Posted: Wed 12 Aug 2009 09:29 Post subject: The left is crazy to insult white Southerners as a group
Quote:
Are liberals seceding from sanity?
The left is crazy to insult white Southerners as a group
By Michael Lind
Aug. 11, 2009 |
Back in the 1960s, Seymour Martin Lipset and Richard Hofstadter and other liberal sociologists, historians and political scientists, puzzled that anyone could support Barry Goldwater rather than Lyndon Johnson, concluded that Goldwater supporters were deranged. They didn't say so directly, of course. They said that members of the radical right were emotionally disturbed victims of "status anxiety." The evidence? They didn't vote the way that Lipset and other academics thought that they should vote. Therefore they had to be crazy.
In the decades since, far better scholars than Hofstadter and Lipset, for whom history and sociology are not exercises in partisan Democratic mythmaking, have established that Goldwater and Reagan Republicans often were highly educated, socially secure individuals who happened not to share the values of liberal professors and journalists. This scholarship has been wasted, to judge by the glee with which the liberal blogosphere, in the aftermath of the ephemeral "Birther" flap, has dusted off the old conservatives-are-crazy meme, and revised it to suggest that all white Southerners are crazy.
In a recent Washington Post column, Kathleen Parker quoted Ohio Sen. George Voinovich's assertion that the Republican Party is "being taken over by Southerners" to suggest that the GOP risks becoming a permanent minority party of the old Confederacy. In itself this is a legitimate point that I and many other critics of Republican conservatism have made for years. However, at Mother Jones, the blogger Kevin Drum used Parker's political argument as an excuse for all-too-typical liberal Southern-bashing. According to Drum: "There are, needless to say, plenty of individual Southern whites who are wholly admirable. But taken as a whole, Southern white culture is [redacted]. Jim Webb can pretty it up all he wants, but it's a [redacted]." Drum did the redacting on his own blog post, explaining he'd blacked out the offending text "on the advice of my frontal lobe."
Drum's creepy bigotry becomes clear when other groups are substituted: "There are, needless to say, plenty of individual blacks who are wholly admirable. But taken as a whole, black culture is [redacted]. Barack Obama can pretty it up all he wants, but it's a [redacted]." Or maybe this: "There are, needless to say, plenty of individual Jews who are wholly admirable. But taken as a whole, Jewish culture is [redacted]. The late Irving Howe can pretty it up all he wants, but it's a [redacted]."
If his Wikipedia entry is to be believed, Kevin Drum grew up in California, the same enlightened California that during his childhood and early adulthood gave our nation Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the tax-revolt politics of Howard Jarvis. More recently, California voters amended the state Constitution to outlaw gay marriage. I grew up in Texas, which gave our nation champions of the New Deal and civil rights like Maury Maverick, Ralph Yarborough, Lyndon Johnson, Henry Gonzalez, Barbara Jordan, Lloyd Doggett and Sarah Weddington, who argued Roe v. Wade. Texas is less progressive than it once was and California is less conservative than it once was, but someone from the land of Nixon and Reagan should think twice about lecturing other parts of the country. Nor are other regions bastions of political virtue. The last two governors of Illinois are in prison or on the way there, the biggest political scandal of the moment involves mayors and rabbis in New Jersey, and the world economy was recently wrecked thanks in large part to certain investment banks and hedge funds headquartered not in Mississippi but in Manhattan.
In her Washington Post essay, Kathleen Parker writes: "Hefty majorities in the Northeast, the Midwest and the West believe Obama was born in the United States. But in the land of cotton, where old times are not by God forgotten" -- evidently this is intended to be a strained joke -- "only 47 percent believe Obama was born in America and 30 percent aren't sure. Southern Republicans, it seems, have seceded from sanity." Kevin Drum thinks that Parker is too kind and that white Southerners as a group should be thought of as having "seceded from sanity."
Oh, those dumb white Southerners! No other group in American society could possibly believe in preposterous conspiracy theories. Well, maybe one other group, the most reliably Democratic demographic in the whole U.S. electorate. A 2005 study by RAND and Oregon State University showed that a majority of blacks believed that a cure for AIDS was being withheld from the poor; that nearly half believed that AIDS was man-made, with a quarter believing that it was created in a U.S. government laboratory and 12 percent naming the CIA as its source. Black paranoia about AIDS is understandable, given the Tuskegee experiments. Even so, the theory that AIDS was created by the CIA to commit genocide against black people is wackier than the craziest Birther conspiracy theories. Would Kathleen Parker write, or the Washington Post publish, a column arguing that black Democrats "have seceded from sanity"? Would Kevin Drum applaud Parker's insult and extend to it to all African-Americans?
When liberal pundits are not arguing that white conservatives are insane, they are explaining conservatism in the patronizing spirit of Lipset and the '60s liberals as the result, not of ideology or theology, but of the irrational resentment of the "angry white male." But what about the angry white female? If white men in the South and elsewhere who do not vote for the Democrats are by definition hate-filled racists upset by social progress, then the same must be true of white women who vote the same way.
By this test, it appears that there are a lot of angry white women and that they have been angry for decades. In 2008 white women preferred John McCain to Barack Obama by 53-47 (compare white men, 57-41). They backed George W. Bush in 2004 by 55-44 percent and in 2000 by a narrow 49-48 percent. A majority of white women in 1996 split their votes among Dole (43) and Perot (8), giving Clinton only a minority of their vote at 48 percent. In 1992 white women were even more anti-Clinton, giving Bush (41 percent) and Perot (18 percent) in combination a majority. White women gave the first Bush 56 percent of their vote in 1988, and they gave Reagan 62 percent in 1984 and 52 percent in 1980. They preferred Ford to Carter, 52-36. I could go on, but you get the picture. Clearly, to judge from their unwillingness to support Democratic presidential candidates since the 1960s, most white women, like most white men, are evil, hate-filled racist monsters.
Curiously, the progressive punditariat, so voluble about "angry white men," is silent about the decades-old Republican bias of white women. Even more curious is the paradox that liberals routinely denounce white Southern Protestants for holding the very social views that are held by majorities or near-majorities of blacks and Latinos who form the electoral base of the Democratic Party.
Consider gay rights. According to a Gallup poll in December 2008, only 31 percent of black Democrats consider homosexuality morally acceptable, compared to 61 percent of non-black Democrats. The proportion of black Democrats who think that homosexuality is immoral is identical to the proportion of all Republicans who think so. The double standard of the white liberal left was evident, when California voters narrowly passed an amendment banning gay marriage. Here is the AP: "California's black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, also provided key support in favor of the state's same-sex marriage ban. Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn the California Supreme Court's May decision allowing same-sex marriage, according to exit polls for the Associated Press. More than half of Latino voters supported Proposition 8, while whites were split." There were lots of news stories about pro-gay-rights liberals denouncing the Mormon Church for its role in the campaign. Where were the liberals angrily denouncing black and Latino voters opposed to gay marriage?
Latinos, like blacks, are far more likely than whites to oppose abortion. According to a 2007 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Hispanic Center, nearly half of second-generation Latinos think that abortion should be illegal, while 65 percent of first-generation Latinos think it should be outlawed. Indeed, the overall level of Latino opposition to abortion, 57 percent, is higher than that of any other group. Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum, described Latino immigrants as being out of the mainstream, saying that second-generation Latinos (the more "liberal" cohort that is split nearly 50-50!) are "much, much closer to mainstream American values ... in stark contrast to the first generation who are much more conservative on this issue." Imagine the uproar if Rush Limbaugh or Patrick Buchanan said that Latino immigrants are far from "mainstream American values."
To read progressive pundits, you'd think that illegal immigration would not be controversial, were it not for hate-filled Southern rednecks. But according to a 2006 Pew poll, "Both whites (55 percent) and blacks (54 percent) are more likely than Hispanics (29 percent) to see immigrants as a burden." In Barack Obama's Chicago, according to Pew in 2006, "there is a widespread perception among African Americans that immigrant workers are damaging local jobs prospects. Fully 41 percent of African Americans say they or a family member has lost a job, or not gotten a job, because an employer hired an illegal immigrant instead." A Gallup poll in December 2008 revealed that 47 percent of black Americans thought that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S., while exactly the same percentage, 47 percent, thought that illegal immigrants should be arrested and deported.
Blacks and Latinos, it appears, are allowed to hold conventionally conservative social views about gay rights, abortion and (in the case of blacks) immigration without being mocked and denounced by elite white liberals in the pages of the Washington Post and Mother Jones, as long as they vote for the Democratic Party on the basis of other issues. This strategic logic should lead liberals to seek out and welcome the vote of white social conservatives in the South and elsewhere, as long as they vote for Democrats for reasons other than the social issues. Indeed, socially conservative white voters helped to create and to maintain the new Democratic majority in Congress. But many liberals, it would appear, would rather have a smaller Democratic Party than one that includes more white Southerners with typically "black" or "Latino" views about sex and reproduction.
Here's how I see it. Liberals should respect and promote the interests of working Americans of all races and regions, including those who despise liberals. They are erring neighbors to be won over, not cretins to be mocked.
The majority of Southerners, white and black, including the black Southern diaspora in other regions of the country, are victims of the South's historic caste and class system, just as many Latino immigrants come from families and regions oppressed by Latin American oligarchies. Needless to say, Southern blacks suffered far more from slavery, segregation and the inequality that has persisted even after the abolition of the formal caste system. But Southern whites reduced to debt peonage after the Civil War, and the half of the white Southern electorate that effectively was disfranchised by the Southern elite in the South between the 1900s and the 1960s, were victims of the oligarchs as well. It is only to be expected that people, black and white, who have been deprived of adequate education will be more likely than educated people to believe in nonsense like Birther conspiracy theories and AIDS conspiracy theories. And it is only to be expected that people, black and white, who have been frozen out of politics by oligarchic elites will turn to flamboyant populist tribunes as their leaders, including theatrical preachers like Pat Robertson and Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton and Jerry Falwell.
The traditional liberal solution to such alienation is economic reform, education and political empowerment. But reform is difficult and expensive. And it is much less fun than caricaturing entire ethnic or regional groups, particularly those whose members tend to have less money, less education and less power than those who lampoon them.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 12 Aug 2009 14:51 Post subject:
lOL white Southerns constantly insult whites who live on the "Left Coast" and the "East Coast" on a daily basis as un-american communists... If you don't believe me, listen to talk radio any day between Mon-Fri
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Wed 12 Aug 2009 18:14 Post subject:
The left feels as if they can insult any group with impunity. Take Black Conservatives for example. White leftists feel they can call Black conservatives "Uncle Toms", "sell outs", "traitors", without recourse. That is because they are linked up with the Black Elite, so they feel they have a free pass...another example when none other than Ted Kennedy called Judge Janis Rogers Brown a "neanderthal". Yeah right Teddy, at least she is not responsible for the death of anyone. Then they cannot understand why Blacks in CA voted 70% in support of prop 8. That's right, the homosexual left did in fact insult Blacks after the vote!!!
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Thu 13 Aug 2009 13:39 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
The left feels as if they can insult any group with impunity. Take Black Conservatives for example. White leftists feel they can call Black conservatives "Uncle Toms", "sell outs", "traitors", without recourse. That is because they are linked up with the Black Elite, so they feel they have a free pass...another example when none other than Ted Kennedy called Judge Janis Rogers Brown a "neanderthal". Yeah right Teddy, at least she is not responsible for the death of anyone. Then they cannot understand why Blacks in CA voted 70% in support of prop 8. That's right, the homosexual left did in fact insult Blacks after the vote!!!
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Thu 13 Aug 2009 17:00 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
DChapman wrote:
The left feels as if they can insult any group with impunity. Take Black Conservatives for example. White leftists feel they can call Black conservatives "Uncle Toms", "sell outs", "traitors", without recourse. That is because they are linked up with the Black Elite, so they feel they have a free pass...another example when none other than Ted Kennedy called Judge Janis Rogers Brown a "neanderthal". Yeah right Teddy, at least she is not responsible for the death of anyone. Then they cannot understand why Blacks in CA voted 70% in support of prop 8. That's right, the homosexual left did in fact insult Blacks after the vote!!!
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Thu 13 Aug 2009 18:20 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
DChapman wrote:
The left feels as if they can insult any group with impunity. Take Black Conservatives for example. White leftists feel they can call Black conservatives "Uncle Toms", "sell outs", "traitors", without recourse. That is because they are linked up with the Black Elite, so they feel they have a free pass...another example when none other than Ted Kennedy called Judge Janis Rogers Brown a "neanderthal". Yeah right Teddy, at least she is not responsible for the death of anyone. Then they cannot understand why Blacks in CA voted 70% in support of prop 8. That's right, the homosexual left did in fact insult Blacks after the vote!!!
talk about the victimization card...
Yup, and the left has the patent on it...
Really, have you heard all the crying from right wing radio, you would think they are gypsies in Eastern Europe. LOL
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Thu 13 Aug 2009 18:46 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
DChapman wrote:
The left feels as if they can insult any group with impunity. Take Black Conservatives for example. White leftists feel they can call Black conservatives "Uncle Toms", "sell outs", "traitors", without recourse. That is because they are linked up with the Black Elite, so they feel they have a free pass...another example when none other than Ted Kennedy called Judge Janis Rogers Brown a "neanderthal". Yeah right Teddy, at least she is not responsible for the death of anyone. Then they cannot understand why Blacks in CA voted 70% in support of prop 8. That's right, the homosexual left did in fact insult Blacks after the vote!!!
talk about the victimization card...
Yup, and the left has the patent on it...
Really, have you heard all the crying from right wing radio, you would think they are gypsies in Eastern Europe. LOL
I don't hear any crying on talk radio (right wing, thank God), I hear excitement. Excitement that the Democrats and the left have all this power and they are about to blow it all.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Thu 13 Aug 2009 20:03 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
DChapman wrote:
The left feels as if they can insult any group with impunity. Take Black Conservatives for example. White leftists feel they can call Black conservatives "Uncle Toms", "sell outs", "traitors", without recourse. That is because they are linked up with the Black Elite, so they feel they have a free pass...another example when none other than Ted Kennedy called Judge Janis Rogers Brown a "neanderthal". Yeah right Teddy, at least she is not responsible for the death of anyone. Then they cannot understand why Blacks in CA voted 70% in support of prop 8. That's right, the homosexual left did in fact insult Blacks after the vote!!!
talk about the victimization card...
Yup, and the left has the patent on it...
Really, have you heard all the crying from right wing radio, you would think they are gypsies in Eastern Europe. LOL
I don't hear any crying on talk radio (right wing, thank God), I hear excitement. Excitement that the Democrats and the left have all this power and they are about to blow it all.
you act like this is a football game and you are cheering for a team.
I don't get people who are so reflexively partisan, it makes me think they aren't thinking, but just reacting to a script. I'm not a big fan of Pelosi, Reed, and I take issue with Obama. I supported Bush on some things, but not on others...really it depends, life is complex, I've never understood those who seem to only see things in black and white, cause issues in the world rarely break so cleanly...
Most of the people I hear on Sean Hannity (everyday for the 15 minutes I drive home) are "average" meaning they really don't have the breath of knowledge to discuss anything. Most of them sound extremely paranoid, reactionary, and unable to understand complex issues. Talk radio is a venue that is basically entertainment, but I fear that many of these people don't get that.
Sean Hannity has a script. It is obvious to anyone detached from his rhetoric.
He screens callers. He allows on certain stupid far leftist weirdos. Then he shouts them down, if they do start making sense and puts them on mute (I know because this has happened to me on talk radio, which is why I don't take it seriously, it was a few years ago speaking about a foreign policy issue, it was clear the radio guy had no real knowledge of at all, he definitely didn't know as much as me about the issue). They rant, quickly switch the subject into something else...then hangup. Then they allow 3 or 4 morons to call in and validate what they sad and just agree with them.
To me that is not even entertainment, that is simply demagogue an issue.
I would bet all the money I have, including my home, that Hannitty could not stand face to face with me and intelligently debate half the foreign policy issues he spews intellectual vomit on daily (the far left counter parts aren't any better, but they are fewer in number and reach less people).
It is sad and a bit scary that so many people are so dense, but then again about 50% of people are below average IQ so what should I expect? This is still scary. It is scary so many people actually really have such a limited capacity to think or they are so intellectually lazy, or anti-intellectual they don't take the time to really read up on anything of this stuff, well unless they are reading Mark Levin's book.
If I heard Sean Hannity talk about socialism one more time, I think I will puke.
He really has no concept of what socialism is.
He definately is selective in his usage, because if he was being "fair and balanced" he would rail against:
social security
medicare
medicare
public schools
libraries
public universities
public parks
public highways
graduated federal and state income tax
All of these things are socialism in the traditional meaning, and many were things promoted by Marx himself.
I don't hear any Republican leaders or even typical rank and file talking against these things, but Ron Paul. I don't agree with him, but at least he is not a hypocrite or a demagogue.
Oh well, not like people are going to change, some people, I'm convinced are wired this wasy psychologically therefore are more likely to be conservative or liberal, more likely to be reactionary or not, more likely to be paranoid, more likely to be self centered, more likely to be socialist, more likely to be intellectually curious, etc.
Then again, I think a bumper sticker from a right wing religious nut said it best, I saw it on the way home a couple of years ago...
"I didn't evolve from a monkey"
First off, no one says humans evolved from monkeys. LOL But I get it, I evolved, he did not. Say no more.
Eventually I will rail against leftist urban hipster trendy wannabe morons too, plenty of them. But they scare me a lot less, maybe because one group has a history of being very close to folks who aren't friendly to black folks, the other has a history of racism, but the paternalistic condescending kind...
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 14 Aug 2009 10:27 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
you act like this is a football game and you are cheering for a team.
No, this is not a game, I take this very seriously. This is the reason why I am so passionate.
we don't need more "passion" we need disciplined open-minded debate and reasoning. If you are really serious, don't be a mirror image of those you constantly complain about.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 14 Aug 2009 12:39 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
we don't need more "passion" we need disciplined open-minded debate and reasoning. If you are really serious, don't be a mirror image of those you constantly complain about.
And it is those on the left, the Congress, and the Obama administration who do not want open minded debate. If they welcomed open minded debate, they would not try to ram bills down the throats of the people as quickly as they are trying (HC, and the "stimulus"), and without having read what's in the bill. Seems to me that Obama wanted this passed before the recess was so that we would not find out what was contained in the bill until after it was passed, hence to late to debate.
an excerpt from a David Limbaugh article:
Quote:
Obama has said he just wants a dialogue with the American people on health care. Sorry, but there are just so many times a person can say the exact opposite of what he means and retain a shred of credibility. While saying he wants this dialogue, he's also telling his opponents to shut up – literally. Even more revealing, he was adamant that this bill be passed before the August recess – a bill whose provisions he admitted or pretended he was not familiar with. How could there have been a dialogue if he had already made up his mind and if the deadline he had artificially imposed could not possibly have allowed a dialogue?
So it's not me and people of my political philosophy who do not want debate. We're just having fun watching those in power sweat bullets at their fear of the uprising that is going on now.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 14 Aug 2009 14:51 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
we don't need more "passion" we need disciplined open-minded debate and reasoning. If you are really serious, don't be a mirror image of those you constantly complain about.
And it is those on the left, the Congress, and the Obama administration who do not want open minded debate. If they welcomed open minded debate, they would not try to ram bills down the throats of the people as quickly as they are trying (HC, and the "stimulus"), and without having read what's in the bill. Seems to me that Obama wanted this passed before the recess was so that we would not find out what was contained in the bill until after it was passed, hence to late to debate.
an excerpt from a David Limbaugh article:
Quote:
Obama has said he just wants a dialogue with the American people on health care. Sorry, but there are just so many times a person can say the exact opposite of what he means and retain a shred of credibility. While saying he wants this dialogue, he's also telling his opponents to shut up – literally. Even more revealing, he was adamant that this bill be passed before the August recess – a bill whose provisions he admitted or pretended he was not familiar with. How could there have been a dialogue if he had already made up his mind and if the deadline he had artificially imposed could not possibly have allowed a dialogue?
So it's not me and people of my political philosophy who do not want debate. We're just having fun watching those in power sweat bullets at their fear of the uprising that is going on now.
No actually both of you. I'm not surprised you can't see that. It is like trying to get a kid to admit something is wrong with the "home team", good luck with that. I've given up on even imagining you can be anything but bias in the extreme.
The health care industry directly funds various Republicans (AND BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS) who have one strategy, stop any reform.
That has been the case since the 1990's. That is known. This is why the Republicans have no real alternative plan and the one they do they have no clue how to pay for and are not putting forth any options. There goals OBSTRUCTIONISM, pure and simple.
Some groups like the AMA support Obama because they feel some reform is going to happen and better to have some input than no, some Big Pharma, but most of the Insurance companies are totally for "scorched earth"...
The left, tried to have a debate those times, it was shut down by fear mongering. Not just shut down, they got destroyed. This happened twice to my knowledge, starting in the 1950's (or early 60's) with good old actor Ron Reagan doing to the radio spots.
Meanwhile normal folks get screwed by this endless waring on both sides...but what I call "extremist wack jobs".
So the leftist learned if they want to pass anything they have to ram any nonsense through as fast as possible while they have the chance. They can just "fix it later". Uhm...NO! Wrong!
None of this will lead to good legislation.
What should have been done, is a wide penal of experts and Senate and Congressional committee heads should have got together and discussed this and drew up a joint statement with several recommendations, at least 3 plans.
Then held put them on the congressional floor. Ban all lobbyist from the Hill.
Whatever one wins, wins, Also put this panel on C-SPAN (which Obama said he would do and has not).
That would be fair and balanced, but that will never happen because neither side would want that.
That would be too "Swiss" (i.e. evil European socialists) with their evil "direct democracy"...
Now what we have are waring factions, one trying to demagogue on issues or morality and maybe economy and the other trying to scare the hell out of people...
That is asinine.
I wonder what America would be like if for one year, no one could vote who was not a veteran, owned property, did not have a college degree from an accredited school. What would our politics look like? I am 100% sure not like this nonsense.
Like I said, there is no debate, never has been. It is a match between who can convince the most mindless idiot "average American" (as in average 100 IQ) to show up and act a fool at a town hall or send e-mails and call a congressman, when I bet all the money I have if most people actually were questioned they could not even answer basic questions about any of this and they would just spit talking points.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 14 Aug 2009 15:14 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I wonder what America would be like if for one year, no one could vote who was not a veteran, owned property, did not have a college degree from an accredited school. What would our politics look like? I am 100% sure not like this nonsense.
Do not most of our politicians who have created this mess, possess a college degree, not only from an acredited school, but in many cases, the top schools???? Theoretically you would think it would improve things, but the nature of humans tells me it really wouldn't.
Dragon Horse wrote:
Like I said, there is no debate, never has been. It is a match between who can convince the most mindless idiot "average American" (as in average 100 IQ) to show up and act a fool at a town hall or send e-mails and call a congressman, when I bet all the money I have if most people actually were questioned they could not even answer basic questions about any of this and they would just spit talking points.
I bet all the money I have that if most of the people in Congress and Obama himself were questioned about this bill, they could not answer and spit out the Obama talking points because most have not read what's in the bill they want to pass!!!!
I hardly think most of the people are acting lke fools at the town hall meetings, they are angry and afraid. You don't think this sor of thing happened at town hall meetings before the Revolutionary War??? This is what is supposed to happen, sans the violence. The Obamamites and associated media supporters do not like it because they have contempt for people who will actually stand up against them, how dare they, we know what's better for them!!! This is the attitude that I see coming from Obama and Pelosi and the left. [/quote]
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 14 Aug 2009 15:25 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I wonder what America would be like if for one year, no one could vote who was not a veteran, owned property, did not have a college degree from an accredited school. What would our politics look like? I am 100% sure not like this nonsense.
Do not most of our politicians who have created this mess, possess a college degree, not only from an acredited school, but in many cases, the top schools???? Theoretically you would think it would improve things, but the nature of humans tells me it really wouldn't.
Dragon Horse wrote:
Like I said, there is no debate, never has been. It is a match between who can convince the most mindless idiot "average American" (as in average 100 IQ) to show up and act a fool at a town hall or send e-mails and call a congressman, when I bet all the money I have if most people actually were questioned they could not even answer basic questions about any of this and they would just spit talking points.
I bet all the money I have that if most of the people in Congress and Obama himself were questioned about this bill, they could not answer and spit out the Obama talking points because most have not read what's in the bill they want to pass!!!!
I hardly think most of the people are acting lke fools at the town hall meetings, they are angry and afraid. You don't think this sor of thing happened at town hall meetings before the Revolutionary War??? This is what is supposed to happen, sans the violence. The Obamamites and associated media supporters do not like it because they have contempt for people who will actually stand up against them, how dare they, we know what's better for them!!! This is the attitude that I see coming from Obama and Pelosi and the left.
[/quote]
Yes, but those politicians have to dumb themselves down for the masses in order to get elected. Sorry, you are wrong. The nature of politics limits the ability of what intelligent people can do, even if they wanted to.
You can be angry and afraid and still be open minded to seeking truth and not act a fool in public. I've been angry at my wife, furious, far more than at any politician but I can still sit and listen to her and discuss things without threatening violence and I have also been known to side with her point of view when I've heard the entire story or come to compromise. That is what adults do or at least that is what I was told as a child. Obviously everyone didn't learn that lesson.
DChapman, do you believe all people have equal intelligence? Do you believe all people have equal ability to plan for the future?
If you do not. Then do you believe if we got rid of social security, medicare, welfare, any ideas of public health there would not be a signficant % of society starving, homeless, dying from disease, etc more than now?
If you do, then do you think this would effect your standard of living. I"m not talking about your income.
You don't realize you pay for it because you have never lived anywhere different.
I know when my wife can't come home at midnight on the street by herself, I pay. When I have to pay higher insurance or buy a home alarm for fear of the folks who live 5 miles away coming in my neighborhood to rob me, I pay. When poor people go to the emergency room and don't pay and the bill is divided up and I have to pay for it, raising the cost of my medical care. I pay.
We all pay. It is usually cheaper to pay upfront than on the back-end, as Americans do.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 14 Aug 2009 15:42 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I wonder what America would be like if for one year, no one could vote who was not a veteran, owned property, did not have a college degree from an accredited school. What would our politics look like? I am 100% sure not like this nonsense.
Do not most of our politicians who have created this mess, possess a college degree, not only from an acredited school, but in many cases, the top schools???? Theoretically you would think it would improve things, but the nature of humans tells me it really wouldn't.
Dragon Horse wrote:
Like I said, there is no debate, never has been. It is a match between who can convince the most mindless idiot "average American" (as in average 100 IQ) to show up and act a fool at a town hall or send e-mails and call a congressman, when I bet all the money I have if most people actually were questioned they could not even answer basic questions about any of this and they would just spit talking points.
I bet all the money I have that if most of the people in Congress and Obama himself were questioned about this bill, they could not answer and spit out the Obama talking points because most have not read what's in the bill they want to pass!!!!
I hardly think most of the people are acting lke fools at the town hall meetings, they are angry and afraid. You don't think this sor of thing happened at town hall meetings before the Revolutionary War??? This is what is supposed to happen, sans the violence. The Obamamites and associated media supporters do not like it because they have contempt for people who will actually stand up against them, how dare they, we know what's better for them!!! This is the attitude that I see coming from Obama and Pelosi and the left.
[/quote]
Also I don't see many opponents asking for a clearer bill or asking for clarification, they simply say they don't want "death panels" to be "lose their health insurance" etc.
Basically they are already convinced they know what the bill is about.
How is that? WHere are they getting this information?
If you say the Dems don't know what it is about, then neither side does. So the answer is to mindlessly fight against something you don't understand instead of learn about it or present your own ideas. LOL
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 14 Aug 2009 15:43 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Yes, but those politicians have to dumb themselves down for the masses in order to get elected. Sorry, you are wrong. The nature of politics limits the ability of what intelligent people can do, even if they wanted to.
I get the notion that you think "intelligent" people should be making descisions for the masses. Wow....please correct me if I am wrong, but I noticed that during the campaign in the fall. Granted, the masses do lack in knowledge of even the basics in government, history. But I do not suggest these people are "dumb". I know people who have PH.D in the hard sciences that you would refer to as the "dumb masses".
Dragon Horse wrote:
DChapman, do you believe all people have equal intelligence? Do you believe all people have equal ability to plan for the future?
Of course not. I am not about to have someone who is supposedly more "intelligent" make descisions for those deemed as not as "intelligent". Who will make that determination?? That's control. "Intelligent" people still make mistakes, big mistakes, they are as human as anyone else.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 14 Aug 2009 15:53 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Yes, but those politicians have to dumb themselves down for the masses in order to get elected. Sorry, you are wrong. The nature of politics limits the ability of what intelligent people can do, even if they wanted to.
I get the notion that you think "intelligent" people should be making descisions for the masses. Wow....please correct me if I am wrong, but I noticed that during the campaign in the fall. Granted, the masses do lack in knowledge of even the basics in government, history. But I do not suggest these people are "dumb". I know people who have PH.D in the hard sciences that you would refer to as the "dumb masses".
Dragon Horse wrote:
DChapman, do you believe all people have equal intelligence? Do you believe all people have equal ability to plan for the future?
Of course not. I am not about to have someone who is supposedly more "intelligent" make descisions for those deemed as not as "intelligent". Who will make that determination?? That's control. "Intelligent" people still make mistakes, big mistakes, they are as human as anyone else.
I didn't ask you if intelligent people make mistakes, that is a given. I asked you specific questions. Please answer.
It is not just "intelligent people" I wish were making decisions, but responsible non-self centered types who care about society as a whole.
Hence why I said property owners, ex-military.
You can be "naturally smart" and be lazy, self centered, irresponsible.
The average person, can't think abstractly enough to understand the various ramifications to a complex health care bill, sorry. They can't. Hence why we have "experts" who spend a lot of their life studying this.
As far as control, that is a question of degree. Unless you live in anarchy you are controlled, everyone in every society is, anywhere on earth.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 14 Aug 2009 16:29 Post subject:
Quote:
It is not just "intelligent people" I wish were making decisions, but responsible non-self centered types who care about society as a whole.
OK, you did not say that, you said, "intelligent people". Any which way would still amount to control and a limit of liberties, IMO.
Are these the questions you are referring to??
Dragon Horse wrote:
If you do not. Then do you believe if we got rid of social security, medicare, welfare, any ideas of public health there would not be a signficant % of society starving, homeless, dying from disease, etc more than now?
So what would have these people done to survive 200 years ago??? That is sort of moot, but my point is humans have a survival instinct. But to answer your question, yes.
Dragon Horse wrote:
If you do, then do you think this would effect your standard of living. I"m not talking about your income.
You don't realize you pay for it because you have never lived anywhere different.
of course it affects the standard of living. This is the argument used in the illegal immigrant debate, that ultimately having unchecked illegal immigration will have an adverse affect on us all.
So I understand I think what you're getting at here. These types of people are not responsible for making sound descisions for themselves, so it's up to "intelligent people" or "non self centered people who have the best interests of society" to make descisions for the rest of the "dummies". So as much as I hate smoking, you're going to tell someone they are not allowed to smoke??? I have often felt that if someone wants to smoke and then gets sick, why should we have to pay, they were the ones who made to choice to smoke. Then how will you keep them from smoking?? Install cameras everywhere...welcome to George Orwell's 1984. I know you will disagree, but that's point where I think you're coming from.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 14 Aug 2009 17:19 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Quote:
It is not just "intelligent people" I wish were making decisions, but responsible non-self centered types who care about society as a whole.
OK, you did not say that, you said, "intelligent people". Any which way would still amount to control and a limit of liberties, IMO.
Are these the questions you are referring to??
Dragon Horse wrote:
If you do not. Then do you believe if we got rid of social security, medicare, welfare, any ideas of public health there would not be a signficant % of society starving, homeless, dying from disease, etc more than now?
So what would have these people done to survive 200 years ago??? That is sort of moot, but my point is humans have a survival instinct. But to answer your question, yes.
Dragon Horse wrote:
If you do, then do you think this would effect your standard of living. I"m not talking about your income.
You don't realize you pay for it because you have never lived anywhere different.
of course it affects the standard of living. This is the argument used in the illegal immigrant debate, that ultimately having unchecked illegal immigration will have an adverse affect on us all.
So I understand I think what you're getting at here. These types of people are not responsible for making sound descisions for themselves, so it's up to "intelligent people" or "non self centered people who have the best interests of society" to make descisions for the rest of the "dummies". So as much as I hate smoking, you're going to tell someone they are not allowed to smoke??? I have often felt that if someone wants to smoke and then gets sick, why should we have to pay, they were the ones who made to choice to smoke. Then how will you keep them from smoking?? Install cameras everywhere...welcome to George Orwell's 1984. I know you will disagree, but that's point where I think you're coming from.
Why you insist on hyperbole I don't know.
NO, not exactly, you can easily wall yourself off, have electrified fenses, and armed guards like the elites in many African nations.
My point is simple.
We live in a society.
A society is organic and many things that happen effect all of us, especially if we live in fairly densely packed urban areas, which really didn't exist 200 years ago, if anything most of us are more integrated to our neighbor and the person 5 miles away then we were even 50 years ago. People didn't live but to about 50 years old, most people farmed or could support 4 or 5 kids on a simple manual labor job that took effort but not much else...this is not 1809.
So you have a choice.
Continue to live some self centered pioneer individualist life...when that environment no longer exists.
As far as freedom. When I lived in Japan, I didn't feel "less free" than I do here, ever. Freedom is relevant, there is no absolute freedom anywhere in any society.
Keeping these things in mind you can take steps based on the reality of the situation, based on what the average person is likely to do in a given situation to improve everyone's living standard, which does effect you (as I pointed out above, my wife can walk down the street in Tokyo half drunk at night and no have to worry about being robbed and raped. The same is true in many areas of Europe).
In both situation you will pay a price, if you know it or not if you do it voluntarily or involuntarily. It is up to you when you want to do it and how efficiently you want to do things.
It really is that simple.
What you are really doing is denying human nature.
We know a certain percent of the population in any nation is unintelligent, unproductive, irresponsible.
We know that certain element will be criminal minded. We know there are push pull factors to many of these behaviors.
you can be preventative or you can pay more by dealing with it after the fact.
Many societies have choose the former, in many cases we have chose the later.
I don't know about you but I liked having to not have such high insurance premiums for my house, car. I liked my wife being able to walk to the streets, I like people never even hearing of a home alarm system, I liked not having to pay so much of my taxes to jail millions of my fellow citizens, many of whom for nonviolent crimes, etc. I liked not seeing old people destitute, barely able to afford medication, I liked never hearing old people seriously worry over retirement, etc.
Maybe you don't care about those things.
You know there is another way to handle these problems.
Let people die, execute more people, purge certain segments from society (a limited genocide) that is how it was handled in the past. Wasn't that better? Is that the kind of place you like?
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
If you don't believe me, listen to talk radio any day between Mon-Fri