You forgot this possibility:

C) Anything that doesn't come from within the cult of conservatism is branded "liberal" by the cultists, so whenever they leave the compound and walk out into the real world, they feel like there's some sort of massive conspiracy to make them question their faith...

>> ^deedub81:

Question: The reason why there are WAY more liberal biased videos on videosift is.....
A) ...that there are simply more liberals than conservatives in the US.
B) ...that Romney was right about the 47% and they spend fewer hours actually working and contributing to society, therefore, they're online more often.

Emphasis mine. I disagree to an extant. Good journalists know you can strive for objectivity. You are right that ultimately anyone paying attention can figure your slant eventually, but the longer it takes the more respect you earn. It makes people notice all the more when you are clearly choosing words and editing material to moderate rather than polarize your newscast. When good communicators do it well, often it's the middle ground that becomes accepted by a plurality. Reconciling seemingly antagonistic viewpoints helps us to see the third way.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^lantern53:
The media on the left doesn't think they are slanted, because they think they are right.
the media on the right doesn't think they are slanted, because they think they are right.

sorry, reality isn't quite so binary.
yet another false equivalence argument. Everyone is biased, you can't not be. Science and the history of our government have shown time and time again that there is no one "way" of getting to the truth. This idea that liberalism is correct vs conservatism is correct is a bullshit way of framing things, and the smart people know it. It's just another charade to keep you distracted.
yet another failure of the two party system. compromise is perceived as weakness

>> ^lantern53:

The media on the left doesn't think they are slanted, because they think they are right.
the media on the right doesn't think they are slanted, because they think they are right.


sorry, reality isn't quite so binary.

yet another false equivalence argument. Everyone is biased, you can't not be. Science and the history of our government have shown time and time again that there is no one "way" of getting to the truth. This idea that liberalism is correct vs conservatism is correct is a bullshit way of framing things, and the smart people know it. It's just another charade to keep you distracted.

yet another failure of the two party system. compromise is perceived as weakness

"Of the speakers in the DNC ... 22 members of the House of Representatives" well they just blew the curve.

As for the RNC convention, I think what we saw was either a conscious effort to "go younger" and entice younger voters, or a symptom of the greater problem with modern conservatism: namely that serious, mature conservatives don't want anything to do with these lunatics.>> ^silvercord:

The average age (mean) of the speakers at the DNC was 58.66 while at the RNC it was 49.92.
From modicum of insanity:
Of the speakers in the DNC, there were 9 current governors and 5 former governors. 22 members of the House of Representatives, 2 candidates for the House, and 1 former House member spoke. 5 current senators and 2 former senators also spoke.
Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 57.44. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 62.64. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 67.2.
Of the speakers at the RNC, there were 10 current governors and 5 former governors. 9 current members of the House of Representatives, 1 candidate for House, and 2 former House members spoke. 7 current senators, 4 former senators, and 1 candidate also spoke.
Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 50.3. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 50.67. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 52.83.
I wouldn't count 'em out just yet when it looks like the DNC is the party that's getting a little long in the tooth.

>> ^VoodooV:
Comparing the two national conventions alone should be enough to convince anyone that the Republican party as we currently know it is in its last years.
RNC: by and large, mostly old white people
DNC: Actual cross-section of America and vastly more diverse.

To me, it's a bit of a relief to have tape of Mitt Romney talking like your average far-right Randian asshole.

The biggest thing Romney had going for him was that the press was never going to try to push him to speak plainly about what he really believes, and let him just fill the airwaves with platitudes and sneers.

Even in his "press conference" he held last night to respond to this, he said that basically this is what he's meant by his public comments thusfar. In other words, that his opponents are all parasites and leeches who must be burned off the face of the earth in order for America to prosper.

You know, conservatism.

Sure, the Taliban is a bit of an extreme comparison, so here's one closer to the truth:

Protesting against government's excessive spending (while supporting extended tax cuts for the wealthy and 2 pointless wars) makes you a hypocrite.

Crying about freedom from big government (while working to limit the freedoms of people you don't agree with on a federal level) makes you a hypocrite.

The Tea Party is a bought-and-paid-for astro-turfing campaign to subvert actual conservatism with something else entirely. It's not grass-roots when your "movement" is paid for by the Koch brothers and Karl Rove. It's a farce, a joke.

How'd I do?

I think you are right, he is trying to make a point, the problem is, this "absurd scenario" he's using to make a point is already the law of the land in the US.

When Private clubs called churches are excused from taxation, everybody has to pay the share these clubs use but don't pay for. When one attends church, they get their money back in lower membership fees, but those of us who don't belong to these clubs just pay for them without receiving any benefit.

neo-conservatism seems to now full depend on the ability to deny the fact that giving someone $100 and excusing their $100 debt are materially the same thing.

>> ^entr0py:

Honestly, I think he's being facetious. He's a conservative radio host, so he must be against the affordable care act and the individual mandate specifically. I think he's saying "taxing people over being uninsured is as ridiculous as taxing them over not going to church, because church is good for you". It's a version of the supreme court's 'eat your broccoli mandate' slippery slope argument. Only, as KnivesOut said, designed to troll liberals.

>> ^VoodooV:

gee, shiny resorts to harassment? color me shocked!
I'm sorry, but ill say it again, people like shiny need to be kicked out of here. It has nothing to do with conservatism or religion, these people simply don't contribute to civil discourse. I know plenty of conservative/religious people who are capable of engaging in civil debate and discourse, Shiny or QM, and others aren't among these people
They drop their talking points and move on to the next sift. That's not debate, that's not discourse. And you certainly can't have rational discussions with someone who no matter what, thinks you need to be saved and doesn't view you as an equal human being and him and his god are always correct and you're always wrong. It's not conducive to rational discussion and quite frankly, it's simply not healthy, period.
And yes, it is trolling.
Remember that even though they seem to be an endangered species, there are actual rational right wingers out there. You may disagree with them, but they can actually debate civilly without regurgitating Fox News or Theistic propaganda.


This is such an old response and thread, but I thought I'd say it anyway as I really want it said in here.

I've met, actually, a great many people that are very set in their theistic mindset, but like you said they also don't think I'm going to burn in a pit of fire come the end of time; in fact quite a few of them would be morally outraged if such a thing occurred--as they literally know, like me, that the difference between believing in God and not, is merely a thought away (or you could say, one neuron connection/pathway away).

There are a few that believe in fire and brimstone type things, but they only--typically--reserve it for the greatest of crimes (like an Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot). Even fewer still that believe that there is a harsh judgment remaining for a lot of people, but they tend to believe that there is a way to "return" or to repent there--in the "lake of fire" and come back a new person.

BUT, the ones that think there IS a hell, absolute and horrifying in all it's glory, these are ALSO the very same people that cannot have a rational discussion with you. It's very strange. It's as though their ability to actively decide whether actions in play are moral or not are by definition an unanswerable question until they have been told by someone ELSE what that answer is: either the Bible, other religious members, or talk show hosts, and you get my picture. THESE are the dangerous people.

It reminds me of the story in the Old Testament, in Numbers 15:32-36 (for those that wish to read it). Now I know many *newer* religions, get around this stuff by saying they use the New Testament (it has it's fun stuff too, but for now, let's just do this one) due to Christ's Salvation and his, yada yada yada yada yada--I heard this for a long time myself as a Mormon and in some Catholic services I went to.

This guy collects what is essentially firewood on the Sabbath (this was back in the day when not having a fire active in your house/hut/tent/whatever at night could literally mean death--in case you've never been out camping/hiking, fires are VERY important and are a DAMNED LUXURY with our matches, steel wool, sleeping bags made to hold in heat, and other items that make a night in the wilderness go by--gently and one could say comfortably fun).

Instead of just collecting this firewood, making a meal and going to bed, this guy gets caught for working on the Sabbath and is taken to Moses and Aaron. So we all know what that little commandment this is, the one EVERYONE disobeys now (It goes by either of these two definitions and there are more versions--trust me: Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. -OR- Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.). So God buzzes Moses on the iGodphone™ and tells Moses the bad news, or well the good news and the bad news. The bad news is that "unnamed villager" will be taken outside the encampment, with what sounds like most of the people and then stoned to death. The good news, is they get to stone someone (sorry, but back then and with the regularity of which stoning happened I really think people enjoyed it when these edicts came on down...)!

SO, I've seen this tale said many a time and I CANNOT believe the amount of heads I see move up and down while this is repeated. They LITERALLY agree with cold-blooded murder in the first-degree, for GATHERING FIREWOOD!!! In the damned ages BEFORE the Dark Ages-life SUCKED! You NEEDED FIRE!!! It wasn't a question of maybe I'll skip it tonight it was a matter of when do I start it up--every night! So you can see why people like this can be dangerous as someone from on high that they think is their leader gives them what essentially is a crime, they don't think to long about it--they act, and carry out whatever truly horrifying act it was.

This has been abused by many Cult leaders, like the "Alien Comet riders" or also known as Heaven's Gate in California or something even MORE horrifying like Jonestown (something that was horrific--there are some GREAT documentaries on this to watch,; I suggest looking for them) or something semi-recent like (straight from wiki), "The 778 deaths of members of the Ugandan group Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, on March 17, 2000, is considered to be a mass murder and suicide orchestrated by leaders of the group.", so you can see while large religions don't do these WILD events they DO slowly in fact do smaller and incrementally increase their crimes.

You might ask what crimes, but it is literally crimes that we can point to that are AGAINST the VERY FABRIC of your own teachings. Use the Golden Rule in your life and get rid of the authority driven craziness, it will only lead you to sadness, if you're a zealot--fight it within yourself.
--------

So, anyway, what I'm saying is that I very much agree that there ARE many people that are theistic believers (not just Christan ones mind you) that are GREAT to talk to and many times you don't even have to argue with them you can have laid back conversations with them--it's amazing who you run into.

BUT, for the people I mentioned they are nearly lost causes. I don't know exactly what their problem is but it does have something to do with the fact that they MUST be told a "truth" by a "high-ranking-official" for them to change a stance. They are TRUE believers, ZEALOTS to their cause and dangerous.

A little bit the same as you said @VoodooV, but I thought I'd add a few more nails into that coffin.

gee, shiny resorts to harassment? color me shocked!

I'm sorry, but ill say it again, people like shiny need to be kicked out of here. It has nothing to do with conservatism or religion, these people simply don't contribute to civil discourse. I know plenty of conservative/religious people who are capable of engaging in civil debate and discourse, Shiny or QM, and others aren't among these people

They drop their talking points and move on to the next sift. That's not debate, that's not discourse. And you certainly can't have rational discussions with someone who no matter what, thinks you need to be saved and doesn't view you as an equal human being and him and his god are always correct and you're always wrong. It's not conducive to rational discussion and quite frankly, it's simply not healthy, period.

And yes, it is trolling.

Remember that even though they seem to be an endangered species, there are actual rational right wingers out there. You may disagree with them, but they can actually debate civilly without regurgitating Fox News or Theistic propaganda.

In regards to Stephen Freind, xxovercastxx's recent talk post seems apropos - #2 on the list.

Stephen Freind hasn't been a state legislator since 1993. And the district he represented is fairly small (< 100,000 at the time).

But who cares about relevance? Let's find some nutjob from 20 years ago to hold up as the voice of mainstream conservatism.

/smh

When you say "we got by just fine without" Social Security, who's the "we"

We is the general citizenry of the United States. Back in 'the day' when the nuclear family was stronger, working families would take care of thier elderly. Often they would live under the same roof until they died. Also before Social Security, people would save for thier own retirement and generally (not always, but generally) would have enough saved up for a good living when they stopped working. There were a few cases of widows, or other hard luck cases who were in genuine need, but this vision you are creating where every elderly person was living in a box and eating dog food is bunk.

You see - SS was originally designed to be ONLY for those rare 1 in 100,000 elderly persons who was in GENUINE need. It was supposed to be a very very very small program, only to be tapped in the most exigent of circumstances. It was not ever supposed to be a program that took more from a person's paycheck than INCOME TAX (it is today). It was not supposed to be the de-facto 'retirement program' for every man, woman, and child in the nation (it is today). It was not supposed to be the biggest item in the national budget (it is today). But that's what happens you you take a simple problem (take care of the 0.01% of the needy) and hand it to the Federal Government.

The number of people who qualify for SS should be infinitesimally small. The amount taken from taxpayers for the program should also be virtually nothing. All of the needy eldery can be cared for with state programs which can receive RARE and OCCASIONAL assistance from the tiny Federal program. The order of operations is "Family" first, then "Extended family", then "Community", then "State", and the very very very very very LAST place you ever go is Federal.

the idea that fiscal conservatives are the ones looking out for the long-term fiscal health of the nation is laughable

They are - but you (like many) are confusing "Republican" with "fiscal conservative". The GOP is not filled with fiscal conservatives. In fact, the GOP routinely and regularly opposes fiscal conservatives. The Tea Party is filled with Republicans, Democrats, and Independants that are all united under a banner of "fiscal conservatism". The GOP doesn't like them. Not one bit. Fiscal Conservatives are not in a position to "look after the long-term fiscal health of the nation" because they are not in a position to do so. The GOP and the Democrats are both dominated by big-spend, Big Tax, Big Government leftists. The GOP panders to both social and fiscal conservatives with a bunch of lip service, but (as you noted) they don't walk the walk.

>> ^bobknight33:

No conservative gives a rats ass if the President is black or for that matter anything else. We care about being conservative first. Obama is as left as they come. That's why we oppose him.
He is not center left. He is to the left of the left.He makes Ted Kennedy and John Kerry look ok. >> ^VoodooV:
proof that conservatives will put aside their supposed morality at the drop of a hat just to oppose a black man



Did you just admit that conservatives care more about conservatism than they do the country? Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but it's hard to take anyone seriously who thinks Obama is left of left.

Or are you just trolling like QM, spouting stuff you know isn't true just to rile the sift up?

Or are you so deep in the bubble just nothing is getting through.

But by all means, keep painting this absurd picture of left wing radicalism and slippery slopes to socialism. You're just fracturing your party even more and ensuring Obama's re-election. The more you double down on this personal vendetta against Obama, the more you ensure you're going to lose.

As for your 2nd quote. Maybe you're right, but in your utopia, the EPA would be gone, thus ensuring that no one would be safe to fish Or maybe I could just buy fish from a corporation, but with no gov't oversight, the fish will probably make you sick, thus ensuring you're bankrupt for life and can never improve your life. Right Bob?

Yeah, thanks for the meaningless semantics. And OF COURSE atheists are prone to the same foibles as anyone else. That goes right along with them NOT being a group. They share a disbelief in gods. Aside from that one single thing all bets are off.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^budzos:
>> ^bcglorf:

Atheism is no more a religion than liberalism, conservatism, communism or capitalism. It is just a set of ideas that one can hold to.

It's less of a religion than those things. Atheism is NOT a set of ideas. It's a single lack of belief.
It's EXACTLY as much of a religion as not believing in Santa Claus.
My being rude here is not based on atheism. It's the act of a sane man confronted by insane people who twist words like fucking SNAKES.

Semantics.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god/deity. Blame my math background but I still call a set with only 1 item a set. And I stand by my assertion that atheists ARE every bit as human and prone to irrational beliefs as anyone else.

>> ^budzos:

>> ^bcglorf:

Atheism is no more a religion than liberalism, conservatism, communism or capitalism. It is just a set of ideas that one can hold to.

It's less of a religion than those things. Atheism is NOT a set of ideas. It's a single lack of belief.
It's EXACTLY as much of a religion as not believing in Santa Claus.
My being rude here is not based on atheism. It's the act of a sane man confronted by insane people who twist words like fucking SNAKES.


Semantics.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god/deity. Blame my math background but I still call a set with only 1 item a set. And I stand by my assertion that atheists ARE every bit as human and prone to irrational beliefs as anyone else.

>> ^bcglorf:


Atheism is no more a religion than liberalism, conservatism, communism or capitalism. It is just a set of ideas that one can hold to.


It's less of a religion than those things. Atheism is NOT a set of ideas. It's a single lack of belief.

It's EXACTLY as much of a religion as not believing in Santa Claus.

My being rude here is not based on atheism. It's the act of a sane man confronted by insane people who twist words like fucking SNAKES.