Skip to main content

       When conservatives state their objections to (fill in the blank), after a while, you begin to realize you're hearing the same talking points over and over again. And there's a reason for that. They mostly ARE talking points they've memorized - because:

A) they've been field-tested to invoke unthinking responses in conditioned audiences
B) they sound superficially plausible
C) they camouflage the real motivations behind their objections
D) they fit the narrative they've crafted to frame an issue
E) they are actually an honest expression of their beliefs

       Any or all of these categories may apply to a given objection, depending on the issue, the situation, or the speaker. What makes them even trickier to deal with is that the person spouting them may be completely sincere - or they may be a cynical SOB engaging in manipulation for their own reasons. Follow me below the Orange Omnilepticon, for further discussion.

     Okay, off the top of my head, here's a list in no particular order of knee-jerk conservative objections to anything that challenges their agenda*.

1) It would be too expensive.
2) It would raise taxes.
3) It would impose burdensome regulations.
4) It would make government bigger.
5) It would kill jobs.
6) It would destroy traditional values/the family/the American way of life.
7) It's illegal - read the Constitution.
8) It's immoral - read the Bible.
9) It would interfere with the free markets and cripple business.
10) It has never worked.
11) It's racist, sexist, or whatever other vice can be projected on to it.
12) It's unfair.
13) It would create dependency.
14) It contradicts the will of the Founding Fathers/God/Ronald Reagan/Ayn Rand etc.
15) It's a lie!
16) It's not conservative enough!
17) It would make America look weak.
18) It would be rewarding bad behavior (the Moral Hazard argument.)
19) It would be like writing a blank check.
20) It would be liberalism/socialism/communism/totalitarianism/fascism/tyranny/sharia law - or all of those things.

* The principle purpose - indeed some would say the only purpose - of conservatism is to justify selfishness.

       Okay, there's the list, an even score. Did I miss any? Feel free to suggest additional objections in comments. This is just the quick check off sheet. Each of those objections can be expanded into a commentary of its own; again feel free to do so in comments. Think about A) what is the real underlying motive beneath, and B) what kind of counters can be offered against them.

        Take #1 for example: "It would be too expensive." This is a polite way of saying "There's no way in Hell you'll get any of my money for that!" Or, "I don't care how good an idea it is, there's no way I'm going pay for it because I don't want or need or believe in it." And so on. Possible counter arguments are: "Expensive compared to what?" "What is the cost of doing nothing?" "How much would it be if shared equitably over what period of time?" "How much have we already lost by not doing anything about it?" "How much more is it going to cost if we keep 'kicking the can' down the road?" You get the idea. Framing counter arguments as questions turns the objection back on the objector and forces them to come up with answers or keep dodging the issue. And that's just one tactic.

        The point of coming up with a list like this is simple. The next time you hear one of these offered up, you should already have a response ready, ideally a short devastating sound bite. If you can knock down the reflex rhetoric right up front, you can put them on the defensive - or rather more on the defensive, because the conservative world view is essentially paranoid and authoritarian in any case. They use these arguments all the time - it's a matter of being prepared.

       And if you want to employ some sarcasm, you can start with "There you go again…"

UPDATE: Whoa!  I posted this last night, shortly before weather took out my internet service, and hadn't checked back in till late this afternoon. Thanks for getting this republished and spotlighted.

        I had an additional idea about this list. I was thinking it could be used for a drinking game (you know, hear one of the above, take a drink) but it would quickly destroy too many brain cells if you listened to a conservative for any length of time. Instead, turn it into a BINGO game. (h/t to esquimaux) Make up a grid using the numbers 1-20 at least 5 columns  across and as many rows as you want (you can use numbers more than once). A quick web search turns up several BINGO card generators online, so find one that looks like it would work, and have at it.

       You can then play BINGO while listening to hate talk radio. (You may need to drink after all…) You can play it while listening to a debate between candidates. Make up special rules if you want, and play with friends. If you want to go to some extra effort, pick a conservative candidate and develop a list of their particular talking points. Hand out cards at their next public appearance, and see how long it takes before somebody wins.


Originally posted to xaxnar on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 03:47 PM PDT.

Also republished by Political Language and Messaging and Community Spotlight.


After looking over this list of objections, my objection is:

6%9 votes
6%8 votes
2%3 votes
0%1 votes
7%10 votes
21%28 votes
48%63 votes
2%3 votes
3%4 votes

| 129 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (80+ / 0-)

    The reason conservatives are so primed to object to things is simple: at a fundamental level they don't believe things can get better; they're convinced they'll only get worse. They don't want to move forward - they want to roll things back to some imagined happier age that never really was.

    Here's a classic musical number from Horsefeathers that seems appropriate.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 03:45:48 PM PDT

  •  nice work! (17+ / 0-)

    now do some graphics and make it a bingo card.

    "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" - John Adams

    by esquimaux on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 04:00:21 PM PDT

    •  You're onto (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NapaJulie, xaxnar, rb608

      something...think of the Board Game(s) :)

      •  I usedf to have something similar (6+ / 0-)

        The Graphic on the front was a Donkey kicking ass, and on the back were a list of issues, the objections to confronting them right now and the answers.

        1) It would be too expensive.

        Its your money or your life.

        Money really isn't a good reason for doing or not doing anything when 100 East and Gulf coast cities with populations over 100,000 already are flooding and can't be saved with seawalls or levees. 36,000 Square miles of property, some of it expensive property is going to sink beneath the waves . By 2050 the flooding will have reached four feet above present levels and by 2100 6 feet. Already anything up to 19 feet above sea level is considered within a coastal flood zone which expects waves of up to three feet in a 100 year storm. The rate now is $2.10 per $100 value and it can go up 25% a year. FEMA won't pay off any claim over $250,000 and banks won't process a mortgage unless you have flood insurance. That cost runs in the tens of trillions a year for the next century.

        2) It would raise taxes.

        Raising taxes is a good thing. It has been shown to improve the economy, create jobs, make it possible for businesses to depend on the roads, railroads, bridges, tunnels, water, sewer, power, communications, airports, seaports that enable them to do business and other infrastructure such as schools and hospitals, police, fire, trash pickup that allow their employees to show up for work healthy and productive.

        3) It would impose burdensome regulations.

        Yes. If we had no laws we would have no crimes. It follows that since a crime is the breaking of a law, laws cause crime. I'm with you all the way on that.

        We should do away not only with burdensome regulations that prevent you from polluting the air I breathe and the water I drink and the food I eat, but also the all the laws that prevent people from killing each other.

        You are right! We should get rid of all the Burdensome laws like the ones that keep me from killing you right now. That one should clearly be repealed.

        While we are at it I plan on taking whatever I covet, moving into your house, raping your wife and daughter, eating your food, and drinking your booze. Any objections? Good give me the keys to your car.

        4) It would make government bigger.

        You are talking sense there. I really don't need police or fire, a water department bringing non flammable water to my tap or keeping your sewer from backing up into my basement.

        I hate officious bureaucrats telling me I can't carry my gun on to a plane get drunk and shoot the place up a little without being labeled a terrorist. Its my second amendment constitutional right to do that.

        5) It would kill jobs.

        I get you. It would be sort of like a Republican Congress.

        6) It would destroy traditional values/the family/the American way of life.

        I know in my parents house  making enough from my dad's work to pay all our bills and have something left over for vacations was a tradition. That was our way of life and I agree we should get back to that as fast as possible. You must be talking about raising the minimum wage making interest rates lower and regulating banking and wall street right?

        7) It's illegal - read the Constitution.

        Which constitution? The one the founding fathers wrote?

        The Founding Fathers who were mostly all a bunch of revolutionaries? The one written by the Sons of Liberty, the smugglers, slavers, land speculators, pirates and privateers who didn't care much for laws? The one those guys wrote?

        Or do you mean the one that got amended to have a Bill of Rights? You like the one with the amendments right?

        Do you like the one with equal rights and civil rights; or do you like the one the present activist judges are writing to set a precedent for activist Presidents issuing executive orders?

        I never can figure out how the same guy who is such a wimp in foreign policy manages to make all the Republicans in Congress fear him as a bully and a tyrant.

        Since you don't like burdensome regulations I guess you want him to remedy the changes a disfunctional obstructionist congress and courts are adding.

        Where we agree we  don't like burdensome regulations you want a President who will take some action to repeal them right; All the ones regulating a woman's right to choose what happens to her body and her child? I expect you feel especially strongly about  those regulations.

        8) It's immoral - read the Bible.

        The Bible as originally written? or as compiled and amended? The Masoretic Text or the King James version?
        Just the Old Testament or do you want the version compiled with the Apostolic Canons? Do you want the Council of Trent version or Martin Luther's Protestant canons? Given any moral question like this you always like the one with the amendments right?

        9) It would interfere with the free markets and cripple business.

        And that would be a bad thing because then we would have to stop exporting jobs overseas and lowering wages here for everyone except CEO's right?

        10) It has never worked.

        You mean like the current Republican Congress?

        11) It's racist, sexist, or whatever other vice can be projected on to it.

        I thought you guys liked anything racist and sexist; that that was a prerequisite for your getting through your primary selection process; that you as a matter of principal had to like all that racist sexist stuff, The more racist and the more sexist the better to bug Obama and the liberals right?

        12) It's unfair.

        Boo Hoo

        13) It would create dependency.

        You mean like subsidies and tax breaks for billionaires, energy companies,  big agrabusiness,  insurance companies, wall street bankers, defense contractors, and war profiteers?

        14) It contradicts the will of the Founding Fathers/God/Ronald Reagan/Ayn Rand etc.

        I love how its always been the manifest destiny of the United States to form a more perfect union by breaking the unions we have with Pinkerton's, and troops firing on crowds of workers and students supporting petitions of grievances with about the same effect as the British firing on the crowd at Bunker Hill.

        Ronald Reagan is famous because he broke the Air Traffic Controllers strike.

        Who needs a bunch of people preventing the mid air collisions of airliners with a bunch of burdensome regulations.

        Ayn Rand is famous because she felt an architect who designed a building had the right to blow it up if his design wasn't executed to his satisfaction. I always wanted to do that, instead of just order the contractor to have some guys with jack hammers do it, but nowdays they would call me a terrorist.

        15) It's a lie!

        I have to agree with you there. Everybody knows the truth has a liberal bias. You have to lie or Obama wins.

        16) It's not conservative enough!

        What is? If you ask me we ought to get rid of all the government and beaurocracy, all this law and order and burdensome regulation. The way things are now  whoever has the most lawyers, guns and money wins it. We should go back to the way it was when whoever had the biggest club won it. You know climate change can help us realize that goal.

        17) It would make America look weak.

        Right again! There is nothing that makes America look weak like this redistribution of wealth idea. We should put an end to that immediately.

        Just get rid of all the wealth, its not good for anything, just a bunch of waste paper to start with and now just a magnetic charge on a card.

        If we want America to look strong we need to make wealth something heavy that you have to pay people to move around for you.

        We should go back on the gold standard only save money by using concrete blocks or stone, something more in keeping with the conservative golden age of ideas, the stone age.

        That would build some muscles there and then Americans and America would all look strong like a bunch of weight lifters and orcs.

        18) It would be rewarding bad behavior (the Moral Hazard argument.)

        You certainly wouldn't want to do that, I agree. Take for example people that have behavior that makes messes we have to go around picking up.

        Certainly you wouldn't pay someone to come work on your house and make a stinking reeking mess.

        By analogy anything that gets us in a mess like making war and stuff, or not providing healthcare to everybody or ignoring climate change.

        All that stuff should be done for free. Nobody wants to do anything for free so there's your solution right there.

        19) It would be like writing a blank check.

        Yes exactly, I think we should pay Republicans with a blank check. Nothing on it. Nothing that can be put on it cause its plastic and whatever you put on it wipes right off. Indeed with modern technology you could make it a rubber check so it would fold up easy. Sort of like Republican promises of more jobs.

        20) It would be liberalism/socialism/communism/totalitarianism/fascism/tyranny/sharia law - or all of those things.

        I have to admit I think you have hit on the right solution. Like Total Information Awareness and the policy of "Get it all" Look how wonderfully that works, how secure it makes us feel. We need liberalism/socialism/communism!

        Throw in some of that totalitarianism/fascism/tyranny/sharia law you are always accusing Obama of. Whatever he does, do all of those things.

        "la vida no vale nada un lugar solita" "The Limits of Control Jim Jarmusch

        by rktect on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 08:14:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  How about for 21 (a) and (b) (10+ / 0-)

    (a) It would discourage problem-solving/critical thinking
    (b) It would encourage problem-solving/critical thinking

    Also, for 22 (a) and (b)

    (a) It would destroy international trade and enterprise
    (b) It would encourage international interference in American business.

  •  Anything that would let the other side "win" (11+ / 0-)

    means we lose. There's one. God knows the GOP owes us a couple of wins. See Reagan, Ronald and O'Neill, Tip (where Reagan won a lot); Clinton, William Jefferson and Clusterfuck,  the same GOP attitude in Congress Obama is facing (Where Gingrich, Serial Adulterer-cum-Monogymist also won a lot).

    The problem is that they won't give Obama an inch. God knows he's tried...


    by commonmass on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 04:01:39 PM PDT

  •  good point - (12+ / 0-)

    Today's Right provides a set of sucker bait answers so that real thought is not necessary.

    But I do not quite agree that R's don't think things could get better. There surely could be more repression of minorities, women, voters, ....

  •  It Works Both Ways (22+ / 0-)

    You realize these same objections will serve equally well for liberals arguing against conservative policies.


    1) Conservatives suggest sending children seeking asylum back to country of origin.  Objection: it is immoral: read the Bible

    2) Conservatives want to cut taxes for the rich.  Objection: it costs too much.

    3) Conservatives want to start war with "terrorists".  Objection: that doesn't work.

    Go ahead and try it for yourself: state a conservative policy and formulate the needed objection from the above list.  There is a perfect objection ready to fit any conservative policy idea.

    Now that you know that - go forth and troll some conservatives.


    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 08:30:49 PM PDT

    •  That is pretty brilliant. Seriously. (11+ / 0-)

      This list is an excellent dynamic Troll script.

      I might have to actually commit these to memory.

      Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

      by k9disc on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 10:05:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I do shit like that ALL the time (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        k9disc, NapaJulie, xaxnar

        on websites I frequent. Drives the conservatives nuts to hear a liberal pull a "More Christian than thou" on them.

        Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

        by Matt Z on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 10:46:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  All you have to do is (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          xaxnar, JerryNA, ybruti, leftykook

          make your position sound like the more conservative position. It is surprisingly easy. And it pisses them right the fuck off.

          Here is an example.

          For reasons I will not get into here, (personal) I am opposed to abortion. But it is BECAUSE I'm opposed to abortion, that I'm pro-choice and vote for Democrats.

          How does that work?

          1. Okay, statistics show than making abortions harder to attain doesn't actually decrease them. But sex education and birth control do. Both things which Republican oppose. As a person who is opposed to abortion, I actually want the numbers REDUCED and they always go down under Democratic Administrations. Criminalizing abortion won't reduce them.

          2. The "pro-life" movement isn't actually interested in protecting unborn life. They are all about shaming, punishing, and controlling women. How the FUCK can someone be opposed to abortion and oppose birth control and sex ed? Answer: because they aren't actually pro-life. I refuse to call myself pro-life, but I am someone who believes that a woman who chooses to have a medical procedure that I may not agree with, should be able to do so safely and without fear of dying on the table. If I were ever to call myself pro-life, it would be because I care about ALL life, and that includes the life of the mother. This argument is also great to shove the fact that so-called Christians seem to have no problems with the death penalty. That does NOT track with being pro-life.

          3. One conservative (who thought he was being clever) brought up the fact that he was adopted and that if his  birth mother had chosen to have an abortion, he wouldn't exist. To which I replied, I am ALSO adopted, and that means that I can't think about the subject with a clear head. It should not be up to me. I may have personal objections, but I am also not a 16 year old girl with no options. Empathy means putting myself in somebody else's shoes, and realize that just because I have an opinion, it doesn't mean it should become law. The world is bigger than me.

          Now, that's just one example. It would probably be hard for a liberal who is completely fine with abortion to argue that, but my point is, that the liberal position is the most safe and rational, and therefore the most conservative sounding. Painting conservatives as dangerous radicals who want to defy the will of God is actually quite easy.

          Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

          by Matt Z on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 05:05:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You can also go full Nut-Bagger... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xaxnar, Matt Z, ybruti

      1) Conservatives suggest sending children seeking asylum back to country of origin.  Objection: Not conservative enough, execute them.

      2) Conservatives want to cut taxes for the rich.  Objection: Only the poor should pay taxes, the job creators are naturally better than we are and we must support them, or they will not rain jobs down upon us.  Or, the ever popular "They will take their money (ball) and go elsewhere (home) unless we give them everything they want.

      3) Conservatives want to start war with "terrorists".  Objection: Can't find the terrorists, so start wars with any country they may be hiding in.  Plus, they'll embrace us a liberators.

      •  The problem (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        travelerxxx, xaxnar

        with going full nutbag with the non-thinking crowd is even if they instinctually don't agree with the point because it's too extreme even for them, if they hear it enough times, they adopt it as the new conservative gospel.

        That's how they all got pulled so far to the right from where they used to be in the first place.  They kept hearing crazier and crazier shit over and over again until they accepted it as the new gold standard in proper conservatism.

        If enough of them hear "Execute migrants!" enough, a few of them might actually do it, because they don't recognize the fact that they are in a self reinforcing feedback loop that makes them more and more batshit crazy.

        I think trying to confuse them by "out-conservativing" them would eventually backfire in a bad, bad way.  Too many of them seem mentally unstable and unable to apply any critical thinking skills to any situation at all.  Instead, all they can rely on to determine their own opinions and idea of right and wrong is perverted dogma and jingoism.  Give them enough dogma that is even more extreme, and repeat it to them enough, and they'll buy into it and become more extreme.  Look at how many of the idiots believe they're going to be herded into FEMA camps or their lives will be terminated by mysterious "death panels", or that a man who was born to an American mother is somehow a Kenyan and not a natural born US citizen...

        The entire point of the GOPs massive noise machine is to repeat more and more outrageous shit in an echo chamber until their idiot voters buy into it.  In the end, going "more conservative" than them will simply help the GOP noise machine make their idiot voters even bigger idiots.  At least that's what I think.

        Though taken anecdotally, it's a funny idea.  Many of them would have their heads explode and would shit their pants because they'd think their views weren't extreme enough (at least at first) and question whether or not they themselves were RINOs.  Of course, that illustrates why it also helps push them further right - fear of being ostracized by other nutbags for not being a "true Scotsman."

        There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy.

        by Darth Stateworker on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 09:56:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  You forgot #1 GOP objection to any proposal: (13+ / 0-)

    President Obama is for it, it would mean the end of the world!  Fight with all your might!!!!

    “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” Gloria Steinem

    by ahumbleopinion on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 09:13:04 PM PDT

  •  Nice, xax... I think I'm going to run through some (8+ / 0-)

    of those, but I have to say, your probing questions in the diary were excellent. It is not always so easy to draw up those questions.

    I think this is a great exercise.

    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

    by k9disc on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 09:35:03 PM PDT

  •  so why the fuck (4+ / 0-)

    is there no reference to the fucking talk radio that's at the root of all this shit?

    you begin to realize you're hearing the same talking points over and over again.
    the one soundbite that could have done so much damage to the right the last 20 fucking years is something like " hey that's what i heard on the radio, it can't be true"

    or, that's what limbaugh said, but he's never been right about anything!

    and so on

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 10:27:16 PM PDT

  •  Cleek’s Law (6+ / 0-)

    Modern conservatism is whatever pisses off liberals; updated daily.

    If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

    by Major Kong on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 03:29:34 AM PDT

  •  Conservatism - "What's in it for me?" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xaxnar, Matt Z

    I agree with the essential selfishness of it.

    They SO WANT to be selfish jerks about everything, but their selfishness is so deep that they don't want to be CALLED selfish by others, or have to believe it about themselves.

    Hence, the spouting of bullshit excuses.

    The Fail will continue until actual torches and pitchforks are set in motion. -

    by No one gets out alive on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 05:42:23 AM PDT

  •  Thanks nt (0+ / 0-)

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 06:09:48 AM PDT

  •  Another clear purpose: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xaxnar, JerryNA

    it shortcuts any introspection on their part.  Not just justifying selfishness, it keeps them from waking up and reevaluating their choices.  The choice seems clear, since only the R's are giving the "right" answers.

    They're freed from the burden of difficult deliberation.

  •  Here's another one: (6+ / 0-)

    The President has the authority to do something and should lead instead of doing nothing/The President doesn't have the authority and is acting like a dictator thinking he can do this without Congressional backing.

    That one occurred to me the other day, when John Boehner
    punted (again) on immigration reform saying that President Obama is failing to lead on the Mexican-American border problem. Boehner said flatly that the President has the authority to act unilaterally and he should do so. This , of course, days after Boehner filed a lawsuit claiming that the President has acted unilaterally when he shouldn't have.

  •  When we're dealing with the authoritarian (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    mentality conservatism represents, we'd do well to remember these people actively disparage self-awareness. Any pursuit that smacks of introspection or the pursuit of self-understanding, they deeply mistrust. As far as they're concerned, meditation and so on, go against the American national character, I think. (Or the U.S. Constitution, one of the two!)

    Anyway, this is literally a dimension missing from the RW sensibility, one we take for granted. For this reason, conversation with these people can be really strained.

    Supple and turbulent, a ring of men/ Shall chant in orgy on a summer morn...

    by karmsy on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 07:18:38 AM PDT

  •  Behind the refusal to accept the facts about (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:
    1) It would raise taxes.
    3) It would impose burdensome regulations.
    4) It would make government bigger.

    Plus, effective action on climate change requires international cooperation.

    How to counter those objections?

    The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right. -- Judge Learned Hand, May 21, 1944

    by ybruti on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 07:43:16 AM PDT

  •  Crazy GOP (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sister Havana, xaxnar, ybruti

    1) They don't want to fund repairing infrastructure, especially highways, even though the highway system was implemented by fellow Republican Dwight Eisenhower.

    2) They want to kill the EPA even though it was started by another Republican, Richard Nixon. Ditto for a whole bunch of other sensible laws he passed, like the CAA, the CWA, etc.

    3) They hate the Affordable Care Act, yet Richard Nixon proposed something even more "liberal" (Nixoncare).

    4) They don't like conservation, even though many Republicans supported doing so, hence the origin of the term conservative. (At least in part. I'm aware it's probably more complicated than that, but you get my point...I hope.)

    Their cause must be our cause too. Because it's not just Negroes, but really it's all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome. -- Lyndon B. Johnson

    by AllTheWayWithLBJ85 on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 08:00:36 AM PDT

  •  We need to develop rebuttals (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ybruti, xaxnar

    THis is a brilliant list - thank you.

    Now we need to develop rebuttals. I can think of many. However, because of a background in social sciences, not so good in boiling them down to succinct talking points.

    We need a table of the above, with space to post possible rebuttals.

    Thanks for a great post.

  •  #21- "It's French." (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sister Havana, xaxnar, Matt Z

    I'd also like to mention that Janine Garafolo, on Real Time with Bill Mahr year or two ago, called Republicans

    "the party of the unrestrained id."

    "After the (job losses) and (austerity) they won't be the same human beings you remember. Slaves?. . let's just say, they'll be satisfied with less" -Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, as explained by Ming the Merciless.

    by Softlanded on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 10:27:05 AM PDT

  •  Use a dartboard! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sister Havana, xaxnar select a conservative objection. It'll be at least as accurate as the conservative's objection itself.

  •  The litmus test is: Did this exist before 1960? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Anything after 1960 is bad!

  •  You forgot these: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    21. It's just an attempt to distract from BENGHAZI!
    22. It's just an attempt to distract from the IRS Scandal!
    23. It's just an attempt to distract from Fast & Furious!
    24. It's just an attempt to distract from Obama's border crisis!
    25. It's just an attempt to distract from Obamacare!

    Yes we can! Yes we did! Yes we will!

    by Sister Havana on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 03:19:38 PM PDT

  •  There are blind fanatics in our midst too. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I've met my own share of people who are trolls who can do little but spout progressive objections during any given debate.  They're sensitive to key words and are incapable of replying to what is actually presented to them.

    This is the problem with having isolated communities.  The noise-makers of each group will just yell nonsense at one another and make the reasonable people in each group think all the outsiders are insane, noisy lunatics.

  •  My evangelical parents voted for Willie Clayton (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    when he ran for Governor in Texas against Ann Richards.  I pointed out how incompetent and misogynist he was.  They actually saw his incompetence as a good thing.  "He's so stupid he can't possibly mess things up any worse than they already are"

    Naturally I was dumbfounded that they would see incompetence in government as a net positive.  Especially since the incompetence and ideological fervor of George W Bush is the primary reason our economy went into free-fall in 2008.

    The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

    by ecostar on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 08:04:14 AM PDT

  •  Might be worth tossing in... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ybruti, xaxnar

    ...the dictionary definition of "Sophistry".  It's key to a lot of conservative arguments and why you should be wary of them.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site