The Very Separate World of Conservative Republicans

Stan Greenberg, James Carville & Karl Agne
Democracy Corps
October 16, 2009

Executive Summary
The self-identifying conservative Republicans who make up the base of the Republican Party stand a world apart from the rest of America, according to focus groups conducted by Democracy Corps. These base Republican voters dislike Barak Obama to be sure - which is not very surprising as base Democrats had few positive things to say about George Bush - but these voters identify themselves as part of a mocked' minority with a set of shared beliefs and knowledge, and commitment to oppose Obama that sets them apart from the majority in the country. They believe Obama is ruthlessly advancing a secret agenda' to bankrupt the United States and dramatically expand government control to an extent nothing short of socialism. They overwhelmingly view a successful Obama presidency as the destruction of this country's founding principles and are committed to seeing the president fail.

Key Findings
Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters' beliefs - but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson's incendiary comments at the president's joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion - but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point.

First and foremost, these conservative Republican voters believe Obama is deliberately and ruthlessly advancing a secret agenda' to bankrupt our country and dramatically expand government control over all aspects of our daily lives. They view this effort in sweeping terms, and cast a successful Obama presidency as the destruction of the United States as it was conceived by our founders and developed over the past 200 years. This concern combines with a profound sense of collective identity. They readily identify themselves as a minority in this country - a minority whose values are mocked and attacked by a liberal media and class of elites. They also believe they possess a level of knowledge and understanding when it comes to politics and current events, one gained from a rejection of the mainstream media and an embrace of conservative media and pundits such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, which sets them apart even more.

Thank the Lord I take a foothold almost directly in the middle - yeah, I'm a little socially leftarded...

p.s. I put the FOX news ratings up for you at my post if you'd care to have a gander.

Nanc is one of those clowns living in their own separate reality.

Wrong, null - I believe PEOPLE SHOULD take care of people, but out of the goodness of their hearts - NOT because the government compels them to do so.

Wrong, null - I believe PEOPLE SHOULD take care of people, but out of the goodness of their hearts - NOT because the government compels them to do so.

#6 | Posted by nanc

Of course, but when they don't do it, we're supposed to just pretend that those in need don't exist rather than have the government take steps toward that end?

I believe PEOPLE SHOULD take care of people, but out of the goodness of their hearts - NOT because the government compels them to do so.

#6 | Posted by nanc at 2009-10-17 01:07 PM

Most people won't help others so the govt is needed to do it for them. Eliminate churches and let the govt handle it.

#7 & #8 - put people to the test. If they fail then let the government get into their business.

"put people to the test. If they fail then let the government get into their business."

Been there, done that. Read some fucking history.

I was gonna say what Null said, but nicely.

Seems to me that having both private charity and gov't social programs shouldn't have to be mutually exclusive. (Yes, I grant that the welfare system is flawed.)

People like Nanc think the "social safety net" was some imposition by alien invaders, rather than something demanded by citizens and voted for by citizens in a somewhat democratic country.

"put people to the test. If they fail then let the government get into their business."

What does that mean? How haven't we been doing just that for decades?

The article's first sentence... "the consulting and polling outfit headed up by James Carville and Stan Greenberg..."

I'll go back and keep reading because I literally stopped at that juncture.

Hypothetically let's say I posted a piece with... "the polling outfit headed by Karl Rove and John Doe."

Would lefties expect that poll's results to be a true representation?

If not, should you expect me to read this poll's results and accept them as legit? Why? Why not?

Further, if you were looking for more credible (unassailable) polling entities, why would you want to put Carville's name front and center? All it does is bring the aura of partisianship to the forefront, no?

#13 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine - that means we will do our part and show proof to the government as we do each year and you do your part - if either of us fails then let nannyfed step in for only those people.

" that means we will do our part and show proof to the government as we do each year and you do your part - if either of us fails then let nannyfed step in for only those people."

Been there, done that. Read some fucking history.

"that means we will do our part and show proof to the government as we do each year and you do your part - if either of us fails then let nannyfed step in for only those people."

Don't you think the cost of auditing everybody's charitable contributions would be cost prohibitive?

Not even mentioning having to audit the efficiency of each individual charity?

Maybe that's the world that gay marriage is destroying...

Maybe that's the world that gay marriage is destroying...

Nope, that's ACORN's fault.

To: Hagbard_Celine
Re: Friday night music threads

Dude, if you're going to host a thread, you can't let a corporate lobbyist jump in and politicize it. Even Rex knew enough to slap people around when they injected politics. All your fucking hippie peace and love shit doesn't cut it, wuss.

Doc, Doc, Doc. You should have titled it:

"CNN's James Carville who got the Clintons elected but failed with John Kerry and yet also helped Rahm Emanuel get Obama elected says: GOP Base Voters Live in Another World"

But the use of the word "study" is laughable. It almost makes it sound legit....almost.

Seems to me that having both private charity and gov't social programs shouldn't have to be mutually exclusive. (Yes, I grant that the welfare system is flawed.)
#11 | Posted by pragmatist

Prag, while this seems reasonable, the government will drive out charity groups, and do so in an insufficient manner, sometimes lowering the bar of those it was trying to help. (see below).

Most people won't help others so the govt is needed to do it for them. Eliminate churches and let the govt handle it.
#8 | Posted by jackass

I reiterate, the government will do a poor job of it, relative to charity organizations. One of the explanations is that people in charities are volunteers, while government employees "handling" it because its their job. I ask you who would you rather deal with??

While the book below may not appeal to your political views, it is interesting to understand the charity mentality. Its not just about a tax break as Nulli will argue, and I can attest.

Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism

Friends and family are what you should count on for the simple reason it will make you more civil towards your fellow man, you need to learn to cooperate, if you don't understand that reasoning, then civilization isn't for you.

#22 | Posted by Onironaut at 2009-10-17 02:54 PM

That's the way it was before the new deal and it failed.

Dude, if you're going to host a thread, you can't let a corporate lobbyist jump in and politicize it. Even Rex knew enough to slap people around when they injected politics. All your fucking hippie peace and love shit doesn't cut it, wuss.
#20 | Posted by nullifidian

*shrugs.

"I'm just on such thin ice with most of you Obama supporters "

LOL. Fuckin' troll :)

"my last post on the matter went unanswered."

Ok, ok. That was a pretty good post. You happy now? lol

"LOL. Fuckin' troll :)"

Totally unintentional.

I do it in the real world too.

I'm pretty popular at parties.

Not.

Ok, ok. That was a pretty good post. You happy now? lol

#26 | Posted by nullifidian

I wasn't talking about you. I figured that you'd agree with me.

"Totally unintentional."

Yeah, sure.

"I wasn't talking about you."

I know.

Yeah, sure.

#29 | Posted by nullifidian

Okay, well maybe I overstated my point, but not by much. Clearly you are not amond the subset of the class about which I was speaking.

"Okay, well maybe I overstated my point, but not by much. "

Calling me an "Obama supporter"? That was a low blow, man.

Mark my words, you will rue this day!!!

*shakes fist at Hagbard

Mark my words, you will rue this day!!!
#32 | Posted by nullifidian

Last year I had compiled a list of retorters who would/should understand why I would want to vote for Nader. You were on it. Nutcase was on it. Shawn was on it. KGB Keeper. I forget who else.

Here and there I don't get that same feeling anymore. Maybe still from Shawn and Nutcase.

"Here and there I don't get that same feeling anymore. Maybe still from Shawn and Nutcase."

We can rehash this again, if you like. Sotomayor vs. a nomination by a Republican subservient to his party's right wing with a crazy rightwing VP breathing down his neck. Case closed.

"We can rehash this again, if you like. Sotomayor vs. a nomination by a Republican subservient to his party's right wing with a crazy rightwing VP breathing down his neck. Case closed."

You should read the Peter Irons History of the SCOTUS.

You wouldn't be so sure that there is that big of a difference when you were through.

I'm not saying there is no difference, mind you.

"You wouldn't be so sure that there is that big of a difference when you were through."

I have no idea what that convoluted sentence means. But I'm quite sure I would rather have Sotomayor on the bench that a McCain appointee. I'm not asking for utopia like you.

McCain chose Sarah! for his first big appointment. End of story.

"I'm not asking for utopia like you."

Enough compromises and you can be 180 degrees from the direction you want to be facing.

That's enough for now.

"That's enough for now."

No problem. You're a young, wet behind the ears, idealistic young punk. I've been there. Done that. :)

"Enough compromises and you can be 180 degrees from the direction you want to be facing."

True. And you can also shoot yourself in the foot with ideological purity.

"Prag, while this seems reasonable, the government will drive out charity groups, and do so in an insufficient manner, sometimes lowering the bar of those it was trying to help. (see below)."

I saw below. I don't buy it--or maybe I didn't get your point.

To me, there are certainly enough people who need help, in enough different places, that there's room for state and private (or church--which comes up again and again in this argument) assistance. From what little you said or suggested, I don't see how one would drive out the other.

For many people on welfare, for instance, the gov't assistance isn't actually enough, so private or church groups can step in to fill the gap. Why is that a bad thing? And while I've seen welfare abuse, the story of the welfare queen is a myth, a canard. They exist, but it's hardly as widespread as critics want it to be. Nor is the person who uses welfare as the leg up, temporarily, as common as proponents would like. But the big middle is probably served well.

I'd like to see a system that ensures temporariness of being "on the dole." My guess is that that's quite expensive and involves greater bureaucracy. My further guess is that private or church charity also isn't enough by itself. And also that some (some) church groups set certain conditions that perhaps shouldn't be set. But that's a guess; I have read enough history to know it used to be true, but I don't know how true it remains.

Doc, Doc, Doc. You should have titled it:
"CNN's James Carville who got the Clintons elected but failed with John Kerry and yet also helped Rahm Emanuel get Obama elected says: GOP Base Voters Live in Another World"
#21 | Posted by KBM

Not sure,but just at a glance I have a feeling that would probably exceed the DR's 60-character limit.

Basically the reichwing of this country are children.

Unfortunately their religion keeps them from self evaluation, so that they will never get it right.

I believe PEOPLE SHOULD take care of people, but out of the goodness of their hearts -

I beleive that too, but there comes a time when someone will have a need that no one else will step up to help. What do you tell that person? Too fucking bad for you?

put people to the test. If they fail

Yeah and if they fail, then someone goes hungry, goes without medical care, possibly dies.

How many people should we let fall through the cracks before government can step in to help?

How haven't we been doing just that for decades?

Ever since the Reagan Revolution that destroyed a great deal of social services, emptied mental hospitals, created a whole new generation of homeless mentally ill in the name of tax cuts for the wealthy.

Most people won't help others so the govt is needed to do it for them. Eliminate churches and let the govt handle it.

#8 | Posted by jackass

i say tax fucking churches..

it is big business.

#48 - I'm ALL for taxing churches that prove to be less than charitable.

It's true the GOP is right on, it will be much worse than socialism, although socialism is bad enough, obama is hell bent to devalue the nations dollar, bankrupt America, establish muslim/islamist religion, your bible will then be the quran, (Islamists beheads all infidels that don't like their religion), do completely away with the Constitution, and along the way if things dont run smoothly, declare martial law to round up and imprison those who oppose. They already have in some states secret prison camps in place, guilotines on boxcars, It's on the way folks get ready to tighten your belts, all the idiots who voted for him will wish they had never even heard his name...

Hey Jimmy, I believe it was the democrats (liberals) that emptied the mental hospitals in the name of giving them "rights". It happened when the "rights" agenda was on fire and as usual it went too far. If you have any facts to the contrary, please enlighten me.

Sounds like Dr Feelsick is channeling ol' nanc.

#51. One word for you: Reagan.

Hey Jimmy, I believe it was the democrats (liberals) that emptied the mental hospitals in the name of giving them "rights". It happened when the "rights" agenda was on fire and as usual it went too far. If you have any facts to the contrary, please enlighten me.

#51 | Posted by matsop at 2009-10-17 09:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

In Michigan it was Engler, a republican gov, that emptied the mental health facilities and closed them down.

#52 | Posted by Dave - watch your mouth - who are you calling "ol"? I would be considered quite young...for a tree!

The piece starts out:

"A new focus-group of Republican base voters by the Democracy Corps (D), the consulting and polling outfit headed up by James Carville and Stan Greenberg, ..."

Another Drudge Retort opinion piece for the circular file.

Libs can resume masturbating on its "merits" now.

Jeeeeeez it's always a pissin' match here? Engage in facts of the subject matter. Leave your marbles at home people! Oh, I forgot to mention.... Obama won the piece prize for what? Ah, we now know the collective consciousness of the universe got together and decided we no longer need GOD we now have "OBAMA".
Go figure?

Libs hatred for Bush is ten times greater than conservs hatred for Obama.

Some conservs may live in another world, but many libs live in utopian fantasy.

Ideology my ass

These idiots never said boo while Shrub burned through $5.5 TRILLION blowing smoke up everyone's ass. Then for the grand finale Paulson took charge and started looting everyone's 401K, while gasoline spiked. All the while his former employer Goldman-Sachs and Morgan-Stanley were on a naked short selling binge. Shrub socialized Wall Street, which runs Washington.

Its racism, not ideology. But Obama is as constrained by Wall Street's rules as Shrub. He was chosen so they could continue the looting and pillaging as the predator State fails.

Libs hatred for Bush is ten times greater than conservs hatred for Obama

You're full of shit, death threats for Obama are 400% higher than they were for Bush.

Obama won the piece prize for what?

Largely for reminding the world that US voters are not all the ignorant lot of trigger-happy inbred stupid mother-fucker sons of bitches like you who say the stupid things that you say and vote accordingly for whomever panders to your 'stupid' loudly enough.

But that's just a guess.

From the Leftist to a Leftist: igNOBEL Prize to Obama.

Ideology my ass

These idiots never said boo while Shrub burned through $5.5 TRILLION blowing smoke up everyone's ass. Then for the grand finale Paulson took charge and started looting everyone's 401K, while gasoline spiked. All the while his former employer Goldman-Sachs and Morgan-Stanley were on a naked short selling binge. Shrub socialized Wall Street, which runs Washington.

Its racism, not ideology. But Obama is as constrained by Wall Street's rules as Shrub. He was chosen so they could continue the looting and pillaging as the predator State fails.

#59 | Posted by nutcase

No doubt..The war against whatever is sucking the life out of the economy and if you brought all the reservist home, unemployment would rise significantly..

The right always blows through the entire national wad and blames the next pres rep or dem..Bush I got the axe due to Reagan running up the card against Russia(waste of time) and now obama is getting blamed for the deficit from bush, the war which is driving the deficit, the prescription drug legislation, lower the tax rates, etc etc..

grow a sack guys and at least admit that he didn't fart rose petals on america..

These idiots never said boo while Shrub burned through $5.5 TRILLION blowing smoke up everyone's ass.

Is that why 'they' elected Obama. OK 'they' stood by and did nothing, but some of 'them' saw the light. Enough to elect a black man to an office that was always white. Now 'they' are crying the blues too. Both races don't understand or acknowledge the score. Why? Because it is too complicated for average intelligence. Remember at least half the nation is below average intelligence and they vote too.

I was at a food & football shindig at a friends house. He's a FoxNews junkie who regularly sends me his Unibomber style manifestos railing about the same things the study found about the GOP base - and especially how Obama's a Muslim terrorist Manchurian Candidate destined to turn the U.S. into some commie state or something ridiculous like that.

Promptly at 8, while we were all in the living room eating, I grabbed a throw rug by the front door and moved it to the middle of the living room, turned it East, and proceeded to pretend to pray to Mecca, saying, "that's what all us Democrats do these days, riiiiiight?". We all had a good laugh. Then I did it at midnight too. lol

Basically the reichwing of this country are children.

Unfortunately their religion keeps them from self evaluation, so that they will never get it right.

#44 | Posted by Shawn at 2009-10-17 07:59 PM | Reply | Flag: HAS NEVER MET A RIGHTIE, IS AFRAID

flag: yawn

#67 Yes there probably is a certain ennui in sitting around at the keyboard instead of going outside and interacting with people. Have a cup of Starbucks or something.

Meanwhile I will take a walk and say hi to some "reichwings" and also some folks from the Left. Maybe I will run into an Independent. You should try it sometime, Shawnie. Don't be afraid.

ROGERS -

In light of this suggestion...

Doc, Doc, Doc. You should have titled it:

#21 | Posted by KBM

...could you change the headline to read:

"CNN's James Carville who got the Clintons elected but failed with John Kerry and yet also helpedRahm Emanuel get Obama elected says: GOP Base Voters Live in Another World after the company with which he's associated, "Democracy Corps," conducted a focus-group survey involving parallel set of groups in suburban Cleveland comprised of older, white, non-college independents and weak partisans, who represent some of the most conservative swing voters in the electorate, and found -- lo and behold! -- they demonstrated a wholly different worldview from Republican base voters by dismissing the fear of "socialism" and evaluating Obama in very different terms; that, most importantly,regardless of their personal feelings toward Obama or how they voted in 2008, they very much want to see him succeed because they believe the country desperately needs the change he promised in his campaign; and though they kept discussion points constant between the two sets of groups, on virtually every point of discussion around President Obama and the major issues facingour country, these two audiences simply saw the world in fundamentally different ways underscoring the extreme disconnect of the conservative Republican base voters; but I'm not a-gonna read the report or absorb the footnotes because they don't comport with my world view."
~'KayBM

"Remember at least half the nation is below average intelligence and they vote too."

That's the funniest damned thing I've read in a long time. "At least half the nation is below average intelligence."

At least half the nation is below aver--

Oh, never mind. : )

""Remember at least half the nation is below average intelligence and they vote too."

That's the funniest damned thing I've read in a long time. "At least half the nation is below average intelligence."

At least half the nation is below aver--

Oh, never mind. : )

#70 | Posted by pragmatist"

Obviously pragmatist has below average intelligence since he automatically assumes IQ has an even distribution across the population

Huh, Furio?

It's a funny line--half has below average. Funny. Depends, yes, on mean, median, etc. But it's still funny.

Language, Mr. Furio, is a funny thing.

Never mind, my friends, what the word "intelligent" might mean. But I'm just having fun. I actually know that only those who agree with me are intelligent.

#73 | Posted by pragmatist - does sometimes agree count? HA! Or, does that make one just somewhat intelligent?

Oh, shit, Nanc, we sometimes agree? I need to rethink. : )

I find the more they talk the stupider they look as long as those thoughts are held to the lights. I hope they keeps talking. Eventually it will b in state where they will realize what they believe in are not working for them

Nancy thinks of herself in the middle. I think of myself in the middle. One of us is geographically challenged. herm

Herm - you may "think" of yourself in the middle, but I know where I stand. Perhaps you'd like to "rethink" your position?

Ye gods, I hope both of you are joking. Neither of you is in the middle. Oh, did you mean politically or intellectually? : )

"Nancy thinks of herself in the middle. I think of myself in the middle."

There are lots of people who see things as Herm and Nanc do and _do_ believe they are in the middle. That's the bottom line on so many problems this country faces. People believe all sorts of shit and have all sorts of views yet truly do believe the rest of the country agrees with them. AKA, "reality, was nice having known you but your time has passed".

And outsiders look at us and roll on the floor laughing.

Some of you may think this brash, but I love to approach complete strangers when out and about and ask a handful of random questions while getting acquainted - first, I take the demeanor temperature and then begin asking away - to be completely honest, about eight out of ten people feel as I do on a number of issues - some consider themselves liberals and/or democrats. GO FIGURE!

Once in awhile I'll approach the baddest tatted up creature in the parking lot about to get on a fat boy - of course they wonder what on earth this refined, very good looking and articulate woman is doing approaching them as most would stereotype them, but I give them a fair shake. And no, there are no verbal attacks - a few times I thought for sure one would belt me, however.

...yes, that was me...

p.s. what do y'all consider "middle"? Anyway?

From what I can tell, Nanc, you're on the right and Herm is on the left.
(Add the word "mostly" before "on" in both clauses.)

But the reality is, we are all of us mixed politically. My father is a Republican (registered) but voted Obama over McCain (Palin). He is a fiscal conservative and social liberal. Ultimately, he is more like what some people would call libertarian (but not Libertarian).

I see the country as center left right now, but that's huge masses, like Asimov's psychohistory stuff. When it starts to break down, it starts to break down--heh--in that we see many polarized groups.

That last part is unfortunate, but if we could still talk civilly, we'd get somewhere. Compromise--or consensus--can arise out of conflict, and I believe that it's only through argument (generally civilized) that we find common ground and things that are good for everyone.

Of course, that's extremely idealistic of me, and I know it's not gonna happen any time soon, if ever. Hence the very dangerous, frustrating, and often damaging game we play.

Nancy thinks of herself in the middle. I think of myself in the middle. One of us is geographically challenged. herm

#77 | Posted by herm at 2009-10-18 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Herm you're both right. Nanc is in the middle of the medium-far right and you sir are in the middle of the medium-far left.

Though sometimes you both veer wildly toward the extreme end of your respective leanings.

I used to think I was in the middle, hence my handle. But after several year in the DR and after lessons from my kids, I admit I'm not in the middle. But I really do try to be fair.

"Herm you're both right. Nanc is in the middle of the medium-far right and you sir are in the middle of the medium-far left. " - MrFair

Herm is nowhere close to the far left. Maybe Shawn is, but I have read very few posts on this site which would fall into the category of the "far left".

Interestingly enough, with people like Johnson, Mao, DrFeelgood and the holocaust "denier" (forget his name) among others, there are quite a few "far right" people on this site. Not counting the far-right loons like Takitez et al.

Uhm... study done by Democracy Corps... well, hey, if you did a study by the other side, you would get the same thing, but it would say "Democrats live in another world".... go figure. But, you gotta write something.

Some of you may think this brash, but I love to approach complete strangers when out and about and ask a handful of random questions while getting acquainted - first, I take the demeanor temperature and then begin asking away - to be completely honest, about eight out of ten people feel as I do on a number of issues - some consider themselves liberals and/or democrats. GO FIGURE!
Once in awhile I'll approach the baddest tatted up creature in the parking lot about to get on a fat boy - of course they wonder what on earth this refined, very good looking and articulate woman is doing approaching them as most would stereotype them, but I give them a fair shake. And no, there are no verbal attacks - a few times I thought for sure one would belt me, however.
...yes, that was me...
#81 | Posted by nanc at 2009-10-18 12:11 PM

I love your confidence. Sometimes, I do the same, however as a strange dude (re-growing my beard) there are limits to whom I can address. Typically, I find myself talking with administrators, educators and foreigners on the light rail, but I actually aim for the extreme rightwingers, pilots and military. They typically find that a non-confrontational conversation is refreshing, but they do tend to be very entrenched. It's always fun to show someone that an extremely liberal gay guy isn't something to fear and we almost always end up shaking hands and wishing each other well. I sincerely mean it too.

Whenever the Mormons send their children out door to door I always invite them inside for herbal tea and pie. Those young people see my home covered in strange music equipment, plants, art, books and computers and are so outside of their recognizable world that it's easy to dive right into the theology which they are more comfortable with.

From my experience the rightwingers are not aware of the real world, but are taught to ignore a great deal of it. When confronted they have no ability to moralize other than the dogma from their childhood. It's like they are emotionally stunted and never got an opportunity to explore why. So, I do have a great deal of sympathy for them, especially with so much potential for good they could be doing.

MRFAIR said: Basically the reichwing of this country are children.

Aren't you stopping a bit short? Basically the left thinks that the entire citizenry are children. Their elitist philosophy is that people are too stupid to have charge of their own lives and that government is there to make sure that people live out their lives "correctly."

"Aren't you stopping a bit short? Basically the left thinks that the entire citizenry are children."

Aren't you stopping a bit short? Both sides are paternalistic: the left when it wants everyone to embrace correctness, and the right when it want everyone to embrace particular moralities.

B=brainwashed
A=aryan
S=syncophant
E=evangelicals

#90 | Posted by woke at 2009-10-18 06:22 PM | Reply | Flag: FAILED ACRONYM CLASS AND PAINTED WITH BROAD BRUSH IN KINDERGARTEN

Ooh! look at me! Look at me! We all can play!

D=Delusional

E=Education camps

M=Maoist

O=Obamabot

C=Communist

R=Redistribution

A=Ass spreader

T=Tyrant

"MRFAIR said: Basically the reichwing of this country are children."

"Aren't you stopping a bit short? Basically the left thinks that the entire citizenry are children. Their elitist philosophy is that people are too stupid to have charge of their own lives and that government is there to make sure that people live out their lives "correctly."
#88 | Posted by HopeyChangey at 2009-10-18 05:12 PM"

"Aren't you stopping a bit short? Basically the left thinks that the entire citizenry are children."

Aren't you stopping a bit short? Both sides are paternalistic: the left when it wants everyone to embrace correctness, and the right when it want everyone to embrace particular moralities.
#89 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-18 05:18 PM

Holy shit. Something for your minds: fuck you. I interact with a deep interest in my society and a really honest criticism is that our "evolution", whether "paternally" observed is requiring an out-parsing of some of these super-brains to the realities of this world, and it beings with those who do know them best. It's your mother-fucking responsibilities. To each other, not just to self-serving skin. That is everlasting. Bitches.

MRFAIR said: Basically the reichwing of this country are children.

Aren't you stopping a bit short? Basically the left thinks that the entire citizenry are children. Their elitist philosophy is that people are too stupid to have charge of their own lives and that government is there to make sure that people live out their lives "correctly."

#88 | Posted by HopeyChangey at 2009-10-18 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hopey - I didn't say that - I was quoting that funny little Leftie named Shawn.

" I believe PEOPLE SHOULD take care of people, but out of the goodness of their hearts - NOT because the government compels them to do so."

...And the day people are found to have gained goodness in their hearts, we'll put that little plan into action.

Until then, I'm all for compelling them.

#95 Mary it's possible you can be forgiven for thinking this way. After all, it is the conservative, right-leaning sector that contibutes more to charity than the left does. Not just big corporate- and foundation-type philanthropic things (the Left has those too) but the mom-and-pop types you love to ridicule. You know the ones? They live out there in all that fly-over country?

Maybe you just need a little more goodness in your own heart.

After all, it is the conservative, right-leaning sector that contibutes more to charity than the left does.

Gotta link for that?

MrFair,
Thanks for the links.
I'm not completely convinced because of geographical issues,people in the midwest may give more in general for instance,and choosing San Francisco is a bad reference point because it is so unique and happens to be one of the most expensive places in the world to live.
Anyway I still beleive conservatives are no more generous(or religious)than the left

Ooh! look at me! Look at me! We all can play!
#92 | Posted by HopeyChangey | Flag: You're Out of Your League

From "Some Worrisome Speculation About the Future of the GOP" -

...Carville and Greenberg are right [about the GOP in the Democracy Corps/Greenberg Quinlan Rosner focus group report]: racism is, in fact, quite beside the point.

They're right for the wrong reasons. I disagree with their conclusion that race doesn't have anything to do with the overly-emotive and irrational nature of the hardcore opposition. It is absolutely clear from the quoted comments of many of the people interviewed (Georgians all, of course) that a thoroughly sublimated racial prejudice, combined with a repressed guilt about the racism, is contributing to the mounting, unbearable anxiety that's been driving these people around the bend for years now. If nothing else, it is clear from their inability to concede that any of their fellows are motivated by racism and their conspiratorial touchiness about the allegation....

For a long time now, we've been saying that about a quarter of the people in this country are simply mad. In the later Bush years, we called them the "thirty-percenters" but the reality check presented by hard times has distilled them down to their seemingly irreducible solid core, representing about 25-26% of the electorate and perhaps a similar percentage of the population as a whole. At first, our observations were couched in terms of exasperation at what we thought was mere mule-headedness and half in jest. The echos of that jesting phase still dominate our terminology: "batshit crazy," "the dittoheads," "loons." But the jest drained away, drop by drop, as we've watched them become ever more agitated and disassociated from reality....Indeed, someone really needs to do a head count among the Republicans in Congress and try to get some idea of what percentage of them are faking it and what percentage are, in fact, stark raving mad....

The scary part is that the ideology they are developing has strong overtones of religious, or quasi-religious, hysteria. They feel persecuted and alienated. They nurture a sense of grievance over being "mocked" (and that's reality based, at least--they are mocked.) They think of themselves as a rapidly coalescing "underground" movement confronting an existential threat to America and democracy and all that they think is good and true in America.

And therein lies the bitter irony enveloping the intractable dilemma these people present the nation: the only real threat to America and democracy is them. The threat is two pronged.
(continued...)

The first prong is the very real danger they represent to the continued existence of the Republican Party and, hence, to the continuation of two-party democracy....To put it plainly, these people have undermined the ability of the Republican Party to function as a political party in a two-party system. Many of us, myself included, have noted that the Republicans are no longer good faith participants in the project of governance. Instead, we've observed that they have been reduced to unconcealed nihilism, a marginalized special interest group whose interest is obstruction for its own sake. And yet, despite the GOP's wholehearted endorsement of the agenda of what they still think of as their base, that base is directing nothing but apoplectic fury at the GOP. They are furious with, and feel utterly alienated from, the GOP's elites because they (rightly) perceive that at least some of the GOP's politicians are only pretending to be as crazy like they are.

For all the talk of 2010 being another 1994, the dissociation of the hard right from reality, and the consequent alienation and fury directed to the GOP elite, has created a completely untenable, and possibly terminal, situation for the GOP going into the next midterms. If you study the numbers closely and factor in the Republican Party's complete lack of anything that can plausibly be portrayed as a positive agenda, a good case can be made that their optimism about their prospects next year is apiece with the delusional thinking that has gripped the party's base. It is a continuation of the kind of delusion that made them think that the selection of Sarah Palin was a huge game changer.
(continued...)

"Believing your own bullshit" is one of the classic fatal mistakes of politics. Yet, in every public pronouncement these days, Republican politicians invariably say things like "Americans have overwhelmingly turned against" this or that part of Obama's agenda when, in fact, the polling shows the exact opposite. Logically, the purpose of this rhetorical device is to create an MSM meme and convince the public they've caught a wave, yet, listening to them, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they believe it themselves....They see only their own numbers, the "real Americans" as they so often call them....

Possibly I judge them too harshly. It could be that the GOP's elites are simply assuming that the anger of what they still think of as their base will prevail over a weakly motivated and dispirited left and assume that the indies will forget that the GOP caused the recession that's killing them. That may not be a bad bet for 2010. But that's beside the real point which is that, win or lose, the Republican base's disassociation from reality and alienation from the party elites creates a strong likelihood that 2010 will, in the long run, be catastrophic for the GOP...
(continued)

The scary [threat these people pose to democracy] derives from the fact that their "movement"--and increasingly, that's how they think of themselves--embraces tens of millions of people whose thinking is militaristic, hyper-nationalistic and, in many cases, dominated by a strain of apocalyptic authoritarian theocratic fundamentalism. They worship at the alter of the NRA and the fantasy of sturdy, self-reliant rugged individualists using their private arsenals to resist an oppressive government (ignoring, of course, the fact that their definition of "oppressive," is a government that's not oppressing the people that the hard right wants oppressed). They already feel persecuted and alienated. Whether they are ultimately the purgers or the purged, those feelings can only intensify.

Ten, twenty or thirty million people feeling extreme alienation from the political system, feelings of oppression and ridicule, militancy, apocalyptic fundamentalist theocratic religious beliefs. Economic, social and cultural location and consequent extreme anxiety. A certain level of actual military experience sprinkled among that population. And guns. Lots and lots of guns.

That's the recipe for terrorism. Don't think it can't happen here.

Do the math. Assume the group I'm talking about now gets boiled down to a hard core of ten million really crazy people as the rhetoric becomes ever more inflammatory. Assume one tenth of one percent of that ten million decides it is compelled to take up arms against an oppressive government that is hellbent on destroying liberty. That's ten thousand people. Assume five percent of the ten million are impressed enough with them to lend them active support in the form of money, shelter and supplies. That's a support network of half a million. And remember all the gnashing of teeth and disgust at the failure of "moderate" Muslims to condemn Osama Bin Laden? How hard is it to imagine a similar kind of acquiesence by silence setting in here?

Older white males who run the GOP are having a hard time dealing with the fact they are losing their grip on America.

Good job spamming this thread. After you created a user blog with the same info. Maybe you'll get dumped for spamming?

If you're referring to me, Jackass, posting excerpts from an article/blog (that I didn't author) that are directly related to the topic of the thread -- Do you suffer from a reading comprehension disorder? Or is it an ADHD problem? -- is not "spamming." If you're going to use a term, learn what it means before making yourself look like a, well Jackass, a jackass. In fact, I thought the topic so germaine to current public goings on that I subsequently decided to post those excerpts as a thread unto themselves. You can go there if you want to extend your state of apparent bewilderment.

You could have posted a brief intro and a to the thread you posted instead of posting everything twice. Defend it all you like but it is obvious what you did.

"After you created a user blog with the same info"

You're lying through your crooked little rodent teeth, Jackass.

"You could have posted a brief intro and a to the thread you posted instead of posting everything twice"

Had I intended, when posting here, to create a thread? Yes. But I didn't have that intention. Sometimes things aren't quite as premeditated as you'd like to think. Anyway, check the timeline. You do know what time stamps are, don't you?

Whuzzamatta, Jackass? Another poster refuse your offer to meet out in the desert down near the Mexcian border for beer beside your bonfire?

I see what you did. You post it here first and then create your own thread to avoid getting called out for double posting an article. Very slick of you but I still know what you were thinking.

I see what you did. You post it here first and then create your own thread to avoid getting called out for double posting an article. Very slick of you but I still know what you were thinking.
#112 | Posted by jackass

No, Jackass, what you know is what you'd have done. One more time: I posted excerpts from a piece that was spot-on with respect to the topic of this thread -- which is not, contrary to your posts, focusing on your paranoid delusions. Within minutes of having done so I thought the views expressed worthy of a thread. So I posted them as a thread.

Really, I don't care whether you believe me or not. But don't assume that just because you're a sneaky little shit everyone else is, too.

P.S. Jackass - projection (which is what you've done) says much more about you than it does the person onto whom you're projecting your own beaviors.

beaviors = behaviors

#99 Fair enough but I did Google it and also you didn't comment about the Boston Globe review of the book on this subject. I think I will read that book.

For some reason these Stossel and A.C. Brooks things seem to be the only things all over the top Google results.

In any case it's obvious more research is needed - maybe there is a scholarly journal on this. Where is the vaunted Left in the study and knowledge of this subject?

sadly I've seen this coming for years now...

with the advent of 1st, of extremely political talk radio, and 2nd, politically enciting talkshows on fake news stations (propaganda stations), the slide
towards open anarchy and revolution has been
non-stop and is perhaps inevitable...and the closer they (white males) come to being a statistical minority, the more vocal and violent they are likely to become.

you can cloak it any way you want, but it stems from just one thing. The white male's insistence,
that (no matter how much he fucks up the system)
that he stays in charge...(racism, stereotyping,
calls to radical revolution) are all hallmark signs
of a societal subset unwilling to secede authority.

being a white male myself, I wonder if there is perhaps some inherent genetic flaw in the male
subset of the race, that induces one to anger and
violence if he (the white male) does not get his way...

never having truly suffered from the mental illness,
(this insufferable insistance to be in control no matter the cost) I exist I guess, as an anomaly to the socially disturbed norm...

sad that there are not more white males who feel the same...

#116:
"...secede authority." WTF does that mean? I think you want the word "cede" my friend. And to whom would you, as a white male, like to cede it ?

You want to talk about your flaws? How about a bad case of navel-gazing and guilt? Maybe you should go outside and meet some real white males and have a real conversation. You might feel better about yourself.

After all, it is the conservative, right-leaning sector that contibutes more to charity than the left does. Not just big corporate- and foundation-type philanthropic things (the Left has those too) but the mom-and-pop types you love to ridicule. You know the ones? They live out there in all that fly-over country?
Maybe you just need a little more goodness in your own heart.

#96 | POSTED BY MRFAIR AT 2009-10-19 02:16 AM

Here is some info you need badly about righteousness, sir. It's not how much you give, but how much you give of what you have.

Mar 12:42
And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

Mar 12:43
And he called [unto him] his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:

Mar 12:44
For all [they] did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, [even] all her living.

Furthermore, to use that argument as a way of deflecting the need for healthcare for everyone, because charity helps some, ignores the fact that charity does not and can not help the 45 million without it. If so, we wouldn't be having this discussion, so it's a moot point.

#118 There's no deflection - I was simply responding to another poster.

How about if you go look at the links I sent? One of them says something like poorer, working-class right-leaning people tend to give a lot more, relative to what they have vs the left.

Also you seem to be engaging in assumptions. I didn't specifically have health care in mind when I wrote the above. I do think no one should go without health care but I'm not convinced that giving the Federal government more money is the way to do it. For starters, the basic health care system/process has serious flaws, regardless of how it's funded. Pouring more money and bureaucracy on is not going to magically fix it.

BTW - thanks for the Bible quotes. I really do appreciate that.

To quote Harry Chapin in an interview:

"If only the world was as truly wonderful as I am, there would be no problems."

Harry, those are the words that I live by.

mr fair

sorry for my assumptions.

i have repeatedly heard those opposed to providing healthcare via our govt use that same argument that charity/churches should or do provide it and as i said that is a moot point since charity does not and can not provide....

like bible verses? me too, but specifically the teachings attributed to jesus...

Luk 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

Luk 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none [is] good, save one, [that is], God.

Luk 18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

Luk 18:21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.

Luk 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Luk 18:23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

Luk 18:24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

Luk 18:25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

and these

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Mat 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Born again Woke?

Not government's issue to deal with so please WAKE up.

Funny how the separation goes away when the Left wants its way with big government.

if Woke is born again, I am very happy for him!

Chapel

Our govt is OF< BY and FOR the people and is what we decide it will do for us.....within the constrains of our constitution.

time you woke up imho

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

form a more perfect UNION=collectively bargain

promote the general welfare=for healthcare

In my opinion, necessities such as education, national security and healthcare, among others (police, fire, hiways, infrastructure) cannot be left to private FOR PROFIT enterprises without seriously jeopardizing the outcomes....

see reality

Woke - Yes I am partial to the words of Jesus myself. The first set was His interaction with the rich young man and the second was a parable.

In any case, I don't think Jesus was speaking to any federal governments with these choice bits of advice. His message was aimed at each of us to do right. And if we ALL followed His advice, guess what? We'd have a spotless, squeaky-clean government to do these things for us because all would be following the teachings of Jesus.

Can you imagine that? Forgive me for doubting, but it's a little tough for me to imagine.

I have read the bible.

I prefer the teachings attributed to Jesus Christ, red letter edition. But I also read the other books in the new testament and some old testament. I prefer to share the teachings attributed to Christ, since that is whom Christianity is named after.

Make of that what you will.

In my opinion, necessities such as education, national security and healthcare, among others (police, fire, hiways, infrastructure) cannot be left to private FOR PROFIT enterprises without seriously jeopardizing the outcomes....

Education - trillions in profit earned supplying that industry.

National security - trillions in profit earned supplying that industry.

Police/Fire/Hwys - Trillions in profit earned supplying those industries.

Healthcare - see above

Oh, and I only see the replacement of one segment(supplier) of healthcare that is being attacked. There are plenty other suppliers in that industry that are making obscene profits. again, insurance needs to be addressed..no argument there.

"Education - trillions in profit earned supplying that industry."

Anyone going to college will agree with you there when they buy their books. What a racket.

mr. fair

thanks for the civil dialogue

i believe people can disagree without becoming disagreeable

some here on DR do not and i can give tit for tat if that is required

our govt can do for the people what the people want

as far as taxing and spending it on whatever, let's see what jesus had to say about that....

Mat 22:15

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in [his] talk.

Mat 22:16

And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any [man]: for thou regardest not the person of men.

Mat 22:17

Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

Mat 22:18

But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, [ye] hypocrites?

Mat 22:19

Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

Mat 22:20

And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription?

Mat 22:21

They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Mat 22:22

When they had heard [these words], they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

so Jesus said money was from the govt, give it back to the govt and don't complain....

so much for those tax naysayers, eh?

Using our taxes to provide roads/bridges, police/fire, fdic, social security, medicare/medicaid/va, and other needs we all agree on AND using taxes to provide healthcare to those who attacked us on 911 at gitmo and to build hospitals and schools after destroying them in other countries, it seems a bit disengenuous to say we cannot provide it to our own people....

doesn't it?

and running up 10 trillion debt in giving windfall tax breaks to the richest 1% among us and invading/occupying and destroying/rebuilding foreign countries, but NOW saying that money cannot be used to help other Americans because now the debt is too big, from those who supported that debt philosphy for these other unnecessary things also seems disengenuous....

doesn't it?

Yep Eberly

There is much money to be made. Our govt is set up to tax it's citizens and have their representatives decide how and where to spend the money.

Those who haven't complained before now, after watching how our tax money got put into the pockets of war/oil/healthcare/pharma global corps by the last regime to the tune of 10 trillion debt, sure as hell should now just stfu about providing healthcare to working and unemployed Americans imho.

Anyone going to college will agree with you there when they buy their books. What a racket.

good example.

How about the cost of the buildings? I am mostly referring to public schools. My brother used to build/renovate/add to schools. He marked up his bids a lot when he knew who else was bidding.

Trillions earned when figured aggregately.

#132 Don't be ridiculous. Taxpayers don't want tax money squandered.

And your "render unto Caesar" argument doesn't work either. It was a conversation about worldly vs heavenly riches, not a call for government to solve all our problems.

Did someone say something about education profiteers?

How about those who pass unfunded mandates based on flawed studies?

NCLB was based on a study of Houston City Schools and that data did not include DROP OUTS and there were many after implementation of a teach to the test program that left MANY behind..

But it turned out all good for some.....

The architect of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), President Bush's first senior education advisor, Sandy Kress, has turned the program, which has consistently proven disastrous in the realm of education, into a huge success in the realm of corporate profiteering.

The wedding of big business and education benefits not only the interests of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of over 300 CEOs, but countless Bush family loyalists. Sandy Kress, chief architect of NCLB; Harold McGraw III, textbook publisher; Bill Bennett, former Reagan education secretary; and Neil Bush, the president's youngest brother, have all cashed in on the Roundtable's successful national implementation of "outcome-based education." NCLB's mandated system of state standards, state tests, and school sanctions has together transformed our public school system into a for-profit frenzy.

NCLB requires states to produce "interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic reports," all of which are provided at a price by members of the industry. Among these are the top four or five players in the textbook market, including the Big ThreeMcGraw-Hill, Houghton-Mifflin, and Harcourt Generalwho have, since the passage of NCLB, come to dominate the testing market. Identified by Wall Street analysts in the wake of the 2000 election as "Bush stocks," all three represent owners like Harold McGraw III, who has longstanding ties to the Bush administration and the lobbying efforts of Sandy Kress.

Other Kress clients, including Ignite! Learning, a company headed by Neil Bush, and K12 Inc., a for-profit enterprise owned by Bill Bennett, tailored themselves to vie for NCLB dollars.

in several parts:

There is much money to be made. Our govt is set up to tax it's citizens and have their representatives decide how and where to spend the money.

I want to be clear, all of those things I have mentioned are all slices of the pie where private industry is making obscene profits.

For instance, Highway contractors.....UNBELIEVALBE profits (mostly privately held companies I have seen in this industry). Nobody screams about it because nobody is being denied use of a highway.

But it doesn't change the corrupt practices in that industry and the profits earned. (in some cases, just to make a shitty highway that needs to be repaired/replaced 5-8 years sooner).

As i said mr fair, people can disagree without becoming disagreeable if they so choose....

seems pretty clear to me what Jesus taught about helping others and if it can be done via a govt of, by and for the people, then so be it....

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Mat 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

"render unto Caesar"

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and unto God that which is Gods', was an extremely radical statement for it's time, a time when everything, including the person, belonged to Caesar.

Though the line ahas been used to make people pay taxes, it had nothing to do with that or, "heavenly riches".

It had to do with making a statement that there were some things that belonged to God, not Caesar. including the person.

A statement that helped get him killed.

As long as we finance campaigns with private money there will be an invitation for corruption. Take out the private money, enact publicly funded campaigns and then we might have a chance at rooting out much of the corruption. Accomplishing that should be every citizen's goal because everything else grows from that basic root of politics.

Except that, Danni, then Obama would not have been elected. I say that not as a diss on the president or his campaign, but as reality. He spent A LOT more money than anyone else. (One can argue that he had to, if one buys into the racism argument.)

Philosophically, I am in agreement.

Agreed Danni

Call your reps today and ask them to support H.R.1826.

I don't agree that his having more money got him elected. His opponent(s) got him elected. I will never forget the way McCain kept sinking his own chances every time he opened his mouth and then he selected Sarah Palin....there was no chance for him after that no matter how much money he had.
I honstly believe most Americans looked at the two different sets of running mates and even conservatives had to vote for Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin....it would just have been unthinkable to have Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency.

I don't agree that his having more money got him elected.

LOL

Then money didn't help Bush either when running against 2 seemingly retards like Gore and Kerry who screwed up every chance they got.

right?????

Funny, Eberly. Danni, I agree that these were all facts. But look at the stats. The Obama campaign spent ungodly amounts of money, and I do not beleive (can't prove it--just don't believe) that had equal amounts been spent the results would necessarily have been the same.

The Obama campaign spent ungodly amounts of money,

It is either that or that the media just choose to shill for Obama for free. Either way, Americans need to be influenced through the mainstream media.

they just didn't come to the conclusion on their own that Palin was an idiot.

Eberly

Are you not ignoring a few facts?

1. Gore WON the popular vote by over half a million votes and would have been elected had the legal recount deemed necessary by the state supreme court of Fla would not have been stopped and bush appointed by his daddy's scotus cronys.

2. Despite being smear liar'd by a person who did not complete his own plush guard duty, Kerry spoke eloquently of the need for DIPLOMACY to be used to get us out of iraqnam. Considering that the so called surge DOUBLED us casualties from when it was implemented in Feb 07 until a diplomatic truce was reached on 8/29/09 with al sadr, and then us casualties dropped in half, I would say he was correct, not retarded. btw, kerry did not lose by much despite the media focus on the smear liars and it's complicity in reelecting bush.

i don't believe smearing the candidates as retarded, who opposed bush is really necessary or intelligent if you also opposed bush,

but to each their own.....

Eberly

Seems to me the media pushed palin 24/7, not obama....

and her own ignorance of issues is what sunk her.....not the media telling people what to think, but simply showing people what she thought....or in her case "couldn't think"

saying she was against fed earmarks while her state has the highest number per capita of them

believing foreign policy can be learned by looking out her back door

spending taxpayer money to travel to church....

and then all the other innane things she said and continues to say....

palin/mccain got more msm coverage than obama, and that was their downfall, thank God.

think about joe the plumber and other inane campaign "tricks" they thought the us public would fall for......

1. Gore WON the popular vote by over half a million votes and would have been elected had the legal recount deemed necessary by the state supreme court of Fla would not have been stopped and bush appointed by his daddy's scotus cronys.

wow. that's 2 conspiracy theories in less than an hour.

shall we go for the Hat Trick?

people did not find those 2 guys inspiring. Period

Kerry? eloquent?

not by a country mile.

kerry did not lose by much despite the media focus on the smear liars and it's complicity in reelecting bush.

the media hated Kerry? wow

in your world, no liberal can lose unless it was done unfairly. you are a laugh.

Seems to me the media pushed palin 24/7, not obama....

exactly. If Obama had selected the same dolt then the same thing would have happened to him. The media will attack whoever is vulnerable.

Gore spoke like a kid with down syndrome. It is fucking amazing he got the votes he did (except his own state of course...LOL)

Kerry was no different imo. He stayed away from his record in his 20 year senate career to focus on his 9 months of vietnam experience 40 nearly 40 years ago. That was a vulnerable move and it cost him (regardless of how you feel about the swiftboaters).

2. Despite being smear liar'd by a person who did not complete his own plush guard duty,

what did Bush say about Kerry's service?

answer...the same as what Obama had to say about Palin. nothing.

all either of them had to do was sit back and pop the popcorn.

people did not find those 2 guys inspiring. Period
Kerry? eloquent?
not by a country mile.
kerry did not lose by much despite the media focus on the smear liars and it's complicity in reelecting bush.
the media hated Kerry? wow
in your world, no liberal can lose unless it was done unfairly. you are a laugh.
#148 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-10-19 09:39 AM

Uh, if people didn't find Gore inspiring, why did he garner half a million more votes? Why did lilaWol have to be APPOINTED potus despite that? Why did his brother disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of dem voters?

and for Kerry, again, the msm focused totally on the unfounded smears of those who worked and directly supported republicans, most of them repug operatives.....while ignoring the FACT that no one can find any evidence that lilaWol completed his service.

if Kerry erred, it was in ignoring the smears and honoring bush's lack of service by not broaching that issue of bush's aWol himself...instead choosing the higher road....

Interesting and somewhat troubling, how you CONTINUE the smears, tho.....in your mind kerry wasn't as eloquent as bush?

LMFAO

Remember when Kerry said DIPLOMACY would be needed to begin to bring our troops home from iraqnam in the debates and was derided as a terrorist appeaser?

He was right, eh? The "surge" failed miserably from Feb 07 thru Aug 07, as US casualties DOUBLED during those months over the prior two years. In fact, some of those Feb07-Aug07 months were greater US casualty rates than any other month of the entire occupation. Only after diplomacy reached a TRUCE with al sadr on Aug 29, 07 did those US casualties dwidle in half each month since

Here, word up:

Uh, if people didn't find Gore inspiring, why did he garner half a million more votes?

because of his boss who was so popular.

Uh, was his boss, who had been impeached by the repugs, running for potus in 2000?

Get you facts straight Eberly, you aren't making sense.

Remember when Kerry said DIPLOMACY would be needed to begin to bring our troops home from iraqnam in the debates and was derided as a terrorist appeaser?

you and I agree on that but 300 million people make the decisions here Woke.

Uh, was his boss, who had been impeached by the repugs, running for potus in 2000?

yes, that one. the one who left office while being one of the most popular presidents in history.

that one.

Get you facts straight Eberly, you aren't making sense.

I said Gore was an idiot who rode in on the coattails of his very popular boss.

what doesn't make sense in that?

It doesn't make sense because,

#1....Clinton was impeached and

#2. elections during his entire tenure showed GAINS for repugs, not dems.....

Again, check your facts and poor analysis of facts.

I most certainly do live in another world... (or would like to....)

In the world I've been wanting to live in....

People would be JUDGED (in some cases harshly) by the content of their character....

Government would annually spend LESS than its annual revenue, and apply 100% of the extra money to paying down the debt....

Firefighters, parents of deployed troops, students, and pretty much anyone could display the American Flag, as it would be understood that things like Old Glory are exempt from rules that forbid other flags....

PROFILING would be policy, and law enforcement organizations that did NOT profile would be disciplined....

Cop would be REQUIRED to "Rodney King" anyone that becomes PHYSICALLY belligerent with them....

When someone homeless personally begs the next President of the United States for help, they would ask for a JOB rather than a handout....

Communities would be permitted to openly practice their faiths (or lack there of, like me) without fear of harrassment....

Criminals would made to pay for their own upkeep, even if it NO JOKE kills them....

Equal OPPORTUNITY would be promised and delivered by the law, NOT equal outcome, and folks would understand and respect that....

etc

It doesn't make sense because,

#1....Clinton was impeached and

#2. elections during his entire tenure showed GAINS for repugs, not dems.....

Again, check your facts and poor analysis of facts.

#1 hint for you idiot....impeachment process is not a popular vote process.

#2 A popular president's party can lose seats during his term. It doesn't change his "popularity".

Good grief, This country voted for 2-timing draft dodger over a true war hero.

Do you think that wasn't due to his enourmous popularity?

WTF are you arguing Woke? are you trying to say Clinton wasn't extremely popular? EVERYBODY agrees on that.

what you can't accept is that people in this country just won't find extreme liberalism inspiring. Despite how much you love it. You are an extremist and that is why you are so outraged at the last 8 years.

I am disappointed and desire a different direction. this is why I voted for Obama. I refused to pat the republicans on the backs for the last 8 years.

bottom line.......Gore SUCKED and didn't inspire enough people. He should have won by a country mile but couldn't even win his home state.

Try this instead usaf, if you served, you took an oath to defend it...

US CONSTITUTION

wow. that's 2 conspiracy theories in less than an hour.

#148 | Posted by eberly at 2009-10-19 09:39 AM
--------------------

Wokey is just getting warmed up.....

Just give him a little more time and he will be telling his classic tale of how he was beamed up to the mothership and the aliens 'Did things to him'.
.

Still being PAID to divert lib threads/blogs 2008?

Still using a variety of screenames to do so?

Gonna post my name and address on here like you did on newshounds?

#1 hint for you idiot....impeachment process is not a popular vote process.
#2 A popular president's party can lose seats during his term. It doesn't change his "popularity".

blah, blah, blah, etc...

then
Gore SUCKED and didn't inspire enough people. He should have won by a country mile but couldn't even win his home state.

#158 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-10-19 11:02 AM

1. You claimed gore rode clinton's success....clinton was impeached and was dissed by 11 bogus investigations using $70 million of taxpayer money despite voting for every repug bill legislated....

2. Clinton gave up the house and senate, the 1st repug congress in 40 years, that is not losing a few seats

3. Gore inspired over half a million more Americans, not even counting those whose votes were disenfranchised and/or not counting by stopping a legal recount.

I'd call that a country mile....but you wouldn't, because it apparently doesn't jibe with your opinion, so you just ignore it and attempt to deflect the point.

4. Finally, your penchant for pretending the press, all corporate conglomerate owned is liberal and/or just shills for the less damaged, and decides voter's minds for them is hilarious....

here's my proof of your assertions

>>>
they just didn't come to the conclusion on their own that Palin was an idiot.

#145 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-10-19 09:31 AM

They didn't?

Who else was saying those inanities coming out of her mouth? Joe the plumber, who wasn't a plumber, and didn't realize that unless he cleared more than $250k, he was shilling against his own best interests, eh?

So, if the press publishes the actual words of these people, they are biased against them?

Some of your ideas are pretty funny.

Eberly,

That you just want to continue to argue and insult me, instead of posting anything on the topic, shows that you have a little problem with ME personally.
I attempted to start over with you here,
Eberly
I sense a more civil tone in your posts to me and i appreciate it....i am attempting to respond to issues and info rather than personal attacks
that has worked for me in the past on other blogs to deflect the diversionary tactics of rw trolls....
accept my apology for previously having offended you and/or lumping you in with that group.....
#76 | POSTED BY WOKE AT 2009-10-19 09:10 AM
but you choose to continue your illogical assault on me personally, disregarding your own comments posted and those of others who know you well by your posts here...
Sorry, buddy, you are now on ignore....unless and until you can debate issues and topics sans insults and personal attacks....
Have a nice day...

in response to #117 | Posted by MrFair at 2009-10-19 07:41 AM

Mr. Fair now is it? mm yah. Sorry Mr. Fair, you were right to point out cede instead of secede-- sorry,
it was early for me, but I was still trying to wake myself
up from the long commute in to work.

As to the other part of your response, it barely
deserves responding to, but I will do so just
the same. I neither feel guilt being a white
male, nor do I gaze at my navel much, especially
considering my middle aged girth...(grin). I am
however, still saddened by the lack of mature response
from my gender/racial subgroup.

As to "real white males"--whatever the Hell that is
--I suppose you suffer from the same disease that
Sarah Palin suffered from in the last election when
in Virginia she said, ""these small towns that we get
to visit" represented "Real America", as opposed to
everyone else.

Sorry, but the 'everyone else' kicked "real America's" proverbial Arse in the last election.
I stand by what I said. The majority of white males
in this country are finally realizing that soon they
will become a minority like all the other minorities,
and they are beginning to freak out. Sorry, but I, "call's 'em likes I sees 'em".

Your angered response simply hastens to proove my point. Trying to belittle me, like I'm less of a white male
than you, or my opinion doesn't mean jack just because
it doesn't agree with yours. Who are you again? Some
random no-named blogger? Mmm yeah, that's what I thought. Bah...your full of opinionated silly talk.

(p.s. that scorching feeling you just got was me
burning down your last argument...)

NEXT!

I attempted to start over with you here,

bullshit. another lie. go sell crazy someplace else.

Sorry, buddy, you are now on ignore....

translation = I have revealed as the liar that I am and now I can't handle the proof for all to see.

idiot.

"Firefighters, parents of deployed troops, students, and pretty much anyone could display the American Flag, as it would be understood that things like Old Glory are exempt from rules that forbid other flags...."

Who can't display flags? Where?

4. Finally, your penchant for pretending the press, all corporate conglomerate owned is liberal and/or just shills for the less damaged, and decides voter's minds for them is hilarious....

another fucking lie.

I didn't say the press slanted left. In fact, I specifically said the press attacks that which is weak.

Good God. You post those bible quotes like you give a shit about them. You have done NOTHING except "bear false witness....." I think you know how the rest goes.

stop being a jerkoff and wake up

eh?

"have a little problem with ME personally."

#163 | Posted by woke at 2009-10-19 11:56 AM
-------------------

ROFL!!!

Hey Dumbass.....

EVERYBODY has a problem with you.......You're just too fucking stupid to get it!

EH?
.

3. Gore inspired over half a million more Americans, not even counting those whose votes were disenfranchised and/or not counting by stopping a legal recount.

complete baloney. millions of Americans voted for Gore specifically because of the success and popularity of Clinton. To deny that is pure willful blindness.

You don't think George Bush Sr. inherited some votes from Reagan in 1988?

can you ever be realistic?

eh?

"EVERYBODY has a problem with you.......You're just too fucking stupid to get it!"

Nope--I don't have a problem with Woke. I think he's wrong sometimes--but hell, I think I'm wrong sometimes.

woke is a retard.

2008

Gonna defile privacy laws and post my name and address on DR as you did on newshounds?

Still being paid to post on lib blogs, as you admitted on NH?

How much per US troop death have you made on your war/oil speculation over the last 8 years?

Still believe 2500 US troop deaths are CHUMP CHANGE?

Still using a variety of screenames so you can agree with yourself?

>>>>

Here are some of 2008/rangerbob's favorite posts from newshounds, where his bs is DELETED ON SIGHT....

Woke Dude,I make a good living being on this website.
Let's just leave it at that.
Posted on February 25, 2006 10:50 PM

are you 2008 also?just between us?
Posted by: woke dude at March 17, 2006 09:19 PM

Actually they are my roommates.
Posted by: Ranger Bob at March 17, 2006 09:35 PM

How do you like my new handle? I was getting bored with Ranger Bob.
Posted by: Chuck at April 29, 2006 12:37 PM

2500 would be chump change if Saddam obtained WMD's and used them on either Israel or the U.S.Another lesson from Ranger Bob.
Posted by: May 28, 2006 05:42 PM

Sorry my roommate was using my handle and I forgot to change my nick.Haha! LOL.
Posted by: Ranger Bob at May 28, 2006 05:44 PM

Gotta couple new handles here on DR, 2008? Let me guess.....

nuff said about you, eh?

Go back to NH and watch your posts get deleted as soon as they show up son....

Take your drama elsewhere, retard.

Personally, I believe most Americans agree on more than they disagree with regardless of political stripes.

There is a tiny minority who feel otherwise and choose to denigrate other's pov based solely on their ideology.

Most of us are a little conservative, a little bit liberal.

Confucious say: When two people argue, the bystander takes advantage..

The bystanders are the rich 1% (141,000 who average 7.4 million a year) AND giant global war/oil/pharma/health corporations whose bottom line is PROFIT, not what is good for Americans, necessarily.

That is all I had to say.....

I see you've got your list out
Say your piece and get out
Yes I get the gist of it
but it's all right
Sorry that you feel that way
The only thing there is to say
Every silver lining's got a
Touch of grey

Oh well a Touch Of Grey
Kind of suits me anyway.
That was all I had to say
It's all right.

may be but here are cold facts from george will

mike castle..delaware...nevER LOST a statewide election talking like he will run for biden seat.

colorado...romanoff....BHO asked not to run because he thinks he cant win..

illinois

KIRK....can win

DODD..in CONN...43% rating

RIED>..40% in nevada..

in house...84 dems in districts that went for bush in o8 nad mccain in o8 with 40 something from district going for mccain...

AS congressional approval rating sits at 22%..
thats the goddamn DEMOCRAT congress I might add...

so DEMS>..your end is near.

we just hope there is a country left....

Dude, Congressional rating was falling throughout Bush's term, too. It's not about Dem or Rep--they all suck, well most.

I may get in dutch agreeing with woke, but "We're all a little bit conservative; we're all a little bit liberal" strikes me as Truth.

How many aggregate seats, senate or house has repugs won since lilaWol was appointed potus by his daddy's scotus cronys?

In fact, how many aggregate seats have repugs won since 1996, when instead of focusing on our enemies (WTC93 attack) they continuously attacked our potus instead?

?????

Homework for the politically challenged.

we just hope there is a country left....

#175 | POSTED BY AFKABL2 AT 2009-10-19 01:48 PM

This, after nearly 4 decades, 36 years of neoconservative policies ruining our nation and only 4 years of Carter.

yep, it's all carter's fault

and bubba's fault, despite the fact that he signed every piece of contract ON American, neocon legislation....

Hilarious!

Bill Maher couldn't make inanity up this funny!

Hey AFK, how'd that last big poll last Nov come out>?

You know, the one that actually COUNTED!

LOL

You know, the one that actually COUNTED!

#178 | Posted by woke at 2009-10-19 02:08 PM
--------------------

LOL!!!

You simple minded dullard.....One of your main problems has always been the fact that you live in the past. The 2010 mid-term elections are barely a year away and the poll that will 'count' is 'jobs'. Take a peek below and read it and weep sport.

October 15, 2009

Americans See Little Hope of Finding a Quality Job

Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist

Gallup's monitoring of the U.S. job market suggests that the increasing talk in the nation's capital aimed at finding a way to stimulate job growth is fully justified. Gallup's modeling suggests the unemployment rate for October could hit 9.9% when reported next month, and it seems likely that 10% could be reached before year's end. The psychological and political impact of a 10% unemployment rate nationwide could be dramatic. This is particularly true when combined with the recent Federal Reserve report suggesting the unemployment rate will remain above 8% well into 2011.

The potential political fallout of the current jobs situation is further heightened by increasing recognition that the combination of underemployed and unemployed represents a much higher percentage of the U.S. population -- one in six Americans, according to government reports -- and even more, according to Gallup's estimates

Maybe you should change your name to 2012 son.

When did the fiscal year end bud?

Whose policies of the last 40 years, especially the last 8 led to this place and why hasn't obama fixed it in 8 months?

That what you wanna know sonny?

Get a new registration on the newshounds forum and send me a pm buddy.

Or stop by the "counts" blog dedicated to you and say hi....I check it out occasionally.

All the mods say hi

Can you tell me how many screenames you are using on DR?

Come on, you can tell me.....who else are you? One or several of the trolleyboys, eh?

let me see now, which one is like "ranger bob" pretending to be a war vet?

hmmmm?

Too much government control.
We need less gov. control in our states, schools,
News Media, and appointment of czars...

The conservative Republican voters are absolutely correct in all their beliefs, anyone find fault in them is agaist liberty, freedom, and the Constitution...

The conservative Republican voters are absolutely correct in all their beliefs, anyone find fault in them is agaist liberty, freedom, and the Constitution...

Dr Feelgood

Well maybe, until they made several significant amendments to the Constitution and a few Supreme Court decisions about Human Rights and a less paternalistic society, and that is what has conservative Republicans so riled. They never, ever, had enough objective observation, never one of their strong points), to see that it was even remotely possible to elect a great democratic President like Barack Obama and a majority Democratic Congress who will, eventually, work to rescue this country from the abuses of Bush/Cheney and their racist, imperialist, condescending near bankruptcy of our nation.

#164 Hmm..pretty verbose. I must've struck a nerve.

Either I wasn't clear enough or you're not strong in the subtlety dept., but what I meant was - step away from the PC for a minute - go outside and meet some real people fer catssakes. I only mentioned white males because you brought them up.

And now that we know you are a person of some girth, maybe my advice for you to get out and move around can provide some additional health benefits! Walking burns more calories than hand-wringing at least.

"MEET REAL PEOPLE! LOSE INCHES!"

"MEET REAL PEOPLE! LOSE INCHES!"

Posted by MrFair at 2009-10-20 05:32 AM | Reply

ROFLMMFAO

1) "...Sorry, but the 'everyone else' kicked "real America's" proverbial Arse in the last election."

2) "Who are you again? Some random no-named blogger? Mmm yeah, that's what I thought. Bah...your full of opinionated silly talk."

3) (p.s. that scorching feeling you just got was me
burning down your last argument...)

#164 | Posted by earthmuse at 2009-10-19 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

1) Real Americans voted in a real election, sir. Don't make small the success of the great system we have in this country with your grubby partisan hackery.

2) Who am I? I'm a longtime DR member, only 36 places behind you in seniority. And I really did start out thinking one could be fair in here, hence my handle.

3) You didn't burn down my argument. It's possible that scorching heat came from your hand-wringing. Get a grip, dude. Be a real American and throw away the petty party stuff.