http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/3 … 76547.html says that the Stewart/Colbert show had far bigger attendance than Beck.
I'd like to think that means we outnumber the dumbos, but I suspect that part of it is just that some Colbert fans still don't grok that he is making fun of them.
President Stewart, VP Colbert? We have done worse.
Of course they say that. I don't put any stock in attendance estimates from any partisan source anymore.
"President Stewart, VP Colbert? We have done worse."
You are doing worse now.
Obama/Biden has been a real winner.
Remember J O B S is a three letter word.
I think we do outnumber the outrageously vocal minority...
You're right on about Colbert. Hard to believe his over-the-top BS blends right in, and yet it does.
It's because of the truthiness
The Insane clown Posse wouold be better candidates in 2012!
I believe we do outnumber them; we're just not as noisy. If we could persuade younger people to vote in greater numbers, it would be crystal clear who is in the majority.
No, we aren't as noisy. I get very few political emails from my liberal friends, but conservatives I barely know constantly send moronic and inaccurate junk about Obama's birth certificate, mythical provisions of the health bill, and more.
Is part of our problem reluctance to shove our opinions down others throats? Is that part of the reason our message is so weak? Do we prefer letting people make up their own minds and remain reticent to discuss our views unless asked directly?
Are we just not obnoxious enough?
"Is part of our problem reluctance to shove our opinions down others throats?"
No, there are plenty of shouty liberals.
The thing is, it's really hard to reduce an issue as complex as, say, health care or foreign policy, down to an angry, shouty three word phrase.
And another part of it is an unwillingness to say make up stuff like death panels and paint our opponents as unpatriotic anti-american communist sleeper agents. We prefer to frame our arguments as: "So-and-so did this. This was a bad thing to do. Here's why this was a bad thing to do. A better idea would have been the other. Here's why the other is a good idea."
But by the time we get to the first "here's why," a lot of people have lost interest, either because they have to go pick up the kids or something, or because there's a reactionary conservative over there shouting "He's a Kenyan Communist who wants to destroy America!!"
The Right's strategy is a lot quicker, easier, and more seductive. Kinda like the Dark Side of the Force.
Well, yes. I have often thought that the real problem of the left is that liberalism requires more complex reasoning.
I'm not saying that deeper thinking necessarily leads to any better solutions than raw emotion, just that, as you note, emotion is a far easier sales pitch.
"liberalism requires more complex reasoning."
No, that's not my point. Conservatism--that is, real conservatism, based on thought--is just as intellectually stimulating as liberalism--that is, real liberalism, based on thought. I generally disagree with a lot of conservatism, but do agree with some of it.
The problem is that the radical right don't care about intellectual processes, they just want to "take their country back," as if it went anywhere.
They're loud and attract a lot of attention, especially that of the intellectually lazy. This doesn't make conservatism the philosophy of the stupid. But the smart conservatives are willing to ride wave of stupid to get into power.
But even if they can surf the wave of stupid without wiping out, there are other perils. Remember how embarrassed McCain was when his supporters started spouting the "He's an evil Muslim Communist" crap at campaign stops, and he had to sheepishly say, "No, he's a good American, but I disagree with him on many issues." You could see the realization in his eyes: "My God, is this what I've created?"
No, Senator, you didn't create this. But you nurtured it, all unknowing, like a cuckoo in your nest. And now the cuckoo is grown, and ready to fly.
Well, I have to say, the exact opposite was true during the Bush years. I think it's really just the loudmouths on the side that wants power that send all the tripe in the mail: a big pendulum of stupidity swinging from one extreme to the other.
I don't recall getting expensive brouchures attacking Bush.
In fact, until he went off his nut and invaded Iraq, I think a lot of us on the liberal side felt as I did: he wasn't a bad President at all. Yes, we would have rather Florida went the other way - and maybe it did - but until Iraq, we didn't feel really angry about him. He was a moderate - until Iraq.
"Yes, we would have rather Florida went the other way - and maybe it did"
And I also blamed Gore for asking for only a partial recount, in counties likely to have a democratic majority, rather than a full recount. Florida should have had a full recount of all ballots, even if it made the results a bit late. Better to be late and really know the real result than on time and have no idea who really won. But that can't be fixed without time-travel.
"...until Iraq, we didn't feel really angry about [W]."
Indeed. the pre-Iraq W wasn't bad at all. Wrong on many issues, but perfectly adequate.
Yeah, we were indundated with garbage back then too, at least where I live. I marveled at it then as I do now. Politics disgust me because there seems to be zero honor in it, ever. Everybody painting everyone else as the "cause of the problems" as "blind and corrupt" as "incompetent" and all the rest of it. Everyone screaming, lying, backstabbing, and all of them vying for donations like toothless whores pawing my ankles from the filth of some gutter.
Nobody listens. Nobody cares. Not truly. They only care about power. Power for the sake of power. The trappings of it. The glory of it. The perks.
So it doesn't matter who's in office. It's just a movement from one season of emptiness to another season of the same, the only change being the direction of wind blowing from a different storm of lying mouths.
It is the sound of a desperate cry, to rely on the younger inexperienced people to sway the vote. Rather than appealing to those who would weigh the options carefully and thoughtfully. Good idea.
The right weighing anything thoughtfully?
Yeah, that happens. Extremely rarely, but it does happen.
Most of the electorate votes on emotion, not reason. That's true on both sides. Most of my affinity for liberal views is driven by an emotional desire for fairness and tolerance. Most of my conservative friends views are driven by an emotional need for structure and order.
I WISH rational thinking had more sway, but in reality it does not.
"It is the sound of a desperate cry, to rely on the younger inexperienced people to sway the vote."
Oh, and relying on fear and anger, that's not desperate? Sure.
I didn't call on anyone to "sway the vote." I merely called on them to vote. Do you have a problem with citizens voting?
I wish everyone would weigh options carefully and thoughtfully, including birthers and pretend constitutionalists.
"I wish everyone would weigh options carefully and thoughtfully, including birthers and pretend constitutionalists."
And I want a pony!
Anger doesn't mix well with reasoning.
I really am conflicted about Tuesday. One part of me actually wants the idiot fringe to take power they can be exposed for what they really are. Maybe then we could bury them again for a few decades - just long enough for me to live out my golden years.
Maybe we can get a game of football going.
Yes we'll play flag.
Wouldn't want anybody from the left getting hurt.
And we won't keep score so every bodies self esteem is intact, and everyone will get a trophy and we'll go to pizza hut and get a smiley face pizza.
Time to check yourself:
who the hell cares which rally had more people? The only demographic either event represents is 20-55 year old white male cable news watchers. Beck's rally was crazy people and the Daily Show march was just more moderate liberal hand ringing and equivocating without trying to make any strong positions.
by Alexander A. Villarasa2 years ago
The eminent essayist, author and political commentator Charles Krauthammer posited that the ongoing persistence of the disaster that is ObamaCare, could or would start the unraveling of American Liberalism...
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 days ago
Yes, humankind is becoming more educated, aware, & evolved as a species. Congruent with these components is liberalism, even progressivism. Conservatives, reactionaries, & other retrogressives...
by marinealways246 years ago
What is the ratio of liberal Christians compared to conservative Christians? It seems like the conservative Christians would outnumber the liberal Christians. If you are a liberal Christian, what are your political...
by lady_love1585 years ago
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … rupts.htmlThis is an excellent that articulates precisely why liberals behave as they do, what they want, and why they want it. Read this and you will understand why I...
by AdsenseStrategies6 years ago
I mean liberalism and not Liberalism (the second of these two is the belief that there should be no tariff or border restrictions on trade between nation states ). Now, first off, liberalism is obviously not a religion...
by rachellrobinson6 years ago
I came across this article when I was researching whether Liberalism was the symptom of the problem or the disease and I thought I would share it and see what others thought. Liberalism: a toxic philosophyKlaus...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.