# WTF is wrong with you, conservative America?!?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [February 19, 2011, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896 "2011-02-19T08:16:24Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 14
### Author:  [@Oldeb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oldeb)
#### Post date: [February 22, 2011, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896/261 "2011-02-22T23:12:19Z")
> [@Nadir](#):
>
> Maybe then you’d care to take a crack at explaining to me what’s wrong with conservative America?
Honest question here, but what would you even accept as an explaination? You’ve already stated that “graphs and statistics and historical tax rates” are “another layer of hogwash.” Is it that you have trouble understanding the information when it’s presented as a string of numbers (I fully understand, I often have this problem) or are you actually wanting taxation and government spending explained to you without the use of statistics and history?
Because while numbers and history can be explained I’m pretty sure it’s going to be impossible not to use them.
---
### Author:  [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)
#### Post date: [February 22, 2011, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896/262 "2011-02-22T23:24:15Z")
> [@Nadir](#):
>
> (Recent History) In our school district the mil levy went up 5 out of 8 years we’ve lived here, including 3 over-rides for big bond issues to build new schools and the teachers are still underpaid. And programs were cut. And I buy all the supplies. etc. etc.
>
> I believe that would be defined as the opposite what you said, gonzo, strictly speaking. What the Fuck are my taxes paying for? A wasteful bunch of liberal school board assholes and administrators who think buying the most expensive computers available and taking extra days off while my kids are at home learning nothing is the way to fiscal efficiency and better education - that’s what.
If they were liberal then why do they have more and more restrictions placed on teaching evolution and sex education? You are buying another righty meme without thinking about it, very Pavlovian.
All unions under the huge right wing media machine have given back over and over, It is time to quit backpeddlleing. Who do you identify more with, a school teacher or the Koch brothers?
---
### Author:  [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)
#### Post date: [February 22, 2011, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896/263 "2011-02-22T23:34:46Z")
The Koch Brothers? Really? They’re the new bogeyman? Stop sniffing the conspiratorial glue. The Koch Brothers are just rich guys that give to political causes - just like George Soros, Paul Allen, and about ten thousand other rich people on the right and left.
The Center for America Progress and Media Matters for America are funded in large part by George Soros, a billionaire who made his money in part by shorting the British Pound and speculating/manipulating other currencies, and who has been convicted in the past of insider trading. I’ll bet you don’t lay awake at night worrying about that particular Billionaire’s evil machinations, right?
---
### Author:  [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2011, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896/264 "2011-02-23T00:12:17Z")
> [@Nadir](#):
>
> By your screen name I’d suspect you are in your mid 40’s, single, maybe divorced, smoker, about 80lbs overweight? In the ballpark there, lady?
>
> As long as we’re just guessing about each other, you don’t mind, do you? 😃
Well my conclusion wasn’t based on guessing, it was based on your multiple posts that appeared to have no interest in actual discussion, ultimately concluding that this was the “perfect place” for “this purpose”. Which appeared to be trolling. But yeah, you’re spot on about that other stuff.
---
### Author:  [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2011, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896/265 "2011-02-23T00:31:26Z")
> [@Nadir](#):
>
> Bzzzzzt, wrong. I was making about 68% less than I am now. I paid more in taxes last year than my wife GROSSED. She works full time, not minumum wages either. Yet I now receive less in the form of community/government services, quantity and quality of public schooling for my children, public facilities, infrastructure, transportation and various other sundry collective resources I may wish to avail myself of, provided through my taxes.
>
> Sorry, but the cost vs. benefit of this crap has gotten to completely stink during my lifetime. My kids can’t even play sports at school now without a big personal subsidy to some commercial sponsor directly from ME PERSONALLY.
>
> So that’s what’s wrong this particular conservative American at this time. You can trot out all the graphs and statistics and historical tax rates all you want. It’s just another layer of hogwash on top of what I live with day in and day out.
>
> So FUCK all you bastard liberals that are wasting my money and ruining my kid’s future!
You are one of the problems. You really expect to receive every tax dollar of benefit?
Pretty much the whole definition of, and reason for taxation is so that we can share in providing resources for the whole community.
That means that people like you, who are successful (most likely due to a good education and other such benefits) pay more in tax than they are receiving, but it is for the collective good.
---
### Author:  [@Agnostic\_Pagan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agnostic_Pagan)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2011, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896/266 "2011-02-23T00:47:22Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> The Koch Brothers? Really? They’re the new bogeyman? Stop sniffing the conspiratorial glue. The Koch Brothers are just rich guys that give to political causes - just like George Soros, Paul Allen, and about ten thousand other rich people on the right and left.
>
> The Center for America Progress and Media Matters for America are funded in large part by George Soros, a billionaire who made his money in part by shorting the British Pound and speculating/manipulating other currencies, and who has been convicted in the past of insider trading. I’ll bet you don’t lay awake at night worrying about that particular Billionaire’s evil machinations, right?
“The Open Society Foundations work to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens. To achieve this mission, the Foundations seek to shape public policies that assure greater fairness in political, legal, and economic systems and safeguard fundamental rights. On a local level, the Open Society Foundations implement a range of initiatives to advance justice, education, public health, and independent media. At the same time, we build alliances across borders and continents on issues such as corruption and freedom of information. The Foundations place a high priority on protecting and improving the lives of people in marginalized communities.”
Yep, sounds pretty damn evil to me. Especially compared to wonderful [initiatives](http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_7e8aa25a-3ec0-11e0-9923-001cc4c03286.html)the Koch brothers fund.
Gee, which world would I want to live in…Prosperity or Progress, hmmm. Prosperity for those at the top, or progress for all, hmmm.
(Didn’t we cover false equivalences already in this thread?)
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2011, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896/267 "2011-02-23T00:48:39Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> … I’ll bet you don’t lay awake at night worrying about that particular Billionaire’s evil machinations, right?
Liberal hypocrisy! Over here, everybody come a running, see the liberal hypocrisy!
---
### Author:  [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2011, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896/268 "2011-02-23T00:57:25Z")
> [@Senor Beef](#):
>
> Does this blanket assumption [that people will not change their beliefs here - S.B.] apply to everyone in the world? I’ve changed my views rather drastically in life on account of arguments and the evidence. I realize it’s rare, but I’m wondering how broad a reach you’re going for with this statement.
So have I. Random posts on message boards are not an effective means of persuasion. In fact, people rarely change their real opinions based on the evidence, but instead on changing their assumptions. To the degree that the assumptions are lightly held, it can be done. Otherwise, it cannot be done through persuasion.
Experience can teach what we cannot otherwise learn.
But the main point here is that the thread is called, "What the Fuck is Wrong With You. Are you really surprised to discover that you’re not really listening?
> [@](#):
>
> [On my posting here - S.B.]Why are you here then? To troll the other side?
You may recall that I (as part of an amorphously-defined group) was challenged, as if my lack of interest into wading into a self-serving mosh pit was a lack of will.
> [@](#):
>
> The OP isn’t talking about all conservatives. They’re talking about the birther type who listens to Beck seriously, who thinks our president is a part of a grand conspiracy and is a sleeper cell agent meant to destroy America, etc.
To quote the OP.
“they lose their fucking minds”
"Where in blue fuck did this popular insanity
“this nationwide abandonment of reason among seemingly so much of the Right”
Moreover, I would note your own later words in this very thread aren’t exactly generous or polite.
> [@](#):
>
> Conservatives on this board who argue well are generally well regarded. There aren’t many. But these intellectuals aren’t the massive band of stupid the OP is talking about.
No. No, we are not. We are generally insulted, hated, and willfully misunderstood. This very thread is evidence enough of that. It’s merely another leftist 2-Minute Hate.
Not that this sort of thing it politically biased. It’s a human instinct. You can’t understand your oppsotion, and therefore you conceive of them - and me - as the enemy. We are “mindlessly obstructionist,” “outmoded fools,” “evil, greedy conservatives.” It’s not just on the left, certainly. But we are constantly belittled, spat=on, and insulted, foten in threads which had anhd have nothing to do with it.
I am rather grateful that mods have partly clamped down on that sort of thing. But for years and years, we endured - and expected - that any given thread, no matter what its content, would contain gratuitous insults towards conservatives. It’s possible I missed them, I but I don’t recall any conservative on this board claiming that he would likely die in a Democrat Concentration camp designed to exterminate “our kind,” nor that democrats were planning a state coup to install Obama as permanent President (an idea promored by several lefties on this very board in reference to Bush).
> [@](#):
>
> But here’s the problem with that. You are almost all - conservatives, that is - in this together. You have an extreme amount of partisan discipline. You will almost never attack one of your own and immediately rush to their defense. You have almost all decided that “my side right or wrong” is more important than truth or intellectual honesty or even what’s best for the country.
Let us examine this. You take as your assumption here that we are wrong. If we are right, then we _might_ be lacking in intellectual honesty (we could be finding the right thing by accident). You might, perhaps, be building this off your beliefs that we are wrong based off other conclusions.
But It’s pretty clear you consider it _obvious_ that your own politics are better. Given that your political programme would seem to be in a bit of trouble, you might just consider that perhaps most of Americans don’t agree. I’m not saying they’re all conservative - I’m saying that reality might be more complicated and far less clear than you think. Maybe “what’s best for the country” isn’t quite as easy and clear as you think, if you’re even right (which I doubt, of course).
Now, as for never attacking out own, well, I’d remind you that conservatives took the lead against Trent Lott, Harriet Miers, the Saudi Port deal. Major conservative groups opposed the bipartisan Sarbanes-Oxley Bill and the Homeland Security Act, argued over provisions of the new Homeland Security Agency, criticized McCain over any number of things, and so on. And these are just a few issues off the top of my head. Libertarians criticize the Religious Right, who criticize Conservatives, who criticize Neocons, who criticize the Libertarians (though the groups aren’t exclusive and you can theoretically have someone who would identify with them all).
Why, it’s almost as if we have different standards and fundamental assumptions about how the world does work, can work, and ought to work.
> [@](#):
>
> To get you to reject the hateful, ignorant liars is like pulling teeth. On some level you must know they’re wrong yet you will rush to defend them. Sometimes directly (“these statements are not absurd lies if you interpret them in this creative way!”) or more often by trying to by partisan tu quoque. “Oh, 60% of republican primary voters think obama is a secret muslim terrorist? WELL SOMEONE SAID SOMETHING BAD ABOUT BUSH ONCE! We’re even!”
I don’t “reject the hateful ignorant liars” because I never endorsed them. I don’t generally pay attention to them on any side of the American political landscape, except when they force themselves into my consciousness. I acknowledge I dislike the left-wing wingnuts more, and I also know it’s probably my own personal bias talkinh.
I also suspect I’d have a very different idea of what constitutes these awful, evil people who must be rejected. I think you’d also find you might disagree if you actually met us, rather than treating us like some kind of alient insect to be studied under glass.
> [@](#):
>
> If you had any sort of integrity or credibility, you’d say something like “Look. I know my side has been at least partially co-opted by the loonies. I don’t support the lies they tell, or the hate they spread, or the ignorance they encourage. But I still have conservative values, which is why on these issues I \_\_\_\_\_”
Amazingly, I am not beholden to your whims. I don’t claim to speak for anyone except myself, though I can and do describe how I champion the causes that some groups stand for. I do not therefore feel responsible to apologize and beat my breast over the statements of anyone else.
> [@](#):
>
> But you never say anything like that. You rush to defend the ignorant, the liars, the hateful, which makes you guilty of the same things they are.
I would strongly suggest you reconsider this statement. You condemn yourself.
First, I point out that the left contains some of the dirtiest crooks, vilest self-serving bastards, and most disgusting hypocritical liars in America. Many of them are high-ranking politicians.
No, I’m not claiming the left is unique in this regard. It is in the nature of power to atract the corrupt and the corruptible.
Second, since you don’t specify anything, I am beginning to wonder what, specifically, you are talking about.
Third, you dn’t know me very well, do you. I stand up for what I believe in, even with imperfect people on the same side. I don’t care about them. I’m happy to have their votes, and beyond that I can dislike them and need not worry.
> [@](#):
>
> I mean - seriously - you must realize that over the last few years the right has been highly radicalized - and not just a fringe. There are mainstream views which are hateful, ignorant lies. Why is it that none of you can even acknowledge this? If you aren’t one of them, then reject them.
Such as? If I am not one of who, exactly? There are fools everywhere, and I don’t feel any need to proclaim my non-allegiance. It is you who assumed I had one.
I should note here that political organizations, and leftist ones in particular, have a long history of delegitimizing their opponents. Anyone who disagrees is illegitimate and must be silenced, cast out, prevented from speaking or evicted from the “community”. And they have used a wide array of tactics. Some were legal and some may have been (to their perpetrators) neccessary), but they were all dishonest. From Communist Struggle Sessions to the nuclear libel against Godlwater to modern-day charges of racism for everything, attacking your opponent’s legitimacy is far easier than challenging his ideas.
[The following were not directed at me, but I felt I could and ought to respond]
> [@](#):
>
> Let’s look at the low hanging fruit. Fox News is by far bigger than any leftist media outlet. (And don’t say “it’s only as biased as CNN/AP/etc which are a giant liberal conspiracy”, that’s so fucking stupid. None of them are remotely as biased, advocative, or flat out dishonest as Fox). Not only that, but many more people swear by it. They look at Fox News as a singular beacon of truth in a sea of lies.
Do you have a particular cite for this? What is your evidence? No, you _feel_ that it is more biased.
I disagree. It is more brazen, certainly, but that’s hardly unusual in the news biz, which thrives on conflict. No, you dislike the editorial direciton, and having the biases you do, you automatically asume it is biased and more biased than the alternatives.
We never see our own biases clearly. Liberals demand that Fox news must shut up, because it’s so biased it can’t be allowed to compete. Conservatives complain that the news media is so biased, they can’t get a straight story.
That tells me it’s people who are biased, not just the news. I’ll take the bias and sort things out myself. You, evidently, don’t like the possibility that others might disagree with you publicly.
I’ll also note it wasn’t Fox who rushes to accuse conservatives of crimes they didn’t commit. Fox didn’t points fingers after and recent (and tragic) shooting. IN fact, it was conservatives who quickly pointed out it was irrational and the shooter likely had serious problems, which turned out to be correct. After the probable suicide in Kentucky (the man with the sign that read, “FED,” it wans’t conservatives who rushed to accuse themselves of . And as it turned out, both narratives were completely made up.
> [@](#):
>
> Talk radio is pretty much entirely dominanted by conservatives. Those thousands chain e-mails that are made up of bullshit that are designed to provoke outrage are almost exclusively conservative in nature.
Perhaps. Have you any evidence, exactly? I would note that Liberals tried their own talk radio (twice at least) and failed utterly. Some liberals like to claim this is because they’re “too smart” for talk radio. Other, more sensible ones note that liberals already had a number of outlets for communication. I’m not sure what you would count as a provocative e-mail, so I’ll just let that pass.
But even if it were all true… so what? So Conservative personalities dominate talk radio.
> [@](#):
>
> Hell, this board is predominantly liberal. Why? Is it because we ban conservatives? That we won’t hear them out?
>
> No, it’s because this board has a very high level of discourse, one of the highest on the internet. People are challenged here. The board has a strong scientific/skeptical bent and bullshit gets destroyed here. Compare it to somewhere like free republic. Where are the ideas honestly debated and exchanged?
Ah.
May I point out some circular logic? “This board is liberal because it’s honest and skeptical. (Under your breath: This board is honest and skeptical because it endorses my liberal ideas.)”
You are assuming your conclusion.
Moreover, it appears more honest, skeptical, and decent to you because you are in the majority. Majorities, even if not formed deliberately, tend to exclude other ideas. This process forms regardless of the nature of the organization or society in question. And naturally, you assume that because (you believe) your ideology is correct, therfore anyone who reaches it must have deliberately chosen it on purely rational grounds, and not because you are part of a group.
Never the case. Humans are always part of a group or rejecting it in favor of another. It’s one reason introverts tend to do more critical thinking and development: they are slightly more insulted from group pressures and ideas. But even they are part of a group (more than one, usually), like it or not. We form groups, and only later justify them with the obvious superiority of the group’s members and ideas.
I come from a conservative family in a conservative culture. I must always reexamine some of my ideas, and they definitely color my values. I know I canot be trusted to be unbiased. I also know that nobody else can be, either. And I know furthermore than any time people start patting themselves on the back, they least deserve it.
> [@](#):
>
> Most conservatives simply do not thrive in such an environment. There are plenty that do - a few of the conservative posters around here are among the best on the board - but as a whole, the nature of conservatism (and again, as with my previous posts I’m discluding intellectual libertarianism in this because their motivations are different) the nature of conservatism is a fear of change, and with that, a fear of challenging your own world view.
Aha.
Interesting comment. More revealing than you’d like. It demonstrates, above all, that you are really an unoriginal thinker who allows word associations to control your thinking.
Conservatives aren’t very conservative. There were such people in America. The only ones were the antebellum Southerners who eventually seceded and started the Civil War (they were mostly Democrats, by-the-by), and the populist proto-Progressives (who were very much left-wing).
In fact, conservativism as the rejection of change never found much root in the States. The modern-day “Conservatives” are Classical Federalist Liberals. To the extent we are conservative, it is only because good principles, like good goals, never change, only the means available and most effective ways of using them. Likewise, modern-liberals aren’t particularly in love with liberty, and are the result of an fusion between left-leaning Social Democrats and reform-minded Socialists and Progressives.
Modern-day American conservatives (and I would note that the actual conservatives around the world have mostly died out and held far-different ideologies than we) want a great many thigns to change. There are things we think were more right in an earlier time, and would reccomend returning to that. There are many thigns we think ought to go in a different direciton altogether. We have a very different (and change-laden) idea of what Social Security ought to be, if it indeed ought to exist at all.
Why, it’s almost as if we have our own idea of what American ought to be, do, and pursue. Amazing, isn’t it?
What is most important here is that you aren’t thinking clearly, or for yourself. It is a poor man who relies on other people’s words, or worse yet, commonplace emotional associations of words, dominate his mind.
It’s not unusual. Many political and ideological groups actively embrace certain the use of words to control public discourse. The Nazis (no, I am not invoking Godwin’s Law and I’m not saying you’re like the Nazis; this is one of my long historical vignettes) were unusually active in this field. The point is that if we object to tyranny, we must consider that titles are meaningless, and words are often meaningless. We must see the thing for what it is and then name.
But all that is irrelevant. We want different events and institutions to come about, and we pursue them. Is that somehow shocking to you? Or let’s step back: do you always favor change, being a liberal? No, like conservatives, you favor change which is accordance wiht your vision of the world, and reject that which is not.
This is why the general canard that “Conservatives are being obstructionist” is so annoying to me. And to be fair, it gets used by both sides regularly. Did you somehow believ you have a a divine right granted by the Almighty to put your pet political prgramme in place. Do you think that conservatives are somehow obligated to bargain if they think the bargain is a bad one on the face of it? And if so, who do so many leftists now suddenly encourage their representatives to avoid any kind of bargain or deal (unless of course it’s completely on their terms and gives away nothing)?
Why, it’s almost as if the definition of selling out, standing fast, reasonable compromise, and courageous defiance change with the political party in power…
---
### Author:  [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2011, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896/269 "2011-02-23T00:59:39Z")
> [@](#):
>
> This board does not abide by bullshit, hence a natural outcome was to discourage most conservatives from posting here.
I would first raise my eyebrow\* at the thought that this board doesn’t tolerate bullshit. My God, do you actually read these threads!?
- The RIGHT eyebrow. Ba-dumm-Kssh!
Then I would consider raising the other one at your dubious conclusion, which amounts to restating that which you already said, without anything backing it up but your own self-satisfied whim.
> [@](#):
>
> I’m somewhat involved in the organized skeptical movement as well as secular, rationalist movements. The interesting thing here is that those movements are generally non-political outside of their specific reach (fighting ignorance and fighting religious oppression, basically). Fighting ignorance should not be a partisan thing. And yet the skeptical movement is almost entirely made up of liberals and libertarians, with very few conservatives amongst the mix.
>
> This is because skepticism is about challenging your views, recognizing your biases, and finding out the ultimate truth through the use of reason and evidence. This does not suit the sort of anti-intellectual, “I don’t need evidence, I know it in my gut” conservatism that marks the majority of the movement.
Really? One would think that skeptics should avoid any such “movement.”
Interestingly enough, I’ve also seen some interesting statistics on just that kind of people. (I admit up front I don’t have cites available.) They have a remakable similarity, politically speaking, from one man to the next - and it’s very much majority male. ANd yet, so many of these political beliefs aren’t rational
Or rather, they are neither rational nor irrational, but come from a specific value judgement. And values cannot be judged on a logical basis. They must be felt, or not. For example, abortion. There’s no logical deduction from nature either way. Nothing in science can possibly tell us what to do. Only our personal values do that. And yet, your movement
I would also note that your movement is a pathetic minority. Atheists, liberals, and libertarians feel no need to belong to any such group, which again should lead us to question our biases. When we belong to any group, self-identified, formal, or informal, we may wish to ask whether we beliong to the group because we think it right, or because it makes us feel right. Elitism is sadly commonplace.
I would also note that the world has a very long history of movements which believed they had arrived at their ideas by honest debate, scientific understanding, and their personal crusade against ignorance. And they are pretty much all hated or mocked, or at best generously humoured. From the early Marxists to the First Internationale, to the Soviets, to the Neo-Marxists, to the Italian Fascisti, we see that those who claim to fight ignorance rarely have much to teach. Or, in a more humble and less political meaure, I can point out schools of art led by the brilliant and the bold, which went nowhere, and oh-so-chic post-modernist literary professors who can’t write coherent sentences, write only to make a name among their already-inbred academic dead-end, and are bound and determined to analyze things at least three layers deeper than it goes. Or the… odd (and yet oh-so-popular among the young and educated) ideas of Shaw.
We never see how very thin our own ideas are.
> [@](#):
>
> [In response to Kid Chameleon’s flawless parody]
> The “all sides are equal, everyone is just as biased/honest/reasonable/etc. as everyone else” view is the simple one. It does not require nuance. It makes the assumption that no matter what, all sides are equal. If one side suddenly became beacons of honesty and reason and the other side advocated the extermination of all their political opponents, you’d still be left with the idea that all sides are equal no matter what. It’s not amenable to change based on the actual facts of the situation. So it is useless.
True enough.
You’re wrong. You’re utterly wrong. You’re wrong, wrong, wrong. You’re so wrong it hurts. You’re so wrong it’s funny. You’re so wrong it’s not funny.
The fact that I’m pretty sure you’r wrong doesn’t mean you have to be stupid. You can end up in a very different place with a few slightly different assumptions, and it’s only human nature to ascribe bad motives and imbecility to your opponents. And it is from dealing with liberals like yourself that I’ve earned a measure of patience and a great disgust of your politics in equal measure. I acknowledge I might be wrong with one breath while champion what I believe is right in the next.
But merely because it’s my belief, or yours, doens’t mean we’re really going to get anywhere. And that is what KC was pointing out. You’re cutting off the possibility before it began. You STARTED with an angry, oppositionqal stance, sure of your correctness and the evil stupidty and cupisity of your enemies. You angrily denounce conservatives in a thread denouncing conservatives.
> [@](#):
>
> [back to posts about me - S. B.]
> Well I guess I stand refuted then! Good work.
Amazingly, neither you nor this board have any particular demand on my time, nor did I claim that post refuted anything. May I recommend you consider putting your mind before your tongue?
I have other things to do with my life, including more useful writing, work, and praying for a close relative who may be dying as we speak. I only come onto the board every so often, and don’t usually post when I do, and I already spent an hour (now two) giving a carefully considered response. So I’m not exactly in the mood to respond to someone looking down your nose at me.
> [@](#):
>
> [Where I posted: “I don’t generally care much about the opinions of people who claim to respect me and mine while cursing me out and claiming I cannot possibly have anything of use to say because I’m automatically just that stupid.” - S. B.]
>
> This isn’t a reasonable paraphrase of my points. For one, you’re assuming that I consider you one of the intellectual conservatives on this board. But even if that were the case
Ah, so you claim you didn’t say I was stupid while then saying you don’t consider me one of the few conservatives worthy fo your intellectual approval.
Great to know that you consider me stupid, but in a long-winded circumlocution.
> [@](#):
>
> Nothing that can be summarized that way even appears in my post.
You claimed, specifically, though not in response to me, that you were clearly correct because you belong to a skeptical movement dedicated to “fighting ignorance.” Therefore logically claiming that your opponents are ignorant. You claim that conservatives don’t enjoy honest debate, that we are “anti-inllectual”, and that promote “bullshit.”
Pardon me for shortening down to the basics. I like to call a spade a spade.
[quote-GIGObuster]
Really, you would refer to science like climate change as a “gigantic sequence of lies, half-truths, and distortions backed up by a liberal dose of willful ignorance”?
[/quote]
Dunno. What exactly do you mean by, “climate change science”?
I’d probably say that it might be right or wrong, but it isn’t science. Science is about observing testable facts. This is making (hopefully educated) guesses.
Are you asking me my opinion of the “science” or are you asking me what policies I favor, and why? Science does not require our opinions at all. Public policy does, because it operates in the real world where there are competing goods. I’d be happy to explain what I think ought to be done at length, but that’s more of a Great Debate topic.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2011, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896/270 "2011-02-23T01:17:16Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#):
>
> > [@GIGObuster](#):
> >
> > Really, you would refer to science like climate change as a “gigantic sequence of lies, half-truths, and distortions backed up by a liberal dose of willful ignorance”?
>
> Dunno. What exactly do you mean by, “climate change science”?
A good place to start:
[http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm)
> [@smiling\_bandit](#):
>
> I’d probably say that it might be right or wrong, but it isn’t science. Science is about observing testable facts. This is making (hopefully educated) guesses.
Nah, what you are making is a grossly uneducated guess.
> **[10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change](https://skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html)**
>
> The NOAA State of the Climate 2009 report is an excellent summary of the many lines of evidence that global warming is happening. Acknowledging the fact that the planet is warming leads to the all important question - what's causing global warming?...
> [@smiling\_bandit](#):
>
> Are you asking me my opinion of the “science” or are you asking me what policies I favor, and why? Science does not require our opinions at all. Public policy does, because it operates in the real world where there are competing goods. I’d be happy to explain what I think ought to be done at length, but that’s more of a Great Debate topic.
The problem is that almost all the current republican leadership is happy to deny that there is a problem; therefore, no need to debate at all.
[http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/04/climate-zombies-now-run-the-house-of-representatives/](http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/04/climate-zombies-now-run-the-house-of-representatives/)
> [@](#):
>
> The incoming Republican chairs of the House of Representatives plan to send the United States back to the Stone Age with respect to climate policy. All of them opposed the climate legislation supported by President Barack Obama, and now oppose limits on global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act. Several have accused climate scientists of doctoring data and suppressing dissent; the others merely claim climate policy is actually a conspiracy to destroy the American economy.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2011, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896/271 "2011-02-23T01:18:53Z")
The previous ten thousand words should stand as a stern warning to parents everywhere: never, ever, ever drink on of your kid’s hyper-caffeinated “energy” drinks. Be warned!
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2011, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896/272 "2011-02-23T01:23:32Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> The previous ten thousand words should stand as a stern warning to parents everywhere: never, ever, ever drink on of your kid’s hyper-caffeinated “energy” drinks. Be warned!
I told **smiling bandit** before that it is clear that he failed history forever, now it is clear that he is going for conspiracy theories and that it is something to be proud of also.
---
### Author:  [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2011, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896/273 "2011-02-23T03:29:11Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> The previous ten thousand words should stand as a stern warning to parents everywhere: never, ever, ever drink on of your kid’s hyper-caffeinated “energy” drinks. Be warned!
Good lord, man. That’s clearly not Red Bull. Maybe coke and Red Bull, but definitely not just any old energy drink.
I see a new slogan, however: Red Bull gives you whinge!
---
### Author:  [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2011, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896/274 "2011-02-23T04:55:41Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> The Koch Brothers? Really? They’re the new bogeyman? Stop sniffing the conspiratorial glue. The Koch Brothers are just rich guys that give to political causes - just like George Soros, Paul Allen, and about ten thousand other rich people on the right and left.
>
> The Center for America Progress and Media Matters for America are funded in large part by George Soros, a billionaire who made his money in part by shorting the British Pound and speculating/manipulating other currencies, and who has been convicted in the past of insider trading. I’ll bet you don’t lay awake at night worrying about that particular Billionaire’s evil machinations, right?
[http://newjustin.com/2010/09/the-billionaire-koch-brothers-fund-the-tea-party-the-new-yorker/](http://newjustin.com/2010/09/the-billionaire-koch-brothers-fund-the-tea-party-the-new-yorker/) Absolutely correct for a change Sam.
The Koch Brothers are prime funders for the Tea Baggers. They give more money than Mobil Exxon to fight climate and environmental regulation. They are the prime financiers of right wing think tanks and front groups. It was the tea baggers that brought them to the stage.
Soros is not fighting against the interests of the people. The Kochs are unabashadly siding with the rich and powerful. That is why I fear them ,much, much more.
---
### Author:  [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2011, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896/275 "2011-02-23T05:09:20Z")
Paul Volker on Soros
George Soros has made his mark on enormously successful speculation and he was wise enough to withdraw when he was way ahead of the game. The bulk of his enormous wealth is dedicated to encouraging transitional and emerging nations to become “open societies”, open not only in commerce but more importantly in tolerance of new ideas and different modes of thinking and behavior’
Soros is only scary if you listen to Beck and Limbaugh. They need a bad rich liberal to balance the equation so people will see the Koch suckers as normal. They are not.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2011, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896/276 "2011-02-23T08:21:15Z")
But getting back to the OP, I actually have a partial answer to suggest.
9/11. That’s what’s wrong with conservative American.
I certainly don’t remember this level of vitriolic stupidity on the right prior to 9/11. Sure, you had haters during Clinton’s tenure as well, who made numerous wild-eyed accusations, but it seems to me that the American public punished those people rather than rewarding them. After Gingrich shut down the government, for example, he and and his party were swept out of office in a landslide.
Things changed though after 9/11. After 9/11 it suddenly became possible to express ideas and opinions that would have been beyond the pale on 9/10. For example, I first heard of Ann Coulter after the infamous column in which she wrote:
_“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.”_
Had she written that line prior to 9/11, she’d have run out of town on a rail; after 9/11, it turned her into a conservative hero.
In other words, 9/11 made it possible for a certain group of conservatives to express certain privately-held views in the public sphere. It pushed the framework of permitted political speech rightward. It suddenly became okay to discuss openly ideas like unprovoked invasions of other countries (the so-called Bush Doctrine), the war between Islam and Christianity, Islam as a religion of terrorism, racial profiling, torture, and so on. And the right went into a kind of feeding frenzy.
Birthers and other right-wing crazies in all honor, but for me the first real sign that something was seriously wrong with our conservative brethern made itself felt in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Sorry if I sound a bit like a broken record, but ”WMD” was the original Hawaiian long-form birth certificate. **Gigo, Hentor, Elucidator, Dio, Elvis, Kimstu** , and many others can testify to how utterly immune to reason and matters of fact the pro-war side was. And God, how insuferably snide and superior they were as well!
I remember when it became known that the Bush administration had been using ”enhanced interrogation techniques” – which we usually call ”torture” when other countries do it – on some prisoners, and watching some clips of US news shows on the You Tube (don’t get those shows over here in Sweden you know). They were debating whether or not it was a good idea to use these techniques on suspected terrorists. And slowly, slowly this sickening feeling began to creep up inside of me, and finally I realized why – _I’m watching people on US television actually debating whether or not the US government should have the right to torture prisoners._ The United States. My country of birth. Alleged bastion of freedom and decency, baseball, motherhood and apple pie. It appears to have turned into some third-world rat hole with the happy blessings of a large percentage of it’s population. Hell! Even third-world dictators have the sense to at least deny they engage in torture. In the US, conservatives brag about it!
That’s how far to the right the sphere of permissible discourse has moved. And in the process it’s given a large group of people, whose views were (rightfully) abhorrent prior to 9/11, a platform to express those view openly.
And I do honestly think that if it were permissible in today’s climate, a large percentage of these birthers would openly admit they just don’t like having a nigger in the White House. It’s just that so far, things haven’t gotten quite that bad. Yet.
---
### Author:  [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2011, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896/277 "2011-02-23T08:30:32Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#):
>
> I would first raise my eyebrow\* at the thought that this board doesn’t tolerate bullshit. My God, do you actually read these threads!?
>
> - The RIGHT eyebrow. Ba-dumm-Kssh!
>
> Then I would consider raising the other one at your dubious conclusion, which amounts to restating that which you already said, without anything backing it up but your own self-satisfied whim.
Yeah, we have a pretty low tolerance for bullshit. If someone posts about obvious bullshit (moon hoaxer, astrology, whatever) they get universally mocked. If someone makes factually incorrect statements as part of a debate (like the Bush tax cuts raised revenues), it gets squashed.
Now, I want to get something out of the way. I am not a liberal. I have actually voted for Republicans substantially more than Democrats in my life. I know this blows your mind - I’m here criticizing batshit crazy conservatives and the party that caters to them, so I must be your ideological enemy, therefore liberal, right? For most of my politically active life, I’ve actually disliked/argued against liberals a lot more than conservatives, if anything.
So this is going to hurt the rest of your post, where you say “Well you’re wrong because you’re liberal” a lot.
I am actually about as close as you can find to someone who’s neutral and objective. If you choose to view society as a giant liberal vs conservative monolithic conflict, I have no loyalty to either block. My views do not align across the board with any major political group. I am not bound to defend one side or attack the other - being free of tribal loyalties, I’m able to go where the best argument and evidence takes me.
In addition to that, I am a skeptic. I strive to be aware of the sort of cognitive biases that lead to rigid political ideologies. I’ve been educated in ways to spot good evidence and bad, to understand logical arguments and fallacies. The overriding goal of my life is actually to free myself of the rigid cognitive chains which force people to attempt to twist reality into what they want it to be, rather than for what it is.
So then, if your knee-jerk reaction to that is “why are you always going off on republicans/conservatives!” - it’s because the “all sides are always equally right/wrong/good/bad” is bullshit. The Republicans have managed to rile up a significant portion of their base into a frenzy where hateful lies are remarkably widespread. If the democrats were doing anything like this, I’d be all over them too, but it’s night and day between them. Really - want some links to some threads where, for example, I absolutely go off on liberal anti-nuclear power idiots?
I’ve actually changed my views on various topics substantially over my life, stemming from the abovementioned goal of critical introspection. I’ve seen persuasive arguments and persuasive evidence and absolutely changed my mind on some fundamental issues.
Now that that’s out of the way…
> [@](#):
>
> Really? One would think that skeptics should avoid any such “movement.”
What? Why? I can’t even imagine what you’re trying to say with this. Skeptics can’t come together to form common causes? Who do you sends in experts to fight it when a school board wants to ban the teaching of evolution? Who do you think lobbies (generally unsuccessfully unfortunately) governments to ban or restrict fraudulent and harmful psuedoscientific practices? As a recent example, a chain of movie theaters was going to air anti-vax ads in the pre-movie advertisements, and a huge movement of skeptics with a write/call in campaign got them to pull it.
> [@](#):
>
> Interestingly enough, I’ve also seen some interesting statistics on just that kind of people. (I admit up front I don’t have cites available.) They have a remakable similarity, politically speaking, from one man to the next - and it’s very much majority male. ANd yet, so many of these political beliefs aren’t rational
I have no idea what you’re talking about. What you’re doing doesn’t even amount to a straw man - you’re supplying no data and not even naming the arguments you’re putting in your opponents mouths. You’re basically just saying “oh, btw, I read something that said skeptics are irrational!”
In my experience, skeptics aren’t in political lockstep. Libertarians, for example, are represented far more (possibly orders of magnitude) in a greater capacity than they are in the general population.
> [@](#):
>
> Or rather, they are neither rational nor irrational, but come from a specific value judgement. And values cannot be judged on a logical basis. They must be felt, or not. For example, abortion. There’s no logical deduction from nature either way. Nothing in science can possibly tell us what to do. Only our personal values do that. And yet, your movement
I didn’t cut that off. “And yet, your movement” is all you wrote. I can’t respond to that.
Anyway, yes, obviously issues that are purely value judgements, in which case there’s no skeptical interest in them. I mean - you could still spot fallacious arguments of course, but there’s no skeptical side to abortion. It’s a non-issue. It’s not as if skepticism were a complete list of beliefs that you must hold - it’s a set of tools for critical thinking.
> [@](#):
>
> I would also note that your movement is a pathetic minority. Atheists, liberals, and libertarians feel no need to belong to any such group, which again should lead us to question our biases. When we belong to any group, self-identified, formal, or informal, we may wish to ask whether we beliong to the group because we think it right, or because it makes us feel right. Elitism is sadly commonplace.
What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Yes, it’s unfortunate that skeptics are a pathetic minority. Almost everyone has some woo woo sacred cow - religion, alt med, conspiracy theories, whatever. How in the world do you think that you’re scoring points in arguing with me by raising this issue?
> [@](#):
>
> I would also note that the world has a very long history of movements which believed they had arrived at their ideas by honest debate, scientific understanding, and their personal crusade against ignorance. And they are pretty much all hated or mocked, or at best generously humoured. From the early Marxists to the First Internationale, to the Soviets, to the Neo-Marxists, to the Italian Fascisti, we see that those who claim to fight ignorance rarely have much to teach. Or, in a more humble and less political meaure, I can point out schools of art led by the brilliant and the bold, which went nowhere, and oh-so-chic post-modernist literary professors who can’t write coherent sentences, write only to make a name among their already-inbred academic dead-end, and are bound and determined to analyze things at least three layers deeper than it goes. Or the… odd (and yet oh-so-popular among the young and educated) ideas of Shaw.
Right, everyone thinks their view is the right one. I get it. The whole point of skepticism is to eschew such a world view - the assumption that your values are somehow inherently right, and one should view the world according to those values that make you comfortable.
Skepticism, like science (and really, there’s a huge overlap between the two concepts), is man’s best attempt to come to fundamental truth through empiricism and critical thinking. This fundementally seperates it from any aformentioned dogmas, which were really the exact opposite of skepticism - viewing reality through what you want it to be.
Quite frankly I don’t understand what it is you’re trying to get at. Do you even understand what skepticism is?
> [@](#):
>
> We never see how very thin our own ideas are.
Yes, that’s the very point of skepticism, to subject our views to critical analysis, to find objective evidence for or against it. Such is the nature of science.
> [@](#):
>
> True enough.
>
> You’re wrong. You’re utterly wrong. You’re wrong, wrong, wrong. You’re so wrong it hurts. You’re so wrong it’s funny. You’re so wrong it’s not funny.
This in response to me dismissing the idea that all sides are equally right/wrong/etc.
It’s essentially your position that the two political blocks are exactly equal, then? Every bit of irrationaliity on either side is perfectly balanced? Every bit of hatred or embraced ignorance or lie exactly equals out? Every politician’s speech, every hidden bias by every voter, every word made in political arguments - all very precisely balances out so that both sides are always equally right or wrong, and therefore neither side can criticize the other?
The idea is so wildly implausible as to be insane.
Now you can certainly differ on what values are important, or argue the signifance of specific actions taken by each side. There can be nuance to this view - one side may be better in tune with tune with truth or reality than the other side on any particular issue - but to work from the assumption that it all ads up, all precisely to equal it out (and therefore my side is impervious to your specific accusation! is usually the way it’s used) is not only weakminded but insane. It has no room for nuance, it’s wildly improbable, and it doesn’t account for changing situations. It’s an intellectual cop out - rather than facing the potential that a criticism against your tribe has validity, you’ll simply say “well both sides are equally guilty” and that’s that. No painful introspection needed.
> [@](#):
>
> The fact that I’m pretty sure you’r wrong doesn’t mean you have to be stupid. You can end up in a very different place with a few slightly different assumptions, and it’s only human nature to ascribe bad motives and imbecility to your opponents. And it is from dealing with liberals like yourself that I’ve earned a measure of patience and a great disgust of your politics in equal measure. I acknowledge I might be wrong with one breath while champion what I believe is right in the next.
>
> But merely because it’s my belief, or yours, doens’t mean we’re really going to get anywhere. And that is what KC was pointing out. You’re cutting off the possibility before it began. You STARTED with an angry, oppositionqal stance, sure of your correctness and the evil stupidty and cupisity of your enemies. You angrily denounce conservatives in a thread denouncing conservatives.
Wait, so every time I come to a thread, I must start with a complete blank-slate and relearn everything I know over again? In a thread bitching about people like birthers/Glenn Beck/etc. I have to come in with an open mind and consider whether these things are bad? Otherwise I’m presupposing my conclusion?
I didn’t start with “an angry, oppositional stance” - as I said, most of my life, I’ve been Republican-leaning. If anything, I started with an angry, oppositional stance against liberals. But I’m not so blind as to not see the absolute batshittery that has happened to the Republican party over the last few years. Unlike you, I don’t burrow deeper. I don’t say “well, my side right or wrong” - I soundly rejected who I was previously sympathetic to when they decided that batshittery was their way. It was a gradual change that followed the changing nature of their behavior.
> [@](#):
>
> Amazingly, neither you nor this board have any particular demand on my time, nor did I claim that post refuted anything. May I recommend you consider putting your mind before your tongue?
>
> I have other things to do with my life, including more useful writing, work, and praying for a close relative who may be dying as we speak. I only come onto the board every so often, and don’t usually post when I do, and I already spent an hour (now two) giving a carefully considered response. So I’m not exactly in the mood to respond to someone looking down your nose at me.
Posting “oh hey, I wrote this big reply to you, and rest assured I kicked your ass! But my dog ate it, so I may or may not bother to type it again” is pretty silly, so I mocked it.
> [@](#):
>
> Ah, so you claim you didn’t say I was stupid while then saying you don’t consider me one of the few conservatives worthy fo your intellectual approval.
>
> Great to know that you consider me stupid, but in a long-winded circumlocution.
I made no judgements upon your intelligence, actually. You did make a completely illogical interpretation of what I said - you thought that I simultaneously considered you one of the intellectual conservatives whose posts I find valuable and that I also dismiss everything you say because you’re an idiot. It both made unfounded assumptions (I never implied you were or were not one of the aforementioned conservatives) and drew bizarrely illogical conclusions.
> [@](#):
>
> You claimed, specifically, though not in response to me, that you were clearly correct because you belong to a skeptical movement dedicated to “fighting ignorance.” Therefore logically claiming that your opponents are ignorant. You claim that conservatives don’t enjoy honest debate, that we are “anti-inllectual”, and that promote “bullshit.”
You’re conflating several points into one argument, misrepresenting any single point I made.
Yes, I think people whose views are in contrast to mine on certain issues are ignorant. People who believe the earth is 6000 years old are ignorant. People who believe that one magic atom of caffeine in a gallon of water is a sleep elixir are ignorant.
I’m not applying the ignorant label to people who oppose me on political issues which involve value judgements. There certainly is room to be ignorant there - I mean, if you think that Obama raised your income taxes, you’re ignorant of the facts - but you’re putting an overly broad argument into my mouth.
I did not say that all conservatives don’t enjoy honest debate, are anti-intellectual, and promote bullshit. Obviously that’s the case with some of them - many of them - and that’s the problem.
The undercurrent of anti-intellectualism and anti-science is far, far stronger in the conservative community than in the liberal community. This is so obvious that I have a hard believing that you honestly don’t see it. When those pointy headed smart people disagree what a lot of conservatives know in the gut, which do you think wins out?
Republicans DO pedal far more bullshit, at least in recent years. So much of their political dialogue and talking points are completely based on lies. “Government takeover of health care”, “death panels”, birtherism, accusations of marxism, AGW denialism etc. There’s a slick media machine that that promotes a certain set of lies that has no equivelant on the left.
> [@](#):
>
> Pardon me for shortening down to the basics. I like to call a spade a spade.
You don’t even seem to have a grasp on my basic positions, so I’m not sure you can correctly call me anything.
---
### Author:  [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2011, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896/278 "2011-02-23T08:54:58Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#):
>
> “Government takeover of health care”, "death panels…
Wanna know why conservatives fight against government health care and talk about death panels?
[Here ya go!](http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/22/canadian-family-fights-babys-beathing-tube-place/?test=latestnews)
You might want to note three things about this story:
1. The Canadian government through its courts ruled this boy should no longer be kept alive.
2. It refused the parents’ request to perform a tracheotomy on the boy which, according to the boy’s father, would allow for a more painless death at home.
(On the bright side, at least the little boy’s parents seem to have been able to defy the edict without being thrown in jail.)
1. We only heard about this through Fox News. The MSM, being in favor of government-dictated health care, rarely reports stories like this.
---
### Author:  [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2011, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896/279 "2011-02-23T09:11:45Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#):
>
> Wanna know why conservatives fight against government health care and talk about death panels?
Which part of the bill gave the government the ultimate control over medical decisions? Which page was that on? What section? What laws does the US have on the books that would lead to the sort of situation you fear?
It makes me wonder - if the democrats actually DID propose a “government takeover of health care” rather than a set of rather modest reforms, what would you say? You’ve already used “government take over” - so how would you describe an actual takeover?
Anyway, thanks SA. I always appreciate when you’re Johnny on the spot to validate my points by disagreeing with me.
---
### Author:  [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2011, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896/280 "2011-02-23T09:21:41Z")
[Here’s more on the story](http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110222/doctors-baby-110222/20110222/?hub=TorontoNewHome) from CTV in Toronto:
Of particular note are the following:
> [@](#):
>
> A London, Ont., hospital has asked Ontario’s public guardian’s office for consent to remove a Windsor baby from life support as the infant’s family waits to learn if he can be transferred to a U.S. hospital.
> [@](#):
>
> Moe Maraachli, who has been sleeping at Victoria Hospital since Friday, said in an email Tuesday he’s not being allowed any privacy with his dying son. He said a security guard is “watching every move” he and his family make.
> [@](#):
>
> The family fears Joseph will suffer a painful choking death if the ventilator is removed.
>
> Doctors refused their request to perform a tracheotomy so the family could take the baby home to die surrounded by loved ones, saying it wasn’t in the boy’s best interests.
So these people are apparently anxious to end this kid’s life as soon as possible rather than wait to see if he can get into an American hospital.
Also, despite the fact they feel the little boy is a vegetable (and therefore can presumably neither feel nor know anything) a security guard is watching their every move and denying the parents private time with their son…for what reason? They might take him? So what if they do? According to you he’s a vegetable anyway, so what’s the harm?
And they are usurping what ought to be the parents’ natural right to determine how their son dies if death is imminent, and to have him at home with them when it happens, for no other reason than that it’s “not in the boy’s best interest” not to have his vegetative life ended through removal of his ventilator.
All this smacks to me of governmental authority making damn sure no one successfully challenges its dictates, not even the parents of a dying child.
Disgusting.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896.md?page=13)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-conservative-america/571896.md?page=15)