Guy Exposes Liberal “Myths” By Telling Myths

countdownSo this guy wrote a list article explaining how dirty liberals have misled America. It’s mostly unevidenced ranting…and you know what we do to unevidenced ranting!

Possible Myth 1: Liberals love science

The liberal commitment to science consists entirely of talking about how important science is when they believe they can use it to further the liberal agenda. On the other hand, when science shows that adult stem cells actually work better than embryonic stem cells, millions in Africa have died because liberals needlessly insisted on banning DDT or the evidence shows AIDS is never going to take off in Western, non-drug using heterosexuals, liberals have about as much interest in science as they do in supporting the troops.

Do adult stem cells work better than embryonic stem cells? Well, not really. There is a chance that they might someday, but at this point embryonic stem cell research is much further along. But since there’s not much of a groundswell for creating new lines of embryonic stem cells right now, it’s best to judge this claim by the state of play back when liberals and scientists did argue for further research — and at that time research into adult stem cells was not even happening and aggressive research of embryonic cells would have moved the ball forward in the meantime. Even if the cells were ultimately proven less useful, the only way to get there is through experimentation. Because you see, liberals like science because it proves things with experiments…not guessing.

You get to be "pro-science" when you side with the 99.999% of articles

You get to be “pro-science” when you side with the 99.999% of articles

Is there really love for DDT? Not among the overwhelming majority of scientists and health professionals. This article cites the same slip-shod science that thinks global warming isn’t happening. Liberals are not “anti-science” because a couple of scientists have a different conclusion. In fact, the most pro-science conclusion is siding with the consensus based upon the vast majority of studies. Besides, banning the toxin is credited in part with the recovery of the Bald Eagle, and what’s more American than that?

These AIDS comments manage to hit the exacta of being racist AND homophobic all at once. As a translation he’s saying, “only gay people get AIDS…unless you’re an African.” What’s lost is that whether or not AIDS was going to wipe out the population, it’s still a disease that kills shitloads of people! Liberals don’t care about funding to find a cure because they expect straight Americans to start getting AIDS in droves, they care about finding a cure because it’s the number 3 cause of death on the planet!

Even if you buy any of his examples, liberals win by comparison to the alternative. Reproductive science is not that complex and geology and astronomy have been on the scene for a bit. When the other side is talking about the pregnancy potential of “legitimate rape” and the “recently created Earth” it’s hard to see the liberals losing this point.


Advantage liberals.

Possible Myth 2: Liberals love education

If you define “education” as doing as much as humanly possible to toss plums to the teachers’ unions who help fund and elect Democrats, liberals love education. Alternately, if you define education as the rest of us do, making sure our kids learn as much as possible and are prepared for the working world, liberals don’t care about education at all. They fight merit pay, oppose firing bad teachers and try to kill even effective school choice programs. Any time there’s a divergence between what’s best for the teachers’ unions and what’s best for the kids, the kids ALWAYS lose with liberals.

Well let’s examine the worldwide education rankings. Check out all the socialist countries up top. There’s a reason for that — they don’t spend all their time bashing science (see above) and they don’t fuck around letting wealthy neighborhoods vastly outspend poorer neighborhoods in the name of fighting “big government.” School choice is a theory that doesn’t make sense practically (if most failing students are in overcrowded schools in poor neighborhoods, how do they get to their new chosen schools out in wealthy suburbs? How many seats are the “good” schools opening up for the influx of new students?) or theoretically (the system only encourages rent-seeking by private schools because they know the price point of parents…meaning the public schools lose money, the parents pay the same, and the private schools pocket the difference).

There just isn’t a conservative plan for education other than “let localities pay for school” — which is “screw everyone else’s kid” and “choice” — which is “help some token students while lining our pockets with private school stock.”

He may have a point that teachers’ unions support Democrats…but this might be a case of the horse pulling the cart because the Democrats support policies that someone who, by definition, cares about kids other than their own, would necessarily support.


Advantage liberals

Possible Myth Number 3: Liberals are tolerant

In a very real sense, liberals don’t understand tolerance. To them, tolerance is promoting whatever position they happen to hold while excluding all competing views. So, if a conservative speaker shows up on a college campus, liberals try to shout him down. Liberals have tried to censor conservative talk show hosts with an Orwellian “Fairness Act.” They work tirelessly to try to silence Fox News, which is the one center right network up against ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC. They block professors for their conservative views, blacklist conservative actors and lock conservatives out of almost every major newspaper in America. That’s not open-minded; it’s a level of dogmatic intolerance that could rival the most radical cult.

At the risk of reinforcing sexist or heteronormative standards, conservatives need to grow the fuck up and stop crying about everything.

At the risk of reinforcing sexist or heteronormative standards, conservatives need to grow the fuck up and stop crying about everything.

Again with the fucking crybaby routine. This shouldn’t be too hard to grasp…tolerance does not mean, “no argument.” Getting argued with on campus is not equivalent to being told that you can’t marry someone you love just because. Having to defend your position is not the same as dismissing someone as lazy because they work two part-time minimum wage jobs to try and provide for their family and STILL can’t quite get there.

The “Orwellian ‘Fairness Act'” he’s talking about is the old Fairness Doctrine that governed the airwaves from 1949 until 1987. It required licensees of broadcast stations to present balanced commentary throughout the day. It’s gone and there is no groundswell to bring it back. A few Democrats have suggested that the political climate was more measured when it was in place, but it’s hardly a widespread liberal viewpoint.

And moreover, whenever conservatives get up in arms about the “Fairness Doctrine” myth they smugly point out that conservative talk radio deserves to dominate the airwaves because it’s the free market while simultaneously bitching about the liberal media bias in every other form of mass communication. My brain is hurting trying to figure out this logic.

Who’s trying to silence Fox News? Pointing out their consistently shoddy reporting is not “trying to silence” them.

All these other examples would, it seems, fly in the face of their championing the decision-making power of private enterprise, but I’ll allow that some academic institutions may backlash against science professors trying to prove the Earth is 6,000 years old.


Slight, but persistent, advantage liberals

Possible Myth Number 4: Liberals don’t moralize

Sorry, but this title just makes me think “Mogo Doesn’t Socialize.” If you read this and got that reference without needing the link, please leave a comment.

Liberals believe in allowing children to have abortions over the protests of their parents, they want to force churches to perform gay weddings that violate their Christian beliefs and they demand that the Catholic Church provide abortion and birth control over its strenuous moral objections, but then they turn around and deny that they’re moralizing. Getting beyond that, they couch their arguments about tax rates, government programs and economics in distinctly moral terms. After all, what is the term “fair share” if not an appeal to morals? If liberals are going to continue to pretend that they don’t moralize, at least they should admit that they’re morally inferior to conservatives.

Out of the gate, let me say that this is going to be a push because liberals ABSOLUTELY MORALIZE. Indeed most liberals see their worldview as highly moral. But the examples given are disingenuous at best. “Child abortions” refers to a very limited set of exclusions that liberals want in any abortion law to protect for the possibility of a woman seeking an abortion who is the victim of an abusive home or, more likely given the subject matter, a victim of incest, to get judicial approval rather than have the abortion blocked by their abuser.

No one thinks churches have to perform gay weddings against their will. Period. Not any liberal (unless they’re sarcastically trolling).

Those “strenuous moral objections” that led the Catholic Church to comply with this policy for years without a peep.


Push. Liberals moralize just as much, but not in the ways he’s suggesting.

Possible Myth Number 5: Liberals love the poor

It opens with a little ditty by Benjamin Franklin in 1766 ripping the British for taking care of the poor, explaining that charity would lead to laziness and kill economic progress. Given that England was at the time, and continued to be for almost 150 years, the dominant economic power in the world, apparently Franklin botched this call.

On the other hand, liberals “love” the poor like a cat loves mice. The cat gets fat off the mice and liberals get elected off of sadistically keeping as many Americans mired in poverty as they can. Then, they can give the poor just enough money to get by on while railing against those mean old conservatives who’re claiming the destitute can have better lives when any “compassionate” person would realize food stamps and welfare are the best most of these people can ever do. That’s not love; that’s a gang of pushers trying to hook as many customers as possible.

It's that whole trend up until 1980

It’s that whole trend up until 1980

Oh my, really? Is it worth pointing out that the decades where America lived under the “liberal agenda” saw low poverty and growing incomes for the poor and middle class?

If liberals were trying to maintain the poor to keep an electoral edge, they were doing a pretty shitty job of it. This was the era of unions and welfare and upper income tax rates in the 70s.

And what’s the conservative alternative? Enterprise zones? That was a conservative idea…and then Clinton expanded the plan exponentially. Killing welfare and turning it into a work training and placement program? Clinton and the GOP Congress did that too — all it did was massively expand the Food Stamp program because that became the last resort for struggling families, but whatever.

At least Food Stamps pump more money into the economy than they take out. Indeed, independent economists have said that expanding food stamps now is the most effective way of priming the economic pump. So in that sense, liberals may not want people in poverty, but may be relatively content with the number of people on food stamps in the short-term.


Advantage liberals.

This is a clean win for the liberals. There are problems with liberals…these aren’t any of them.

Leave a Reply