Ignorance - The best way to ensure that people vote GOP!
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/25/s … tion-plot/
I especially love:
"As you know, 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it. "
Yes, you certainly don't want people who can think for themselves!
I mean, where would it all end, folk questioning why some are so rich while the people who make them rich are dragging their asses along the ground?
Exactly, the Dems don't want anyone to think for themselves. Well actually, the Dems don't think anyone is smart enough to think and do for themselves, that's why they want the government to do it for us. As long as they control the government, anyway.
Oh right! You mean like how the Democrats want to control who can get married, and decide whether or not women will have access to birth control or the right to decide whether or not to reproduce. Or like how the Democrats want to control history by omitting passages that refer to the Founding Fathers owning slaves and "intruding on" Native Americans. Or you mean like how the Democrats try to control who can vote by setting up unreasonable restrictions on voter registration and making phony robo-calls in minority districts to turn minorities away from the polls. Or you mean like how the Democrats want to control who can run for office by Gerrymandering out candidates they feel particularly threatened by. Or...Oh! Wait a minute! My mistake! That's the Republicans who do that! Never mind!
Suzanne when someone does things that will seriously hurt this country, I don't consider them American. You just listed good examples of many of these things. Thank you.
NO COLLEGE THEN! Education has allways been the bane of religion and conservatism, once you know the alternatives it quickly becomes obvious what you are trying to conserve is not as good, and when you see the alternatives to religion and the alternative answers to the questions it poses most logical people change their mind.
Sanitorium is a clueless, narrow-minded loser. Yesterday I read somewhere that his wife before meeting Rick had a live-in affair of several years with an abortion doctor. Truth stranger than fiction.
And that has what to do with his qualifications to be President.
You rip the Republicans for lack of tolerance and then you show your own intolerance.
Being clueless and narrow-minded ought to have a big impact on your electability, but heck, W got back in.
I hate how Republicans lie about other peoples "qualifications" when they, themselves have none.
It's easy enough to find:
http://nationalmemo.com/article/strange … ivered-her
With the republicans this year it seems you have to pick the lesser of the two evils... no one is a really good choice.
I'm not a Santorum supporter, but I don't think it's fair to blame him for something his wife did before she even met Rick.
I'm beginning to think that it doesn't matter as much as I would hope who gets elected... I was looking into the food industry, and it's just amazing how many people are in bed with every administration...
I'm about ready to give up and leave this country.
actually, public education has a long history of indoctrination. When Jefferson wanted a state funded VA public education system, the state rejected it on the grounds of indoctrination, fascist, and socialist (for those who see a difference).
it was rejected for numerous decades before it was accepted
White male, college educated= Democrat. High school dropout, redneck= Republican. Free thinker= Independent.
I can't image where that quote came from, by the way.
If 62% of people with faith lost it in college, I think we'd have darn few theists at HP. My supposition is that this might have been some studie of fundies - I coud believe that 62% softened their theism, but not that they became atheists.
Though to a crazed person like Santorum, I suppose that's the same thing.
If you aren't a Democrat in high school, you don't have a heart.
If you aren't a Republican in college, you don't have a brain.
If you aren't a Libertarian after college, then you're a puppet.
No, I'd have to use a different adjective for Libertarian at ANY age.
What's a non-insulting way to say it? I can't think of any.
It's OK, Pcunix, Your government funded education won't fail you forever!
One day you'll figure out that a private company created a thesaurus, and that you can find words that are similar but not as insulting.
One of these days!
Naww. I'm an autodidact - I didn't get a lot of that guvmint funded educashion. I slept my way through school.
Let's try "foolishly optimistic Libertarian". Yeah that works.
You should sue your teacher for malpractice.
Oh, an insult?
Hey, have you owned your own business? Did you raise two children and pay for their college education out of current income from that business? Did you ever own a home in one of the most expensive towns in one of the most expensive states in this country?
Has your website writing been read by over 11 million unique visitors? Have you made money from selling books on-line? Are you a respected reviewer on Amazon? Have you had your articles published in magazines and been paid for it?
I've done all that and more. Have you? Somehow I bet the answer is no.
Yes, I am a high school dropout and an autodidact but I've apparently taught myself rather well, haven't I?
Wow, a raw nerve - cool. That was fun.
Isn't it awesome that you live in a country that afforded you an opportunity that will soon no longer exist. Congratulations. Apparently your course work also included inordinate pride and ego.
It doesn't exist now! Say "Boo" to a conserv, and you're toast.
While they cry about freedom. Pulleeeeeze.
A raw nerve?
No, simply educating you on what truly smart people can accomplish. Smart *liberal* people, by the way.
Inordinate pride and ego? I ask you again, how do you stack up? I assume by your smarmy remark that you must be highly educated? How far did it get you? Are you even close? I bet not.
I am surprised and disappointed in you. Surely you don't contend that our value as people comes from the material wealth we possess? I tend to measure me against me not against others. What is your potential is not comparable to the potential of another. How much of our potential we fulfill and how we fulfill it is equally personal and individual.
Again I am surprised and disappointed in you, I thought only rich, white Republicans measured the value of a man by the weight of his purse. How sad I am to receive such a harsh education.
However, since you are a liberal, one can conclude that you see yourself as part of that elite that will have the dacha in the country and the chauffeur driven limousine to take you and your ermine clad mistress there - once the revolution has liberated the masses, of course.
Since the remainder of us must fit the mold you so eagerly embrace with your "mine is bigger than yours" comparison and despite the horror of it, I am certain that I would rather be one of the faceless masses marching into the factory than one of the oppressor class - even if the mistress is a redhead.
Ahh. It's fine for you to insult my education, but if I show you that I did just fine without it, I'm suddenly part of the liberal elite you despise so much.
No, I'm not wealthy. Not in money, anyway. I probably could have been, but as soon as we reached the point that we didn't need a lot, I cut back. Money never mattered to me.
I did read what you said. What is the measure of a man?
I don't know.
You have slyly insulted my intelligence regularly and here you insulted me again because of my lack of education. I simply laid out my accomplishments to refute that, some of which happen to involve money, though others do not.
I'm tired of being baited by you. I've shown what I have accomplished in my life with the education you say should cause me to sue myself.
You owe me an apology. I am an extremely intelligent person who has done very well in my life. We have political differences - I'm not a dunce because I see the world in a different way than you do.
Speaking of money, I have to take checks to the bank. See you later.
... didn't you insult the intelligence of all Republicans with this post?
... An intriguing thing, this "moral high ground".
Did I? My comments were very specifically directed at the hard right. Given the power they now wield in the party, I don't know what to think of Republicans who still want to associate themselves with that label. If they are working to restore sanity, that's one thing, but otherwise..
Prejudice, Social Conservatism Linked to Low I.Q.
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and
Low-intelligence children are more likely to be racist adults, a controversial link explained by the simplified world view offered by extremism.
http://www.livescience.com/18132-intell … acism.html
Our conservative friends here will be claiming they are "tall women"
And I would have called you tall if you were 4'8"
I don't like that kind of generalization ( the http://www.livescience.com/18132-intell … acism.html ). I certainly understand that "simple" ideas are attractive to the less intelligent. However, there can be complex reasons why a "simple" idea is the right idea.
I wish we didn't have political parties at all. Most of us don't match any party - likely the only folks who really do are the ones mentioned in that study. I don't mean someone who has joined or identified with one party, but someone who just marches in lockstep with whatever that party says.
Anyway, we all fall into simplicity we don't even mean. I might say "I don't want religious belief influencing our politicians" but that's not really true. I don't want a belief that homosexuality is sinful influencing laws, but I certainly do want a belief that poor people should be helped.
I hate politics
128 I.Q., attended four colleges, earned 3 degrees, white, female, conservative, completely non-prejudiced/non-racist, come from a family of high achievers with high I.Q.s, all have 4 yr. college or advanced degrees, all conservative (except one out of 12).
There may likely be a link between lower I.Q. and racism because of lack of exposure to society but even someone with a low I.Q. can go to college and with the standards in colleges today, they'd pass. Non of this has anything to do with conservatism, IMO.
I've heard many many many advice columnists suggest to the youth:
"get a full time job in a company after high school - or take the time learning a very very marketable skill, like computer programming. Then just lie about going to college: everyone has a college degree, so no one bothers to check it out. Just claim some community college in your home city and no one will care."
College is just a $50,000 sheet of paper.
President Obama went to the same church for 25 year and purports to be a Christian. Where does low IQ fit him?
Thank you Ralph for the link. I agree whole heartedly. Lack of education and ignorance fuel the right wing movement. It also fuels organizations like the KKK and the tea party. I’m just trying to figure out where these people were when bush was in office, and how in the world did he get elected twice if their supposedly so concerned with the deficit? I have always felt what Pcunix mentioned, that in this day and age we shouldn’t have political parties at all. There’s way too much bias inherently built into them. Each politician should stand on his own merits.
Rick Santorum is a dangerous lunatic, and "indoctrination" is the big right wing loony buzz-word these days. I recently had a conversation with a right-wing loony who complained of being "indoctrinated" with the theory of evolution in school, the proceeded to outline it in a way that proved that he was in no way "indoctrinated" with it since he had absolutely no clear understanding of it! Indoctrinate! Ha!
My whole college thesis was on this subject. Love this!
Where are these "Children" entering college? It was my understanding that it was (with a few exceptions) ADULTS that went to college. To my knowledge, those adults can also choose their own class schedules and fields of study. I think the resentment might be coming from losing hold on the beliefs of those Adults, which apparently Mr. Santorum believes should still be ruled by their parents.
If Santorum were not already dead meat, this foolishness would have sunk him for sure.
Not only does Santorum have his facts a bit screwed up, he is also something of a major hypocrite, not to mention a financial sleaze. Here's a quote from an article on Philly.com-- here's a link so you can read the whole thing. It's quite the eye-opener
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/atty … -know.html
"This compassionate Christian conservative founded a charity that was actually a bit of a scam. In 2001, following up on a faith-based urban charity initiative around the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia, Santorum launched a charitable foundation called the Operation Good Neighbor Foundation. While in its first few years the charity cut checks to community groups for $474,000, Operation Good Neighbor Foundation had actually raised more than $1 million, from donors who overlapped with Santorum’s political fund raising. Where did the majority of the charity’s money go? In salary and consulting fees to a network of politically connected lobbyists, aides and fundraisers, including rent and office payments to Santorum’s finance director Rob Bickhart, later finance chair of the Republican National Committee. When I reported on Santorum’s charity for The American Prospect in 2006, experts told me a responsible charity doles out at least 75 percent of its income in grants, and they were shocked to learn the figure for Operation Good Neighbor Fund was less than 36 percent. The charity – which didn’t register with the state of Pennsylvania as required under the law --- was finally disbanded in 2007."
An anti-Romney ad here in Fl reinforces your point.
The ad finishes with "And he speaks French!"
Apparently Romney is just not ignorant enough to suit Republican voters.
Now we know why John Huntsman did so poorly, he spoke Mandarin around Republicans.
Now there are people in Tennessee who are trying to remove any mention of slavery from textbooks. The slave trade is now the triangular trade! They're not just ignorant, they promote ignorance as a virtue. The new slogan for the GOP should be; We're ignorant and we're proud!
I will try to say this softly so Republicans don't put it in new textbooks:
Pssst,hey Tea Party, they weren't slaves, they were unpaid business interns, and all those slave holders were really altruists, training black people, at no charge!
To finish, I'm sue you know about the study that found Fox News viewers actually know less about events than people that didn't watch the news.
Ignorance rules the right!
"An anti-Romney ad here in Fl reinforces your point.
The ad finishes with "And he speaks French!""
Newt's PhD dissertation is on education in the Belgian Congo, and cites several French-language sources.
"The slave trade is now the triangular trade!"
Well, to be fair, it's been called that for some time. It's not only people that were traded. But to call it the "triangular trade" and not explain what three things made the triangle is incredibly stupid.
i always say there are two kinds of democrats - smart poor ones and generous rich ones.
I've been avoiding the political forums to keep my blood pressure normal, but I'm glad I found this one. I agree with every posting I've read so far, and it's great to be involved in a discussion with non-Republicans!
I live in Mississippi, a Bible Belt state where ministers actually tell their church members to vote Republican (and most of them do), describing all Democrats as "liberal atheists that are going to hell."
The GOP pushes the voters' hot buttons with social issues (abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, etc.) to get them to vote for Republican politicians who all claim to be conservative Christians. This, of course, is a joke. Well, it would be a joke if the end result wasn't so far from funny. The GOP's main agenda is to keep supply-side economics in play (even though academic economists don't subscribe to the theory that this will create jobs and trickle-down wealth) and keep their super-wealthy individual and corporate campaign contributors rich and happy. This is accomplished by voting for any bill that supports these contributors' special interests and against any bill that doesn't, even if their votes are not in the best interest of the U.S. people or even the planet.
When poor people in Mississippi (or any other poor people in any other state) vote Republican because they believe its candidates are "God's people", they are figuratively shooting themselves in the foot. Their votes that put Republicans in office hurt them financially, which they then blame on "liberals"...again parroting what they hear in church.
Okay...that's another reason I usually stay away from political forums. I get started, and it turns into a rant! Sorry....
"When poor people in Mississippi (or any other poor people in any other state) vote Republican because they believe its candidates are "God's people", they are figuratively shooting themselves in the foot. Their votes that put Republicans in office hurt them financially, which they then blame on "liberals"...again parroting what they hear in church."
I don't call it a rant when you speak truth to power and corruption. Religion is dangerous and evil. The poor people you speak of just want to do the right thing it would take to step over the rest of us into heaven. But, Religious leader drive their flock to do their bidding. The bidding of their powerful rich friends that will help them expand their chuch at any cost(actually they can be bought cheap) The preachers goal is to get his flock to follow the will of the preachers benifactors. The oil traders, the pharmacuetical companies that profit from the votes the preacher directs his flock make.
BUT NOT TO WORRY Not to worry....FRIENDLY WORD IS BACK! I'll help you to meet with those scallywags and leave them screaming and running to greener pastures. AND EASIER PASTURS TO CULTIVATE the innocent.
"ministers actually tell their church members to vote Republican (and most of them do), describing all Democrats as "liberal atheists that are going to hell." "
Isn't there some kind of rule about political activism and tax-exempt status?
JW, the points you make - NOT "rant" about - are exactly why the tax exempt status of churches who tell members how to vote should be cancelled. Pastors who instruct a congregation to vote for one party and not another are lobbyists pure and simple, and should be required to be registered as such.
Also, a book called "What's The Matter With Kansas" should be required reading in every school in America, public AND private. It was originally written to explore and explain why Kansans traditionally vote for every well-groomed Republican who turns on the charm at election time, even though history has shown time and again voting for the GOP is a vote against their personal economic well-being, as well as the economic well-being of the state.
Sadly, the phenomena is no longer confined to Kansas. It's spread to other states cloaked as "Christian (or family) values" instead of what it really is - a grand scheme to kill democracy by the Koch Brothers (both born and raised in Kansas, btw) and other One-Percenters.
"Pastors who instruct a congregation to vote for one party and not another are <b>lobbyists</b> pure and simple, and should be required to be registered as such."
Not lobbyists; those are people who hang around legislators and try to convince them to vote for or against stuff that their employers want or don't want.
A pastor who campaigns for a party or a candidate when they're not in the pulpit (I'm Joe Schmoe, and I support Candidate A!) aren't breaking any rules. A pastor who campaigns from the pulpit (I'm Reverend Joe Schmoe of the First Self-Righteous Church, and I support Candidate A!) are totally breaking the rules and their church should be taxed just like any other business.
A minor technicality as to "when is a lobbyist not a lobbyist". But thanks to Dubya and Karl Rove courting the Religious Right in 2000, a lot of churches and their pastors have become a powerful influence on our elections, and not in a good way.
The use of churches as political pulpits is not new nor is it confined to one political party. It is almost a rite of passage for Democrat politicians to visit Black churches and deliver political speeches. There are organizations that represent both parties that claim non-partisanship or tax exempt status but regularly endorse candidates. It is a bit out of control. Perhaps solution is indeed in the real enforcement of the tax code. However, that too is subject to corruption by politics.
Can you imagine a Democrat insisting that the AFLCIO or NAACP be subjected to an IRS/Justice Department probe. Or to be fair - the Club for Growth or the Federalist Society subjected to the same by a Republican President?
"In his State of the Union, the President said he would sign any bill that ended insider trading in Congress—stopping once and for all the practice of our elected officials holding stock in the industries they impact.
Stand with the President and join the call to ban insider trading in Congress."
Well-here you go! Bi-Partisan solution! Think it will it happen?
Not if Democrats and Old Guard Republicans are left in charge. The current drive for reform in Congress is being spearheaded by the people you hate most - TEA party Republicans. The whole insider trading scandal was also broken by someone else you hate - the editor of Big Peace at Breitbart.com, Peter Scheitzer. Why would you want this change? It has benefited Democrats so much over the years.
TP idea of reform is Let WASPS rule! Religion and all. And DON'T touch my medicare!
And who was the insider trading pointed at? R's or Dems? Why....Dems!
Breitbart is about as partisan as you can get....Obama has always bent over backwards to BE non-partisan. Hopefully, he's learned his lesson.
Can't get along with an unbending ideology.
No surprise there. Hatred is frequently sub-textual. Sweitzer's book names members of Congress regardless of political party - but have it your way. Republicans are bad, Democrats are good. TEA party is racist, blah, blah, blah. Wow, have I not missed you.
Umm YOU brought up the hate word, not me. You attributed it to me as a way to demonize me, I assume.
And...where did I mention TP and racism? No where....once again: you're putting your biased ideas of me onto me.
That's what you do with Obama too.
And I'm sure you don't miss me. You seem to like to speak unchallenged.
Well--please speak for yourself, not me. TY
No, but far right Republicans and far left Dems can be bad.
As to the TP, they seemed to ignore racism in their ranks by not speaking out strongly against obvious expressions of it.
For me, though, the big problem with the TP is their small minded failure to understand the value of government. I agree that there is waste and corruption and I always want to fight that, but throwing out valuable programs and agencies is not an intelligent response.
As discussed earlier (I think in this thread?) simplistic ideas are latched on to by unintelligent people and dismantling government IS a simplistic idea.
I am so sorry if I implied that you challenged me. Sub-textual has a meaning. As does WASP, which is a racial one. Besides, you have spoken for yourself so often that some things are predictable.
"I am so sorry if I implied that you challenged me. Sub-textual has a meaning."
So, am I to assume the sub-textual meaning here is that I am beneath you? Never in a million years could I challenge such a mind as yours?
Gollyy....and they call Obama an elitist!! (see-smile, that means no insult!)
And for the record, I am not a far left Dem. Far left Dems are just as against Obama as the Republicans are. I am not in that catagory. I love my country and I think Obama does too. That's why he's my choice. Not smart enuff? Too stupid? oh well.
No, because his idea of bipartisan is when everyone agrees with him. He talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk.
Lincoln was a lobbyist for railroads...
... but everyone loves him....
No, you should not. Not yet.
Right now, the votes Dems lose to fringe candidates can only help Republicans get elected. The Dems are not what we want, but they are better than the GOP.
By voting Dem now, you push the GOP into a position where they either get real or they get nothing. That gives you the power to mold one of the parties into something better. Either the GOP because they need to regain power or the Dens because they want to keep it.
Voting independent when the GOP has lost power makes sense. It doesn't now.
I totally agree! Because of our antiquated primary and electoral college system of determining winners, until a third party comes along strong enough to field candidates who actually WIN, voting independent is the same as voting Republican.
Historically, Independents think more like Dems than Rethugs (who we know can't think at all!) and should vote as such if they want their vote to count. Otherwise when the polls close on Election Day, Rethugs end up with more votes that DO count than Dems.
A lousy system, I know, but it's what the Founding Fathers put in place for us instead of the truly democratic system in England. Where, btw, Brits aren't stuck with an unpopular or inept "leader" like Dubya for any longer than it takes to call for the election of a new prime minister. They also don't have to endure 2 years of "campaigning" prior to a national election. So much of our system of government was patterned after England's that it boggles the mind that the Founding Fathers rejected its parliamentary system in favor of the slow-as-molasses two-party system we're stuck with.
Indeed! We must work with the system we have!
"Working with the system you have" is INDEED a fantastic suggestion.
The system we have now has been able to eek out an incorruptible man who loves liberty. He wants to cut Warfare to help pay for the essential welfare, and cut welfare down to the levels they were at about a decade or two ago.
We have an epic chance to use the system against itself:
Ron Paul 2012.
I thought point of a forum was to ask a question. What is your question here?
Actually, asking a question is the point of the "questions" area. Forums are meant for conversation.
Though I can think of a question:
Why would any person of even moderate intelligence support a party that has such politicians as part of it?
But that goes for the Ds, too. There are some really crappy politicians on both sides.
The R's have Ron Paul, so... the D's lose.
Gee, I wish I could be as smart as all you Democrats! Guess I'm just a dumb ol' Republican. lol. This thread reminds me of one I started last week asking if Rs are dumb for giving Newt a win in SC. I'm still scratching my head over that one.
BTW, I'm not a Santorum supporter. I'm a Mitten!
There is a difference between being ignorant and being dumb, unfurtunately the republican part runs on a very backwards and ignorant platform ie. anti gay rights so the statement is not unfair. The point being thag democrats are not necesarily smarter but they are more open minded and informed. (all htough studies suggest Democrats are more likely to have higher education and higher IQs but I am not really convinced,
Based on most of the Dems I know, I'm not convinced, either. And not all Rs are against gay rights. Like the D party, the R party has several arms. In fact, one can be an R in fiscal matters yet be a liberal in social matters. I think the problem with both parties is that the fringe elements get the most attention - perhaps because they're often the loudest.
Well none of the Rep candidates support gay rights, or marriage and Santorum supported laws against sodomy while Ron Paul runs on a "Pro marriage" base (which means anti gay) while Obama wrote several letters to the high courts to overturn the "dont ask don't tell policy" and now has overurned it so that people risking their lives in our military for this country don't have to hide their sexuality. Its preety clear to me which party is anti and which is pro gay rights.
I am a registered Democrat and I totally agree with you, except that I would say that this year the Republicans have really let the right wing fringe of the party take over and it is a little scary how non reality based that lunatic fringe is.
Mitt is not a bad guy and neither was Jon Huntsman. Both were moderate enough to have broad appeal and to be appropriate candidates for the job-- but Sarah Palin? Michelle Bachmann? Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich? I cannot believe anybody is taking these people seriously.
The primary season is more like Reality TV or Celebrity Wrestling than a seirous political campaign and the media is laughing all the way to the bank. Meanwhile, Americans are being entertained not educated. Reality cannot be reduced to a 30 second sound byte and real political issues are not black and white but many shades of grey. The problem with democracy is that when you have an ignorant electorate, you get ignorant candidates. A Republican party that can choose a Gingrich or Santorum over a Romney or Huntsman has totally lost its way.
robie2 is so correct in the statement, "...this year the Republicans have really let the right wing fringe of the party take over and it is a little scary how non reality based that lunatic fringe is."
habee also mentioned that fringe elements get the most attention because they're the loudest. That may also be because they play so well on Fox er,..."News."
It's very sad to me that the true reasons for the state of the U.S. economy are being pushed under the rug by GOP candidates who don't dare deviate from their major party line: NO TAXES FOR THE RICH. When a Republican candidate (centrist or moderate) even nods at the possibility of increasing taxes in a fair manner, that candidate ceases to be viable to the party. Junior senators and representatives who go to Congress with ideals intact soon lose them when they recognize the reality: lobbyists and Super-PACs rule with $$$$, and special interests get the bills passed (or not passed, as the case may be) they want because of their "deep pockets" funding of the GOP.
The U.S. has already become a social class society. There are the very wealthy, the "American aristocrats", whose opinions and wishes are the only ones that appear to carry any weight with Congress.
Then, there are the rest of us. The middle class is, for the most part, struggling to maintain their place in the scheme of things, but many are slipping below that designation. The "lower class"--the poor, or people right on the verge of becoming poor (many working harder and longer hours--sometimes two jobs per person-- for less money while trying to hold on to their homes and feed their families) is growing.
This is a very sad commentary on the true state of this country. I've been around a long time, and the changes in the political climate I've witnessed--particularly during the past 30 years--make me despair of America ever regaining its position as a respected world power.
I've said the EXACT same thing! If Newt is the GOP nominee, I will no longer be a Republican - I'll become an Independent. I've broken rank many times, anyway. lol
Huntsman was my first choice, Mitt is my second. Even so, Mitt is head and shoulders above Newt. I will NOT vote for the Grinch!
I hope Newt doesn't get the nomination, but I'm still an Obama Momma any way you slice it
Did you see the recent Republican advertisements between Romney and Newt?
They each insult the other with the exact same claims, and provide evidence.
(fill in either Romney or Gingrich in the blank)
[ ] is a flip-flopping loser. [ ] has voted for medicare, and then against medicare. [ ] has lied about XYZ.
It's brilliant! Two corrupt politicians are going after each other for being corrupt!
Ron Paul 2012.
Yes, that's true, but it's also the fringers that drive the party's platform, because they're the loudest, and the sensible people have lives to manage, jobs to go to, etc.
I voted for a turd just because there is a (R) after his name for the last time in 2008. Neither Newt nor Mitt are worthy of my vote and Santorum - like Ron Paul - is not going much further before his demise becomes apparent to him.
I have come to the conclusion that America deserves the leaders it gets. I just hope my great-great grand children will be able to shake off the Soviet American State and establish some semblance of freedom. We are finished as a free people and have been since the 1930s.
Fortunately, ridiculous statements like this are only found at the extreme fringe.
We shall see. The ideas about the nature of property that have taken hold since the 1930s are the same kinds of ideas that lead to the Soviet State. Simply put, so that you might understand, the idea that one man's product can be claimed by the state for redistribution to another man who did nothing for it is corrosive to freedom.
"Simply put" so that I might understand?
Would that be a veiled insult?
Insult away. People with your views aren't even worth the effort to refute.
ucv - I hear where you're coming from. It's not that far fetched to think we could be completely controlled by government whether it's this one or another one. When the U.S. started outsourcing our military, we were doomed. Once we're completely turned into a socialist state, their (the government's) own policies will backfire on them and large private industry will completely own the country. And it may not be U.S. industry. They've made partners with dangerous bed fellows.
Paul is going to win. Get behind him.
The next to drop out is Santorum, then it will be Newt. Then the public will ACTUALLY have to compare Mitt with Paul.
The choice will become apparent. The media will be forced to say "Paul polls just as well as Romney in electability", and Paul will win.
Paul v. Obama? give me a break. The media will finally have to discuss him seriously. Everyone under 30 will vote for Paul, thus castrating the Democrats. The R's will vote for anyone with an (R) in front of their name. And, when every major corporation will put their money behind Obama the independents will see just how corrupt he is; just how corrupt our system is.
Paul is going to be our next president.
This is a word that covers American politics and what will happen with it over the next three years like you cannot imagine.
Doesn't matter who your next President is or if Obama gets reelected.
You will still be over 14 Trillion in debt.
You will still be over 10% national unemployment.
You will still be in a recession.
You will still be talking about how bad the Democrats/Republicans are governing your state/country.
You will still be in Afghanistan/Iran/ or some similar middle east country for security reasons (oil).
Taxes will increase.
Military spending will exceed budget.
Unless American politicians start taking different ACTIONS, words mean diddly squat people. So unless your politicians start Taking some positive ACTIONS, please don't suggest to me differently as this will almost be gospel come three years time when someone searches back through the forums.
I really feel for America, I just surprised you continue to let your politicians take money from lobby groups and screw you over without so much as dinner and drinks.....
I'm inclined to agree with you but how do you propose we stop it? Hell, we paid a private army on a ratio of 1:1 in the millions of dollars in these past years, an army who trained right here in the U.S. and was made up largely of third world nationals. This is a nice little well kept secret.
Democracy breeds ignorance. Republics help siphon it out.
Even Indies have to make choices. And IMO, that puts you in a camp! Because certain things are IN the dem and repub platforms. You can't get away from it! For instance, If you say "I'm Independent and pro-choice", how can you vote for an R? Anti-abortion is in their platform!
Many ethnic groups who are Democrats are against abortion. I think few people agree with 100% of "their" party's stands on issues. We just have to decide which we relate to more. For example, I don't support the death penalty, while most Republicans want it to be used even more than it is now. On the other hand, my best friend, who's a liberal democrat, believes in the death penalty. She's also a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I don't think we can really "pigeon hole" people into strict categories.
Exactly-- it is the simplistic, black and white thinking-- the forcing of everything into a 30 second sound byte that has people demonizing each other when the should be talking about the issues. The assumptions that are made lead to many miscalculations and serve to create sensationalism and ill will when instead, ideas should cross fertilize and people should be able to learn from one another and to compromise-- isn't that what a free society is all about?
No but you do have to decide what issues you truly care about, for me that is guaranteein that all people in the US swill have qual rights, I dont think we can even start to advance untill we have achieved that, which is why I am voting for generally pro gay Democrats.
Ron Paul got away from the platform. And the people love it.
Some things you cannot compromise on. That's just the way it is. I don't consider it simplistic.
But other things can be compromised on, unless you really are simplistic, or to put it more bluntly, stupid :-)
Tell me one thing you're passionate about, and we'll see if you have a price.
1. The right for my daughters to have an abortion if it's the right choice for them.
Why this is even an issue for the state to stick its nose in is beyond me. And Ron Paul is on the side of taking away that option, and even taking away the option of birth control. He Voted For The Personhood Amendment...read it.
2. OWS is right: there it WAY too much disparity in this country and it needs to be heeled! Ron Paul wants the looters to be free to loot---no holds barred. Regulation, what's that?
These crooks need regs. How come if a person robs a bank, it's a crime, but if a bank robs a person, it's good business?
And since corporations are people--they should be arrested when they steal from me. Not according to Paul..."free market" decides. Well, it's not "free", it's bought and paid for, and the 99% were left out of that deal.
I think that the Republican and Democratic parties have been highjacked by people who circled the beltway one time too and have gotten dizzy. There are decent law abiding people on both sides. Slandering peoples reputation doesn't improve anything. What does this country need done and who will do it is more germane.
Well, we are way beyond that. Citizens United pretty much guarentees that we will be inundated with slander and negativity.
Cause sadly, it works. And until we stop buying it, it will.
You've said this very well. Many feel the same as you, especially young adults. They want to see real debates on tangible issues. I don't like any of the Republican candidates. I think all of them are too far removed from genuinely relating with and serving average Americans, which most of us are. Even Romney, can he really relate to mid America?
Interesting perspective from Jon Stewart - satirical but relevant
http://elections.firedoglake.com/2012/0 … rspective/
You're right. IMO, there is no one in Congress, the White House, or the Supreme Court who can really relate to the majority of 'the people'. In the beginning, the House was made up of 'regular' people, people without wealth. Now, Representatives are on an economic par with Senators and they're all out of touch. Then there are the few who have extreme wealth and should be made to give away all there money before they can become POTUS. In fact, anyone who wants to hold a position in any of the three branches should have to donate all their money to the people down to a reasonable point, divided equally among all adult citizens. They can have access to a gov. car but only while on gov. business. No expense accounts. And they should pay for their own insurance.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) can relate to the majority of the people! He is a self-made man, the youngest of 7 children from a family that was so poor they had to live in their car on several occasions. He worked throughout high school to pay tuition at a private Catholic school because he strongly desired an excellent education. Although he only weighed about 90 pounds, he played football in high school and was a valued team member. He went on to college and became a university professor.
He was the youngest mayor ever of Cleveland Ohio and saved the city millions of dollars by refusing to sell their municipal utility company to a big corporation. This was an unpopular decision on his part, but it had been one of his campaign promises, and he stood by it. Years later, the citizens realized how much money he had saved them in the long term, and he won his seat in congress on the motto: "He was right all along!" and he has been right all along throughout this century as one horrendous debacle follows another in our government. Therefore, republicans gerrymandered his district in such a way that he must compete with another progressive democrat in order to keep a seat in congress.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich works hard on behalf of working people and poor people every day - even with his seat in congress threatened - even when he was running for president, he never missed a vote. He takes his job seriously. In his personal life, he has a moderate income and drives a Ford Taurus that was made in the USA.
This is something I just read today in David McCullough's, John Adams. I wanted to share it somewhere, and this seems like a good place. Here is Adams' response to his assignment to go to France for negotiations:
"I should have wanted no motives or arguments to induce me to accept of this momentous trust, if I could be sure that the public would be benefited by it. But when I see my brothers...here so easily making fortunes for themselves and their families...and when I see my own children growing up in something very like real want, because I have taken no care of them, it requires as much philosophy as I am master of, to determine to persevere in public life, and engage in a new scene for which I fear I am very ill qualified."
Yet he did risk life and limb to voyage to France in winter only to find that there was already a treaty in place by the time he arrived. Quite a difference from today's members of congress who generally collect handsome pay, benefits, and protection for life from We the People, all the while investing and participating in insider trading and working for their own interests with no thoughts for those whom they are entrusted to represent. Adams spent decades separated from his family and earning far less money than he would have in private practice as a lawyer out of sheer dedication to "public life" and his country and a great desire to benefit the public.
Kucinich is one of the BEST congressmen there are! That's because he has morals and won't get 'bought' by big business. He loves this country and he always puts this country first. Here are some good examples;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYWWBwf2 … 2266E9D7F7
Is a vote for the GOP a vote against the middle class.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/25 … dle-class/
Don't worry about it. The middle class is going to lose either way.
I would suggest that the Middle Class is not so easily defined as one would think. Many Americans practice Middle Class values - work, education, modesty in consumption, active in church, community, etc... while belonging in either a higher or lower income strata.
So how would one define Middle Class? Is it solely by income - the wealthy actually represent a smaller portion of income received than does the Middle. Is it by accumulated wealth? Here those traditionally termed the wealthy have a substantial lead. Is it by access to services? Almost all Americans, even those called poor,have indoor plumbing, electricity, access to transportation, medical care, education - not all of which is taxpayer funded and virtually none of which is federally funded.
So what are wealth and poverty in America?
What is the Middle Class?
Isn't it the aspiration of all Americans to live as if wealthy?
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/facult … wealth.htm
A vote for the GOP is a vote against the United States of America and democracy in general.
Do you have any facts to back that statement up?
Any party that would make it their priority to be certain that the President of the United States fails is anti-American and anti-democracy. That is the stated purpose of the GOP these days.
And its interesting how just a few short years ago, opposition to a GOP president's policies was demonized by the Right as anti-American.
But put a Democrat in office, and opposing the President becomes the most patriotic thing you could possibly do.
I have to wonder, is it because the Right loves Presidents who make stuff go boom in foreign countries?
I recommend that everyone on this forum go to the website economyincrisis.org and read the excellent articles posted there, especially "Republican Primaries Highlight Citizens United Problem", "Time to Retake Politics From the One Percent in Both Political Parties", "Globalism Fails to Benefit Average Americans" and "America Needs to Wake Up--China is Not Our Friend!"
The last title in that list showcases the asinine remarks of Erin Burnett on her show, Erin Burnett OutFront (CNN), where she claims it's good for Americans to eat toxic Chinese food and buy their children Chinese toys with lead in them so prices can stay Walmart-low. Erin Burnett is living proof that someone can be educated and still be stupid!
I love the way that this post is trying to associate "dumb" with "Republican" when we now have a president who thinks that price controls (essentially) will solve a market phenomenon.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art … 9b15407574
"Are you charging 'too much' for education? Well then, I'll just remind you that you're my bitch!"
The joke is, however, that federal subsidies made the education price skyrocket. Now he's mad that the price increase that was bound to happen happened. "I want to put people through college... but I don't want prices to increase! I'm an idiot!"
"I love the way that this post is trying to associate "dumb" with "Republican" "
Good observation, Evan. The Left and the Right are both guilty of trying to paint the other side as brainwashed, indoctrinated, non-thinking, intellectually lazy, dumb, insular, elitist, etc. That's not helpful. Not a bit.
I wish more folks (sometimes I'm guilty, too, so I'm including myself in this) would remember that our political opponents aren't the bad guys (extremists are, but every cause has its extremists), but people of good will who want most of the same things we want, but with whom we disagree on how best to achieve what we want.
I think we all try to remember that. Unfortunately, we can't very well put our entire history of reasonable statements into every post we make, and especially so when replying to someone who is being unreasonable or mildly insulting.
For the record, I have already said that I can't agree with the implication of that study. Unintelligent people do take to simple ideas, but there can still be good reasons for a "simple" idea to be correct.
All they ever do is insult:
"But other things can be compromised on, unless you really are simplistic, or to put it more bluntly, stupid :-)"
This is why we will never be able to compromise...because the Right thinks everyone else is beneath them.
They are lonely. The only place they can find people who think like they do is on-line or by watching Bill O'Reilly or one of the other loudmouths.
If you worked in our company you could say exactly the same thing about liberals. They take comfort in people with like opinions. Its seems to be human nature.
If you live in Mass, maybe - in flyover country, that is completely incorrect.
A very large percentage of people that I know hold reasonably similar (conservative) views to me. The primary exceptions are college professors (and the fact that they hold a Ph.D. while I have an M.S. means diddly - as far as comon sense, half of them can't tie their shoes) and the uneducated, especially among the poorer people. Here, uneducated almost always means Democrat, not Republican.
Sure - I love the "smart people don't have any common sense".
Conservatives love patting themselves on the shoulder with that one..
How about debating with me instead of a straw man? I didn't say that and you know it - but its more fun twisting words than arguing the point sometimes, isn't it?
I limited it to college professors, because it is the truth. How many of them do you know? If you never went to college, you might not realize the truth of that statement.
Because I never attended college I don't know any college professors?
I have two as neighbors - wait, three. They both seem quite sensible to me. Two of them still teach - mostly on-line now, but still at it.
Oh, and how many books have I read that were written by these "foolish" professors? Hundreds, at the least.
Where's the straw man? - You are either agreeing with it or you aren't, but the attitude still exists among conservatives.
No, you may well know a lot of professors. The point is - I probably have seen a lot more of them at college than a person would be likely to meet otherwise. Sure, many of them are excellent in their field, so I don't doubt that the books you have read were excellent - I've read quite a number of them as well - but I was speaking of their common sense as it relates to both life and politics. I'm glad that you know a couple who don't fit this mold, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
The straw man came in that I never said anything about smart people not having common sense, but specifically limited that to a considerable number of college and university professors. Frankly, while I'm no genius, I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent, and I have a little common sense
That argument (that conservatives say that smart people have no common sense) is much more popular among leftists discussing conservatives than it is among conservatives themselves. I certainly don't believe it as a general rule.
Common sense in politics? Oh, if they don't agree with you, they lack common sense?
No, if they don't agree with Y-O-U they are ignorant. The entertainment never stops.
Really, out of all that you picked that one sentence by itself? I understand, its the only sentence that is rather controversial
Okay, if they agree with Peter Singer on ethics, then yes, they have no common sense. Doesn't mean that I don't like them personally, but yes.
I dunno if you count MI as "flyover" country, but it's all over the place here. HS graduates/no college/some college are equally likely to be liberal or conservative. Same with BA/BS degree having people. Same with MA/MS. I on't hang out with a lot of folks who have PhDs, so I can't really tell you about them.
I believe you, but MI is a more left-leaning area, anyway, so I'm not suprised. Certainly, I'm speaking in generalities, but here poorly educated tends to be Democrats as well as maybe Ph.D. types, at least university employees. Otherwise, people tend to be more conservative.
what is up with you ? That remark was not made insult you. Did you not notice the smiley face? It's called a joke--you know, a bit of humor??? I was responding to the notion of never compromising which you expressed and saying that some things are worth compromising on-- but you clearly would prefer to play the victim and see me insulting poor innocent little YOU.
Just for the record I am a registered Democrat, voted for Obama and will probably vote for him again, however I am not hostile to moderate Republicans or to ideas that are different from mine and I am open to the idea of political and social compromise( unlike you) People like you are why I stay out of the forums and out of political discussions on Hubpages.
I'm outta here-- not waiting around for an apology from somebody as stupid as you ( THAT is NOT a joke. I'm angry and hurt and I mean it)
I know the feeling. But I never called anyone in here stupid.Politicians yes, bloggers no.
And I don't go around voting down and flagging either....nor do I report.
So--sorry if I'm a little thin-skinned when I see as an insult with a smily face attached. This is a tactic I'm used to.
Oh, and don't tell me who I hate...you don't know me any more than you know Obama.
Already told you who I hate: Cowards.
Oh, see, I hate people who hate cowards, so RAWR!
I usually vote the Democratic party line, but there are others ideas I like. For instance, I commend Ron Paul for wanting to end foreign intervention in countries where we do not need to be. I wish Obama did not want to be a Pacific power, and even though I am voting for him again, I am tired of all this being in every place where we do not belong.
In years past I was enticed by a few things Ross Perot suggested, such as ending the electoral college. I have always been a fan of Ralph Nader for his consumer advocate endeavors.
Congressman Kucinich also believes that we should cease Empire building and take care of things at home - and he is a Democrat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJurKRtY … re=related
Dennis is the man who should be president. Mark his words! He has been right all along!
That's just rude, Pcunix...
Do you truly believe that all Republicans are lemmings, following blindly without critical thinking?
How rude, how illegitimate a comment. And you call Republicans ignorant? I would truly appreciate your comments being phrased in such a way as to not negate the choice.. CHOICE.. of those who just happen to not agree with your concept of what things are truth, what things are fiction, and what things we wish to have.
If the truth is rude, then I have been rude.
Tea Party politics is naive and dangerous. Period.
Kate, the devils in the details. I agree with you that many republicans don't follow blindly, but many do. I also feel that the republican party knows what buttons to push to get the other party members to follow in line. If you think what Pcunix said was rude then maybe now is a good time to do some (real) soul searching. When someone speaks the truth and it is interpreted as being rude then maybe they struck a nerve. I used to be a republican.. I’m much more independent now. I see a lot of republicans put their party before their country. That makes me really sad.
Over-generalizing is a huge problem in this country, and Pcunix's "truth" is just that... over-generalizing.
How is it truth if it is not all encompassing... To say all women are weaker than men, all men are not as emotional as women, all children are innocent, all dogs bite people, etc etc etc.... cannot be used to fulfill a "truth"...
Soul searching? I know who I am. I'm an independent, free thinking, brilliant, doctoral student gaining my degree while not faltering from the 4.0. I am a willing participant in a conversation that I refuse to agree with because it seems to be overly basic, and very little research based.
The presumption that people who vote GOP are less intelligent is totally unfounded, and cannot be proven.. Statistics are only as good as the sample they are taken from, and I give no stock nor credence to such "proof" as bias and skewed data is easy...
My IQ has been recently tested, through my classes and it came back as 148. I'm no idiot, and I don't need to soul search to see that every political thread at Hub Pages shows a limited scope based on a single direction's opinions. These opinions can be determined by their own "proof" that can be countered as easily as it can be proven.
I am quite bothered by "educated" people who believe that others are less educated or less informed, or less intelligent because they have the nerve to disagree with their opinion.
That is rude.
Quote: “How is it truth if it is not all encompassing... To say all women are weaker than men, all men are not as emotional as women, all children are innocent, all dogs bite people, etc etc etc.... “
The reason it’s different with politics is because you’re dealing with numbers, and it doesn’t have to be 100% to effect the country. It really doesn’t have to do with IQ per say, it has to do with having and using common sense. A person doesn’t get common sense from IQ. For example; I once knew a nuclear scientist who was extremely intelligent, but he died of Pneumonia because he didn’t have the good sense to get out of the rain. When someone is doing something as important as voting, and they willingly allow people the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc. to influence them, or they watch the rhetoric broadcasted on fox and soak it up like a sponge, we’ll, that’s not very ‘smart’ and it certainly doesn’t help this country. I think that’s all he meant in his post.
I didn't say that. Ignorance is not intelligence. Leaving people uneducated WILL promote ignorance. That's not generalizing - that's fact.
Thank you, Pcunix!
“Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislators and magistrates in all future periods of this commonwealth to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them, especially the university at Cambridge, public schools, and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings, sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people. ”
― John Adams, Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States of America, Bill of Rights and Constitutional Amendments
this is true they promote ignorance just listen to Limbaugh refer to schools as screwls , and continuosly bashing education in every way and even recomending to kids to drop out if they want to be billionaires
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov
Spin clowns like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc. and along with the GOP conservatives live by a philosphy of keeping their listeners scared and stupid. A concept that got Bush re-elected in 2004 (of course with the Democrats having a loser for a chalenger didn't help much either). One way to people can do instead of listening to these loud mouth ass-clowns is to simply think for themselves.
What about Maddow, NPR, Stewart, Colbert, and the entire Media empire?
Maddow, Stewart, and Colbert all love Ron Paul ---- outside their own show.
NPR ignores Ron Paul relentlessly, as does the rest of the media.
They're all outlawed from saying "I like Ron Paul", but their feelings are obvious.
What an amazingly rich fantasy world you live in!
Not trying to pick holes but I'm curious how you know this?
I agree. I'm stunned that we are even thinking of electing a man who outsourced American jobs for profit, and outsourced income to avoid American taxes....STUNNED.
You shouldn't be so stunned. They love anti-American stuff. That's why historically they always selfishly put their party first.
by Credence2 12 months ago
This is where the analogy ends. For all the things Donald Trump is, he is certainly no Luke Skywalker.There has been increasing rumblings as of late from the GOP mainstream that it has had it with Trump's endless supply of bull$hit.Senator McConnell, otherwise known "affectionately" as...
by movingout 9 years ago
As an Independent, I have voted for Republicans and Democrats. I feel we need a true two party system to help rebuild this great country. But instead, I see a divided Republican Party! We have the "true Conservative Republicans (which I have voted for in the past), being replaced by this...
by Sophia Angelique 9 years ago
Intelligence Squared, probably the most awesome debating forum in the world is having this debate in April 2013.http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debate … ter-or-dieThe TOP must seize the center or die.I, of course, already wrote why the Dems would take 2016 as well in my hub of that name....
by Credence2 9 years ago
Excellent op-ed page that discusses conservatism taking two distinct tracts. Have a read and share your opinion, please. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … /?src=recg
by Susan Reid 10 years ago
During the 2010 mid-terms the GOP campaigned fiercely on the platform of job creation and, as a result of such promises, the GOP gained the majority in the House of Representatives. As the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner made the welcome claim that the primary goal of the Republican Party...
by Stump Parrish 11 years ago
McConnell: No real deficit deal until Obama is gone.If there was any doubt that the GOP is holding this country hostage in order to retake the Whitehouse, McConnell removed it with this statement. Mr. Obama says he will not sign a short-term deal, saying, "This the United States of America...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|