If you believe the Supreme Court is making fair and reasonable decisions, you a conservative.If you believe Thomas was a wise choice, you are a conservative. If you believe Roberts will give any attention to arguments that favor workers, you are a conservative. If you think this court is not an activist court, you are a conservative.
Speaking as a liberal, I have to agree with Bricker that this entire thread, based on its title, is operating under a very shady premise.
If we want to have another “some conservatives believe dumb things, durr durr durr” thread, that’s fine. But the way it’s presented is exactly the kind of vaguely deniable blanket accusation crap that I always get pissed off at Shodan for pulling.
When Shodan says “the usual suspects all do X”, and I know that “the usual suspects” are SDMB liberals, and I’m an SDMB liberal, I feel like he’s accusing me of X, but of course he isn’t doing so specifically so doesn’t have to defend his accusation, but still gets to have basically made it. If a thread is titled “stupid shit you have to believe to be a conservative”, it’s clearly accusing all conservatives of believing all this shit, but then when a clear conservative claims he doesn’t believe it, suddenly we weren’t accusing him at all? Horsey-talk.
I did try to make clear in the OP what I mean. Would you have preferred the title, “What stupid shit do most conservatives believe?” or “What stupid shit is integral to conservative worldviews in a general and non-specific way, while allowing for individual conservatives to have different views?”
Conservative thought currently is largely based on factual things that are not true. That’s really what I’m looking for. Not believing in AGW is moronic as it’s the vast scientific consensus. Thinking that cutting the deficit in a steep recession is smart is factually not the case. Thinking that Obama was born in Africa is factually not true. Thinking that HCR has death panels is factually not true. Thinking that the HCR allowed illegal aliens care or free abortions is factually not true.
That kind of stuff is what I’m looking for. I’m sure you will forgive the hyperbole in the title. I would have thought that the vulgarity would have made it obvious.
I would have thought the exchange you and I had on the first page would have made that clear. I think those guys jumped in late, and didn’t read that part. They should go back and re-read it.
Sure, your thread title is deceptive, but that’s not all that unusual around here.
And now for the second part:
In order to advance that thesis, you should first define what the key elements of “conservative thought” is. What it seems like you did was go fishing for some examples that you thought were not true, and then threw them up as “conservative thought”. You’re going about it backwards-- assuming the conclusion, and then looking for anything that supports it.
That I can agree with.
Now we’re getting more into the area of opinion, and where economists will disagree. It also depends on what you are trying to accomplish. However, it’s unclear to me that that thought is fundamental to conservative thought.
Agreed, although not fundamental to “conservative thought”.
Agreed, although not fundamental to “conservative thought”.
Disagree here. The issue is not whether Obamacare will allow illegal aliens to get care as to whether it will prevent them from doing so. It won’t, as there is no mechanism in place to do so-- they get emergency room care just like they do now.
But again, this is nit picking one point of opposition raised relative to one piece of legislation. It’s not something that I see as fundamental to “conservative thought”.
Oops.
Well, I guess the only shitbag here is me, honest but completely unobservant. :smack:
I apologize, Lobohan.
Yes, to all of the above. I admit it – you explained perfectly, and I didn’t read it carefully.
And to be fair to you, a lot of anti-conservatives in this thread did exactly the same thing-- jumping with some anecdote they had observed that some conservatives might believe.
Did you really have to steal all the thunder out of my intarweb-rage?
Not cool. 
How about believeing in Biblical inerrancy?
How about it? Do you have any data that says > 50% of conservatives hold that view?
Not saying you’re wrong, but you gotta give us more than just your statement, above.
OK, having been thoroughly humilated on basic reading, let’s see if I can try again with my glasses on.
Yes, with an asterisk and a caveat.
There’s no question that AGW is the strongly-held consensus, but all but it’s most wild-eyed adherents would not claim it’s 100% certain that all the parade of horribles claimed for it will happen. So to me, one question is: how certain are we? Prior to the East Anglia debacle, I would have said (and did, I think, in earlier threads) that we’re probably 95% certain that our models are reasonably correct. In light of the insight into bad science there, I’d say we’re slightly less than 95% certain. We’re still pretty freakin’ certain.
I don’t agreee that 40% of conservatives would sign on to this statement, and I don’t agree it’s definitively true.
Agreed.
Agreed with qnother asterisk. If “death panel” refers to some method of rationing care, then of course HCR has them, just like any other form of medical care does.
I would be very surprised if some early notions of the final bill included abortion subsidies, so that women who could not pay for one could get a free abortion. Equally true, however, is the fact that the final bill did not have anysuch language.
Nonsense. “Conservative” means either, “tightly regulated” or, “in keeping with traditional mores”. The Religious Right’s agenda is the best example of conservatism that you can cite.
I have a Rassmussen link suggesting that at the least it’s above 50% in the south. Although one would note that it is also above 50% for democrats in those areas.
I’ve been unable to find anything that is national that breaks down by party affiliation.
Well, point of fact, one doesn’t have to believe much of anything to be a Republican, you simply have to like things to remain pretty much as they are. That doesn’t require any idealism at all, nor does it require a political philosophy. One might have nothing but the utterest contempt for the TBs and their opinions, and still find them useful.
That’s a tough one, too, in the sense that a lot of people might answer “yes” because that’s what they think they are supposed to say.
I did phrase it as a question, y’know.
I will say, however, that it’s not so much how many conservatives believe in Biblical inerrancey, but that it’s part of the very definition of conservatism (in the US anyway).
If you don’t believe in Biblical inerrancy, then you’re being liberal on a very key issue.
OK.
I’ve never hear that before. On what do you base that?
I think a more accurate way to put it would be to say that conservatives don’t want things to change in ways that, from our perspective, are likely to make things worse. Technological and medical advancements, for example, we are quite cool with; creating a nanny-state government endlessly trying to hammer the square peg of “fairness” through the round hole of reality, and telling us what we can and can’t do and can and can’t have, would be examples of change we are not so cool with.
It makes you me. So there are at least 2 of us.