The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > The BBQ Pit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-10-2010, 03:22 PM
Lobohan Lobohan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
What stupid shit do you have to believe to be a conservative today?

I was just peeking in at the Obama / Palin Nuclear thread and it made me wonder. What are the large chunks of stupidity that conservatives are supposed to believe today?

By this I mean things that are factually not true and are overwhelmingly championed by the right. I don't want opinions, like say on abortion, but actually factual stupidity that conservatives just sort of pretend is true. The examples I can think of are:
  • Global Warming is a lie, or some kind of plot or something.
  • Keynesian stimulation in a deep recession is bad or something.
  • Saddam was behind 911 (as of a few years ago at least)
  • Marxism, Fascism, Communism, Maoism and Islamism are all the same thing and they're what Obama is doing.
  • Birthers

Anyone have a more exhaustive list? And as a reminder, I don't mean everyone conservative has to believe it, but say 50% or more. And please, anyone is welcome to start a companion liberal thread, but let's keep this tidy. Kay?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 04-10-2010, 03:28 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Hows about you start with cites that 50% or more of "conservatives" believe all the things on your list. And why do you have something in your list that you seem to admit was true "a few years ago", when you are asking about "today'?

I mean, I know you're strictly impartial and what a completely non-partisan debate and all. Right?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-10-2010, 03:33 PM
Lobohan Lobohan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Hows about you start with cites that 50% or more of "conservatives" believe all the things on your list. And why do you have something in your list that you seem to admit was true "a few years ago", when you are asking about "today'?
Because a quick scan only found info that was from 2003.

Quote:
I mean, I know you're strictly impartial and what a completely non-partisan debate and all. Right?
I'd like a list of the stupid nonsense that conservatives currently believe. I imagine the debate would be about the quality of the particulars on the list.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-10-2010, 03:42 PM
DigitalC DigitalC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
That gays marrying will bring the country to ruin. That corporations are kind and benevolent and if we just let them do whatever they want everything will work out wonderfully. That people on welfare are living a life of luxury and excess because why would you want to work when you can live like a queen from the hard work of real americans.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-10-2010, 03:51 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
Because a quick scan only found info that was from 2003.
So, are we debating 2003 or "today"?

Quote:
I'd like a list of the stupid nonsense that conservatives currently believe. I imagine the debate would be about the quality of the particulars on the list.
So, should I take that as a "no", you're not offering any cites for your claims?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalC
That gays marrying will bring the country to ruin. That corporations are kind and benevolent and if we just let them do whatever they want everything will work out wonderfully. That people on welfare are living a life of luxury and excess because why would you want to work when you can live like a queen from the hard work of real americans.
Same request-- cite?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-10-2010, 03:51 PM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 14,914
For a stimulus package to work, when people receive that money, they need to go out and use it. If they simply lock it away in a safe for "when things improve", then you've simply devalued the currency and not produced a stimulus. And of course, devaluing the money creates further decline in market confidence, as well as expanding debt.

If people believe that a Keynesian stimulus won't work, it actually won't.

If the stimulus creates such a large debt that you depress the economy after the stimulus has taken effect, then you also haven't really solved anything.

Ultimately, a financial stimulus is just a mind-game being played on people who are presumed to be too stupid to go out and do what's good for themselves. Increasing or decreasing the supply of money doesn't change actually anything except the price of stuff on the label. A shoe that costs $100 in an economy of $5 trillion is just the same as a shoe that costs $200 in an economy of $10 trillion. And on the downside, it is a bit of a gamble of whether it will actually work, if it will produce no particular effect, or if it will make things worse. The largest factor in the success is how good a job you did of selling the populace at large on its ability to fix things. If the other guy has a better ad campaign, he might well be able to kill its efficacy or even turn it to the worst. If you can convince people to stop being stupid, you produce the same effect without the gamble.

So on the one hand, Republicans are wrong that a stimulus can't work. But on the other hand, they may well be right that it won't.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 04-10-2010 at 03:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-10-2010, 03:56 PM
Lobohan Lobohan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
From my list:
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-10-2010, 04:11 PM
Der Trihs Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
How about that evolution isn't the scientific consensus?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-10-2010, 04:15 PM
Squink Squink is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
You have to believe you and your buddies make up a majority of all Americans, even when you keep losing elections.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-10-2010, 04:17 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
From my list:
  • OK. That was a gimme, though.
    Quote:
  • Keynesian stimulation in a deep recession is bad or something.More Republicans than others believe in this nonsense.
  • OK, now can we have a cite that this is "stupid"?
    Quote:
  • Saddam was behind 911 (as of a few years ago at least) The most recent poll I can find with differentiated conservative / other numbers is as of 2004. However as of 2007 41% of Americans thought that. I'd say that it's pretty likely that the lions share of those numbnuts are on the conservative side.
  • Not according to CBS in Sept '07:

    Quote:
    Another reason could involve feelings about the Iraq war itself, and the importance of reducing cognitive dissonance. The Iraq War has become a partisan issue - three in four Republicans say going to war was the right thing to do, while three in four Democrats say it was not. Nearly half of those who now say the Iraq war was the right thing to do connect 9/11 with Saddam. Consequently, 40 percent of Republicans believe Saddam was involved in 9/11, while just 27 percent of Democrats do.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lobohan
  • Marxism, Fascism, Communism, Maoism and Islamism are all the same thing and they're what Obama is doing.This is of republicans, not overarching conservatives, so weigh it appropriately.
  • Can you explicitly quote the part which proves your assertion?

    Quote:
  • Birthers See above.
Your cite says 45%. Have you moved the goalposts?

I would say that you 2nd to the last assertion is at least as "stupid" as some of the things you are accusing conservatives of.

Last edited by John Mace; 04-10-2010 at 04:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-10-2010, 04:19 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Ah. Moved to the BBQ Pit. How shocking...

Carry on!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-10-2010, 04:21 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Modding

"Stupid shit" believed by the political opposition seems like more of a Pit topic to me. Moved from Great Debates.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-10-2010, 04:25 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
"Stupid shit" believed by the political opposition seems like more of a Pit topic to me.
It's not a term of art?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-10-2010, 04:32 PM
Lobohan Lobohan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
OK. That was a gimme, though.
I try to open with the sure shot.

Quote:
OK, now can we have a cite that this is "stupid"?
The majority of economists think it's a good idea. Non economists sort of have to go by that.

Quote:
Not according to CBS in Sept '07:
How awesome. I'm willing to agree that believing Saddam was behind 911 is only optional for being a mainstream conservative.

Quote:
Can you explicitly quote the part which proves your assertion?
I was trying to cover the socialist Muslim legs. I think it would be hard to find a cite for all, but certainly there is a lot of confusion and misuse of those terms on the right. Finding a cite that is solid may be impossible, but I can point to tea-party signage at least. Other than that I'm willing to say that other than a majority believing he is a socialist-muslim I can't back up the remainder.


Quote:
Your cite says 45%. Have you moved the goalposts?
More of a nudge. I thought that cite had a not sure section (which I think for this purpose would count), but it was actually from here: http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt...orn_in_US.html

Be that as it may, an awful lot of them believe something that has been proven wrong over and over again, factually.

Quote:
I would say that you 2nd to the last assertion is at least as "stupid" as some of the things you are accusing conservatives of.
. Is it? Meh, I'd disagree.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-10-2010, 04:36 PM
FoieGrasIsEvil FoieGrasIsEvil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Nasty Nati
Posts: 14,923
I'm not sure what the OP is getting at. I lean somewhat conservative, mostly with regards to wanting less government in my life, minimal taxation, a strong military and primarily, fiscal responsibility WRT government spending.

I believe in evolution, abortion, legalization of marijuana, that global warming exists (although I think the degree as to how much of it is from humans and how much is cyclical is debatable), I believe Obama is an American citizen (I voted for the guy!), I believe Sarah Palin is nuts and that the Republican Party by and large has come off the rails from overindulging on a fundamentalist and stupid voting base.

I'm not sure what that makes me.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-10-2010, 04:42 PM
Johnny L.A. Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 49,647
Examples:

1
2
3
4
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-10-2010, 04:46 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
The majority of economists think it's a good idea. Non economists sort of have to go by that.
Really?

Quote:
The Keynesian resurgence in academia

With a few notable exceptions - such as Robert Shiller, James K. Galbraith and Paul Krugman among others - the Keynesian resurgence has been largely driven by policy makers rather than academic economists. Until very recently mainstream economists have not generally favoured robust counter-cyclical fiscal policies. While the school of thought known as New Keynesian economics has dominated the teaching of macroeconomics at universities, New Keynesians largely believed that monetary policy was enough to stabilize the economy, and largely rejected the case for interventionist fiscal policy which Keynes had advocated. Some economists (primarily post-Keynesians) have accused the New Keynesian system of being so integrated with pro-free market neo-classical influences that the label 'Keynesian' may be considered a misnomer.[88]

Yet there has been a shift in thinking amongst many mainstream economists, paralleling the resurgence of Keynesianism among policy makers. The New York Times reported that in the 2008 annual meeting of the American Economic Association mainstream economists remained hostile or at least sceptical about the government’s role in enhancing the market sector or mitigating recession with fiscal stimulus - but in the 2009 meeting virtually everyone voiced their support for such measures.[89] However a substantial shift in opinion is less obvious in the academic literature. Speaking in March 2009, Galbraith has stated that he has not detected any changes among academic economists, nor a re-examination of orthodox opinion in the journals.[90]

The 2008 financial crisis has led some in the economic profession to pay greater attention to Keynes’s original theories. In February 2009, Robert Shiller and George Akerlof argued in their book Animal Spirits that the current US stimulus package was too small, as it does not take into account loss of confidence or do enough to restore the availability of credit. In a September 2009 article for The New York Times, on the lessons economists should learn from the crisis, Paul Krugman urged economists to move away from neoclassical models and employ Keynesian analysis:[91]
So, no, holding the opposing view is not "stupid". In fact, it's unclear that the economic consensus is what you say it is.

Quote:
How awesome. I'm willing to agree that believing Saddam was behind 911 is only optional for being a mainstream conservative.
OK. From my cite, it's also "optional" for being a Democrat (liberal).

Quote:
I was trying to cover the socialist Muslim legs.
But even with that, you cite doesn't say they think it's the same thing.

Quote:
I think it would be hard to find a cite for all, but certainly there is a lot of confusion and misuse of those terms on the right. Finding a cite that is solid may be impossible, but I can point to tea-party signage at least. Other than that I'm willing to say that other than a majority believing he is a socialist-muslim I can't back up the remainder.
I think you need to define what a "conservative" is. You seem to pick whatever definition, at the time, supports whatever assertion you make.


Quote:
More of a nudge. I thought that cite had a not sure section (which I think for this purpose would count), but it was actually from here: http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt...orn_in_US.html

Be that as it may, an awful lot of them believe something that has been proven wrong over and over again, factually.
Your cite say 28%. So, hardly a necessary requirement.

Quote:
. Is it? Meh, I'd disagree.
Can you find even one person who believes that? That being a Muslim is the same as being a communist?

Last edited by John Mace; 04-10-2010 at 04:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-10-2010, 04:51 PM
Euphonious Polemic Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post

I'm not sure what that makes me.
A person who will be holding his nose and voting Democrat for the foreseeable future?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-10-2010, 04:53 PM
elbows elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 9,252
That they can afford two non winable wars but not healthcare reform?

That GWBush was not an embarrassment as a president?

That socialized medicine will inevitably lead to standing in line for bread and goosestepping in the streets?

That there were weapons of mass destruction?

That in the fullness of time, GWBush will be appreciated as good president?

That TeaPartiers aren't racist idiots, they are just spelling challenged?

Last edited by elbows; 04-10-2010 at 04:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-10-2010, 04:57 PM
Lumpy Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 12,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
How about that evolution isn't the scientific consensus?
Oh it's the scientific consensus alright. The conservative view however is that the scientific community willfully ignores evidence that evolution isn't true out of an atheist bias.

How about "if we only abandon the mistakes we made in the 60s and 70s, the glory days of the 50s will return because America is the perfect society"?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-10-2010, 04:58 PM
Lobsang Lobsang is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Douglas, Isle of Man
Posts: 18,213
Hmm.. that God exists?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-10-2010, 05:00 PM
tumbleddown tumbleddown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Believe that using gun-related terminology like "reload," "targetting," and "aim" when discussing political opponents and mapping their districts with gun sight crosshairs is acceptable. (Cite)

Believe in judicial activism when it suits you, but not the other way around. (Cite)

Think it's perfectly acceptable to refuse an open hearing to a presidential appointee (let alone a confirmation vote) because said appointee has the gall to openly disagree with Bush doctrine. (Cite)

Be opposed to providing full, accurate and timely responses to the Census for who knows exactly what reason. (Cite, Cite, Cite, Cite)

Last edited by tumbleddown; 04-10-2010 at 05:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-10-2010, 05:01 PM
descamisado descamisado is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: At a Candlelight Supper
Posts: 6,204
That family, charities and churches will automatically step in and take over if the government would just stop the entitlements of unemployment insurance and public assistance.

Last edited by descamisado; 04-10-2010 at 05:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-10-2010, 05:05 PM
FoieGrasIsEvil FoieGrasIsEvil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Nasty Nati
Posts: 14,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
A person who will be holding his nose and voting Democrat for the foreseeable future?
Meh. I didn't do that last time. It was painfully clear to me by then that McCain and especially Palin weren't fit to run the nation and that the Republican Party only spouted some platitudes I generally believed in but conducted themselves in complete opposition to that.

Actually the last time I "held my nose and pulled the handle" was when I voted for GWB in 2004, because I just could not stand John Kerry or John Edwards...but I didn't much like GWB and certainly not Cheney, either.

I wanted to vote for Ron Paul, even if some of his ideas were a little...strange, but I identified with his assertions regarding the hijacking of the Republican Party and the concept of "blowback" in reference to our foreign policy.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-10-2010, 05:12 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
I believe in evolution, abortion, legalization of marijuana, that global warming exists (although I think the degree as to how much of it is from humans and how much is cyclical is debatable)
Regarding evolution, you are indeed in the minority among Republicans:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/maj...evolution.aspx

Same goes for Abortion, OTOH Marijuana legalization is not really supported even by Democrats:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/19561/who...alization.aspx

The largest number of supporters for legalization are independents.

As for global warming.

Suffice to say is that Republican Think tanks still pulled a number on you, as Historian Naomi Oreskes reported, it is important for conservative think tanks and bloggers to keep pushing the idea that scientists are still debating about the human component behind the current global warming to confuse the issue. In reality there is virtually no debate going among active climate researchers regarding the human component of the current warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/naom...al-warming.htm

http://ideonexus.com/2008/02/19/naom...lobal-warming/
Quote:
The political tactic of manufacturing a fake debate to dispute the scientific consensus on Global Warming has been previously used to dispute scientific criticisms of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars), the consensus that sulfur and nitrogen emissions cause acid rain, the consensus that CFCs cause the hole in the ozone layer, the consensus that cigarette smoking causes cancer, and that Environmental Tobacco smoke causes cancer.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-10-2010 at 05:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-10-2010, 05:16 PM
Johnny L.A. Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 49,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
I wanted to vote for Ron Paul...
Ron Paul?

DAMMIT!

I thought I was voting for RuPaul!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-10-2010, 05:22 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by tumbleddown View Post
Believe that using gun-related terminology like "reload," "targetting," and "aim" when discussing political opponents and mapping their districts with gun sight crosshairs is acceptable. (Cite)

Believe in judicial activism when it suits you, but not the other way around. (Cite)

Think it's perfectly acceptable to refuse an open hearing to a presidential appointee (let alone a confirmation vote) because said appointee has the gall to openly disagree with Bush doctrine. (Cite)

Be opposed to providing full, accurate and timely responses to the Census for who knows exactly what reason. (Cite, Cite, Cite, Cite)
That's even more stupid than the OP's list.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-10-2010, 05:44 PM
Ají de Gallina Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobsang View Post
Hmm.. that God exists?
You mean like most liberals/democrats?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-10-2010, 06:06 PM
Triskadecamus Triskadecamus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Mostly, the dumbest thing you have to believe is that your party's elected office holders are actually conservative in any meaningful characteristic. It's kind of like believing that your party comprises actual liberals, if you are a Democrat.

Tris
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-10-2010, 06:08 PM
Ají de Gallina Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triskadecamus View Post
Mostly, the dumbest thing you have to believe is that your party's elected office holders are actually conservative in any meaningful characteristic. It's kind of like believing that your party comprises actual liberals, if you are a Democrat.

Tris
Bingo!
Equal-opportunity bashing
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-10-2010, 06:13 PM
Lobsang Lobsang is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Douglas, Isle of Man
Posts: 18,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
You mean like most liberals/democrats?
I suppose so.

But the OP/thread is specific to Conservatives. Most of them believe God exists, therefore that is an answer to the OP's question.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-10-2010, 06:20 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobsang View Post
I suppose so.

But the OP/thread is specific to Conservatives. Most of them believe God exists, therefore that is an answer to the OP's question.
Only if you think that "belief in God" = "stupid shit". Now, I'm sure many on this board would agree, but it's certainly objectively true. And I say that as someone who doesn't believe in God.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-10-2010, 06:25 PM
Lobsang Lobsang is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Douglas, Isle of Man
Posts: 18,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Only if you think that "belief in God" = "stupid shit". Now, I'm sure many on this board would agree, but it's certainly objectively true. And I say that as someone who doesn't believe in God.
Er... OK. You're correct. Can I go now?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-10-2010, 06:40 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
John gets very tired of hearing that. So, five or six more times should be enough.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-10-2010, 06:40 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobsang View Post
Er... OK. You're correct. Can I go now?
"not objectively true". Now, that was some stupid shit!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-10-2010, 06:44 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
You have to believe that the Free Market works on Darwinistic principles that promotes economic well-being by eliminating the weak and inefficient.

That Big Government exists as a discrete entity, and that it has certain invariant characteristics, and that one of those is that it always interferes with the Darwinistic function of the Free Market

You don't believe in Darwin.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-10-2010, 06:46 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
You don't believe in Darwin.
"Darwinism".

Last edited by John Mace; 04-10-2010 at 06:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-10-2010, 06:55 PM
Rand Rover Rand Rover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
I don't want opinions, like say on abortion, but actually factual stupidity that conservatives just sort of pretend is true. The examples I can think of are:
. . . all opinions and not factual at all. You failed at listing examples that meet your own criteria.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-10-2010, 06:59 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
. . . all opinions and not factual at all. You failed at listing examples that meet your own criteria.
Now this should be good, are you claiming that it is not a fact that Birthers are following stupid shit with no evidence in their favor?







You thought I was going to go for global warming huh?

That is next if you do not pull out of the Birther shit.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-10-2010 at 07:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-10-2010, 07:05 PM
Lobohan Lobohan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
. . . all opinions and not factual at all. You failed at listing examples that meet your own criteria.
This would be an example of the casual stupidity I was talking about.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 04-10-2010, 07:10 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Not at all! You forget the intellectual gymnastics necessary to hold opinions like that, you gotta be pretty smart to be that stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-10-2010, 07:17 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
. . . all opinions and not factual at all. You failed at listing examples that meet your own criteria.
1, 3, and 5: Factual
2: Not Factual
4: Nonsensical.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-10-2010, 07:35 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
I think the OP's question is backwards. None of this stupid shit is stuff you HAVE to believe "to be a conservative today", and most of it isn't even believed by a majority of conservatives AFAICT.

What we really seem to be talking about is "stupid shit that you have to be a conservative to believe". That is, there are some idiotic notions (like the Obama-birther stuff and the AGW-conspiracy-of-scientists idea) that only conservatives (but not necessarily all or even most conservatives) put any credence in (just as there are some other idiotic notions that only liberals, but not all or even most liberals, put any credence in).
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-10-2010, 07:57 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
What we really seem to be talking about is "stupid shit that you have to be a conservative to believe". That is, there are some idiotic notions (like the Obama-birther stuff and the AGW-conspiracy-of-scientists idea) that only conservatives (but not necessarily all or even most conservatives) put any credence in (just as there are some other idiotic notions that only liberals, but not all or even most liberals, put any credence in).
The problem there, is you end up with the No True Scotsman [non-conservative] fallacy. There are a non-trivial number of Democratic birthers and AGW-deniers. Are they automatically to be considered "conservative"? I mean, I see your point, I just don't think it's that simple.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-10-2010, 08:20 PM
FoieGrasIsEvil FoieGrasIsEvil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Nasty Nati
Posts: 14,923
I believe in God, but He's an interstellar travelling alien. That's why he hasn't been around intervening, performing miracles and stuff. He's got lots of other worlds to keep tabs on. He'll come around eventually and check on how we are doing, likely in the wake of the next Halle-Bopp comet appearance.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-10-2010, 08:22 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
...There are a non-trivial number of Democratic birthers and AGW-deniers....
AGW deniers I can buy. But Dem "birthers"? Dunno, bit of a stretch.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-10-2010, 08:26 PM
FoieGrasIsEvil FoieGrasIsEvil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Nasty Nati
Posts: 14,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
AGW deniers I can buy. But Dem "birthers"? Dunno, bit of a stretch.
We'll see when Ah-nold challenges for the throne in 2012.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-10-2010, 08:27 PM
Digital Stimulus Digital Stimulus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
That "Obama's gonna take ur guns".
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-10-2010, 08:35 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
AGW deniers I can buy. But Dem "birthers"? Dunno, bit of a stretch.
The discovery of racist Democrats in the 2008 election was a surprise to some, but not to me. You probably won't believe this cite, because it's biased, but looks like the number is 4% for Dems, and 8% for Independents (vs 28% for Republicans).
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-10-2010, 08:44 PM
DanBlather DanBlather is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
That Obama is the anti-Christ. That he has "brought us closer to dictatorship" than any other president.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.