It's Payola Pie time again! (See Idiots 184.) Yes, it was revealed last week that yet another arm of the Bush administration has been caught making "inappropriate payments" to journalists. This time it's the Pentagon, who have apparently been "paying journalists to write articles and commentary for a Web site aimed at influencing public opinion in the Balkans," according to the Associated Press. As well as the propaganda puff pieces, the website carries AP and Reuters articles to give it an air of credibility. Don't worry though, apparently "The Pentagon's inspector general, Joseph Schmitz, is reviewing that case and also looking more broadly at Pentagon activities that might involve inappropriate payments to journalists." So you can bet that this will be all sorted out real soon.

Donald Wildmon
And finally, it seems you can't go anywhere on the web these days without being confronted by all manner of unsightly visions. In a recent video sent to members of the American Family Association, Chairman Donald Wildmon expressed his concerns: "Recently, while searching the web for information on SpongeBob..." (Can you see where this is going? Let's continue.) "...I clicked on a supposedly SpongeBob site only to have hardcore pornography pop up." Now, to be clear, Mr. Wildmon isn't blaming SpongeBob for hardcore pornography (although he does mention them in the same breath) but rather blaming the Justice Department for not doing enough to crack down on dirty pictures which apparently pop up when you search for innocent cartoon characters. So I decided to test Mr. Wildmon's claims. Running a simple pop-up blocker which comes standard with most browsers/ISPs these days, I did a search for "SpongeBob" on Google with SafeSearch turned off. I ignored any results from mainstream media sources, and clicked on everything else. I gave up on page 17, when, sadly, no hardcore pornography had appeared on my screen. I repeated the test with "Sponge Bob." Again, no porn, unless this is some kind of kinky cry for help:

In fact, the closest I could get to hardcore pornography was a Google image search for "Sponge Boob," but that was probably stretching it a bit. So where did the mysterious hardcore pornography come from? The only conclusions I can draw are that either Mr. Wildmon got confused and accidentally typed "hardcore pornography" into Google, or he's spent a bit too much time "researching" said hardcore pornography and has picked up some nasty spyware which is serving ads to his desktop. I fear we may never know... See you next week!

[Yeahman]

I just said that liberals are more concerned with facts
One word; Rathergate.

and that liberal books are more thoroughly documented than conservative ones are.
Can to name an example outside of Lies?

And how things that we now know were wrong were once accepted as "facts". How facts can be twisted to lie. Given yell0's track record of neatly clipping facts to support his claims, I'm surprised he keeps up the "fact" based part of his arguments.
So neatly clipped facts aren't facts? Stop fact-hating.

[kimpossible]

My comment was directed at this comment.



And how things that we now know were wrong were once accepted as "facts". How facts can be twisted to lie. Given yell0's track record of neatly clipping facts to support his claims, I'm surprised he keeps up the "fact" based part of his arguments.

And I read that part. Given the totality of his reply to Shuriken's claim that conservatives/Republicans deal less with facts than liberals/Democrats, it was a fair reply.

edit: if it helps, he does get stuck in a loop when it comes to liberals and Democrats - why is his problem, not mine - but at least in this instance all he really did was reply and disagree.

[hooligan]

So neatly clipped facts aren't facts? Stop fact-hating.

lol. if you think taking one part of the story and giving it a incendiary title is fair and balanced, i guess you've got a point.

i don't hate facts, i just don't believe that facts should be the bottom line.

[kimpossible]

So neatly clipped facts aren't facts? Stop fact-hating.

ye110, i have one and only one request; can you please stop being so friggin' antagonistic to the point that you stop just short of getting personal with people you're debating with?

you don't have to change the presentation of your views in the least, but curtail that one part of your interaction with other posters on this board.

edit: closing, sorry but i didn't really see this going anywhere productive anytime soon.