|
Post by Johanobesus on Mar 13, 2008 0:12:31 GMT -5
His base is African-Americans, well educated liberal elitists, and college kids who have been mesmerized by his empty rhetoric.... I'd rather have educated élitists than corporate/rich élitists and religious élitists. I don't think it's élitist to want a properly educated person to remove my appendix, or prescribe my glasses, or write up a contract, or for that matter to fix my car or rewire my house. Sometimes I think the people who rail against the supposed "élits" just have inferiority complexes because they didn't go to college, or don't make lots of money, or can't locate Afghanistan on a map. It is so sad to see the way the republican propaganda machine has so thoroughly fooled so many people.
|
|
|
Post by redsharif on Mar 13, 2008 16:47:25 GMT -5
I thot dis thred wuz uhbout da prezidinyul primery? not uhbut haw i dint cumpleet turd graid..o wale, aftr i git bak frum da unimploimint plase, il wach Fox News and feil betur.
edit: corecktd speelin miztake
|
|
|
Post by redsharif on Mar 13, 2008 17:33:48 GMT -5
Seriously, when I used the word 'elitist', I was only quoting the online newsmags, including Slate, Newsweek and Politico. Yeah, a few of us do read something besides National Review and The Weekly Standard.
What really burns me up is the assumption that all Republicans are ignorant sheep. For the record, I hold a B.A. in computer information systems and an A.A.S. in Cybercrime Technology. My wife is better educated than I am, holding a M.B.A., as well as a B.S. and, of course, she's Republican, too. All the degrees we hold are from private institutions of higher learning. I won't go so far as to say we are rich, but we are firmly ensconced in the middle class.
So. For every liberal who reads this I have just this to say: Save your sweeping generalizations for someone else, and understand me. I am a Conservative because I believe that the function of government is to provide national defense, a coherent foreign policy, and to regulate interstate trade...and VERY little else. I don't need some damned bureaucrat sticking his or her hands in my wallet or my business. The United States would be a hell of a lot better off without bleeding heart liberals telling me how they are going to spend MY money and how I should live.
/Rant
Okay, back to the discussion at hand.
Since it looks like at least Florida is getting a 'do-over', who benefits the most? I know Hillary won the first time around, but there are many colleges in Florida and LOTS of rich people. This would seem to play to Obama's strength. However, a lot of those rich folks are retirees...and there are many recent immigrants in Florida. Which seems to favor Clinton. So who comes out on top?
I think this is going to end up biting Hillary. I really think that, if Obama actively campaigns in Florida and mobilizes the young folks, he wins and Hillary is done for.
|
|
|
Post by CaptainPierce on Mar 13, 2008 18:33:54 GMT -5
Dude, seriously, you can't make sweeping generalizations about Obama's and Hillary's supporters, regardless of what magazines are backing them up, and then bitch about getting them back. As for Obama being all "empty rhetoric..." well, first of all, we won't know that until and unless he actually gets elected and gets the chance to prove it. Still, at this point, I'll take "empty rhetoric" over anything that either McCain or Clinton has to offer; see my earlier point about how "experience" has gotten us where we are today. Hell, look at it this way--even if Obama is spinning us a complete line of BS, at least he's smart enough to figure out that we want it. BTW, how cynical have have we as a nation become to instantly dismiss Obama as being all "empty rhetoric" just because he makes nice speeches? Jesus, what would we say about Dr. King's "I have a dream" these days? "Pfft, a dream, that's great. " Again, I'm not necessarily an Obama supporter, there's no sign in my yard or bumper sticker on my car. And, just for the record, I'm far from any sort of liberal, elitist or otherwise. I've voted Republican in 80% of the Presidential elections I've been eligible to vote in, back when the Republican candidates still at least claimed to be for what you're for, redsharif. (Even then, of course, they weren't really for it, but they had to at least claim they were.) Personally, I doubt there'll be a do-over in Florida or Michigan, because nobody has the money to pay for it.
|
|
|
Post by redsharif on Mar 13, 2008 18:49:40 GMT -5
Sorry CP, but I CAN be pissed because I'm not making generalizations. I'm reciting facts based on poll numbers reported across a broad spectum of media. Sure, polls have their margin of error, but plus or minus 3 percent doesn't give anyone the right to insinuate that I am a mouth-breathing moron just because of my political affiliation.
As for your Dr. King reference, by the time he made that glorious speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, he'd marched, organized, been imprisoned...in other words: He'd actually DONE something. All Obama has done has been to make a speech and vote 'present' for the majority of his political life. Sorry, but that makes him very 'empty' to me. I really don't think we can wait until Obama is actually in the Oval Office to realize he can't hack it.
I know what you are saying about funding for do-over primaries in FL and MI, but I believe there is some effort to allow DNC affiliates to raise money to pay for it.
|
|
|
Post by Johanobesus on Mar 14, 2008 8:00:24 GMT -5
Sorry CP, but I CAN be pissed because I'm not making generalizations. I'm reciting facts based on poll numbers reported across a broad spectum of media. Sure, polls have their margin of error, but plus or minus 3 percent doesn't give anyone the right to insinuate that I am a mouth-breathing moron just because of my political affiliation. The word "élitist" isn't an objective description you'd find in balanced polls. Saying that Obama has more support amongst Democrats with college degrees would be a simple fact. Saying he has more support amongst "well educated liberal elitists" is making a sweeping generalization. Are you so deep in the republican propaganda machine that you just accept such loaded, negative descriptions as simple, objective facts? I didn't insinuate you're a moron. I objected to the sweeping generalization of educated liberals as élitists, and then speculated that the rabid anti-intellectualism amongst republicans may be in part about envy. The phrase "inferiority complex" implies perceived inferiority, not real. Not holding a college degree or having a high income does not make one a moron. However, I hate to break it to you, you are the exception when it comes to republicans. The base of the party is the uneducated masses who can't tell when their leaders are full of shit. A sizable proportion of them still believe that Saddam had WMD's, that he was a major supporter or Al Qaeda and terrorism in general, and that he had a hand in the attacks on 9-11. These facts are demonstrably false, yet folks maintaining these claims are still pretty mainstream in your party, unlike the 9-11 conspiracy theorists, who are ridiculed as fringe nuts by even liberal Democrats. I'm not going to debate political philosophy with you, other than to point out that yours seems to be a very selfish philosophy. However, I do wonder why real fiscal and political conservatives are still republican. There's no way you can claim that the current party leadership is fiscally conservative, and they do believe in government intervention when it appeases the Christian Right and corporations. I hear lots of bitching about the Clintons and the Democratic leadership in general being "republican lite", but I don't hear much complaining from republicans about their leadership. A handful of old politicians and academics will allow that Shrub's policies pretty much fly in the face of traditional conservative values of individual freedom, fiscal responsibility, etc., but there seems to be much more loyalty and discipline amongst republicans. It might help your party win elections, but I wouldn't think that the current republican leaders would be any more palatable to you than the Democratic leaders. As for Clinton, she should have bowed out by now. She was already realistically finished, but she's going to drag it out to the convention. We might well be hearing about the primaries in Guam at this rate.
|
|
|
Post by redsharif on Mar 14, 2008 19:56:51 GMT -5
Yep. Long live Rush Limbaugh!!
Please.
Of course not. Those of your ilk (on both sides of the political divide) are not interested in finding common ground to work from. Ideologues like yourself focus on hot button words like 'elitist' and then make the argument that the person using such words is hopelessly brain-washed. Much easier than engaging in meaningful debate, don't you think?
Agreed, but I never claimed Bush is such.
True, but they are a damned sight better than anyone the Democrats can offer.
Why should Hillary back off? She's winning the big states. To me, that indicates she's much more viable than Obama.
|
|
|
Post by Johanobesus on Mar 15, 2008 1:58:34 GMT -5
No, I didn't. I can't help it if you're oversensitive and got your feelings hurt, but I didn't say jack squat about your intellect. What exactly makes you think I'm an ideologue? Objecting to typical and tired republican propaganda doesn't make one an ideologue. Really, you seem much more hung up on "sweeping generalizations" than I. Ranting about "bleeding heart liberals telling me how they are going to spend MY money and how I should live" doesn't sound much like rational debate. With your own rhetoric I don't see how you can claim that you're not an ideologue. Isn't McCain a lot worse when it comes to empty rhetoric than Obama? He's the one who has reversed himself on serious issues like torture. He's the one who got mad at a reporter when asked about contradictory statements. He's as much of a flip-flopper as Kerry ever was. You don't think the republicans "champion identity politics"? What are they doing when they throw out traditional conservatism to appeal to the religious right? Isn't it identity politics to falsely claim the Constitution is based on Christian values and that the U.S. is a Christian Nation? What is Limbaugh or Hannity doing when they bitch about black racism and complain about affirmative actions. For that matter, your vitriol seems to have a heavy element of "Us-Them" ideology. And if you think that Obama is going out of his way to appeal exclusively to blacks, you haven't actually listened to much of his own speech. As has been pointed out, he has won over large numbers of whites. I don't feel like debating political philosophy because it would probably be tedious and pointless, if your previous rhetoric and hypocritical indignation is any indication. If you insist though we can give it a try. So Texas isn't a big state? It's amusing to hear a republican parrot Hillary's propaganda. Only states that she wins are important; states going for Obama don't matter.
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Mar 15, 2008 10:35:55 GMT -5
Ironically, the Vatican has identfied new "deadly sins" in addition to the original seven, and these new ones inlcude "excessive wealth" and "environmental pollution"...both of which are things that I can't see the Republican party wanting to fix any time soon. The thing that bothers me about the Republican way of doing things is not that they are about smaller government or tax cuts but rather that the base of their party is the religious right, who generally prefer to focus on matters of the soul or ethics rather than creating social justice or taking care of the environment. And yet the Vatican has been enlightened enough to point out that these things are indeed not just physical problems that we must deal with, but that it is a spiritual one as well if our physical reality is indeed a result of what we feel and think.
Doesn't that mean that Republican values are out of touch with what the Bible actually is all about? I mean, is the Bible about money? Is it about using the world as our toilet? No, in fact the exact opposite. It says that you should give your money away to God and others and that God gave Adam charge of the world to take care of, and not to destroy and pollute it.
It's the basic dissonnance between the Bible and Republican values that needs to be dealt with, if the Republicans can logically claim to be about Christian or Biblical values. Sure, they do get up in arms over issues like abortion...and rightly so...but outside of that, their basic platform of money and not giving a care about the environment are just not Biblical by any stretch of the imagination.
This is not a tirade, just some thinking-through of things.
Is there anybody like Al Gore on the Republican side?
|
|
|
Post by redsharif on Mar 15, 2008 12:14:39 GMT -5
Is there anybody like Al Gore on the Republican side? Arnold Schwarzenegger is pretty green for a Republican. I personally think that preserving the environment makes perfect sense. I mean, this is conservation of a valuable resource. I've always preferred trees to buildings, but I'm definitely in the minority when it comes to Republican thinking on the subject. The Republican objection is usually tied to increased cost, but I believe that cost would be more than offset in the long run. I tend to view the cost of lowering emissions and developing alternative clean sources of energy as an investment. The return on the investment would be greatly reduced dependency on Middle Eastern oil, just for starters. As for Neo-Conservative preoccupation with 'spiritual' issues, I've developed a more libertarian view. What goes on between consenting adults is their business, in my estimation. Again, I am in the minority on this point, but that does not make me less a true Conservative. Not in my mind, at least.
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Mar 15, 2008 23:12:45 GMT -5
Good news man! If you care about the environment, a large part of you is probably Democrat. What may be holding you back from crossing over is your desire to hang on to your wealth, or that you may have plans to create excessive wealth, without giving to others. But let me initiate you into a little secret: Jesus said what you try so hard to hang on to, that very thing will be taken away.
Now, he's not saying that we will all end up poor.
Rather, that if you make the focus of your very existence the saving of your own money without showing regard for others and their needs, you will not enter the Kingdom of God.
The Republicans are anti-abortion and pro-traditional marriage, which is great in my book, because society needs a religious sector to be a beacon at times to serve as counter to rapid unethical progress. But this position, when coupled with Republicanism, in my book serves as a mask to legitimize the other Republican agenda items, which in my estimation include at times to make war and to create a state where capitalism wins over social welfare and equity systems...which is why America may have the best health care tech in the world, but no one can afford it. Contrast this with every other developed country in the world that have a better mixture of capitalism and social welfare that serves the people.
I admit that giving up money is tough, but I think of it like this: The government comes to me at the end of the month and says "Atra, you made a lot of money this month. We're gonna take some of it and give it to Joe here who didn't make anything. He needs something to live on, right? Poor guy just can't get a break. It's all of our responsibility to help him out through this rough patch in his life." To which I would reply, "Sure Government. Go ahead, and thank you for being organized enough to make this service to Joe possible. I sure hope he gets a break soon. And of course, I'm sure Jesus would approve. In fact, you are doing God's work. Congratulations. Joe will eventually get back up on his feet again and do something productive with his life again, I'm sure of it."
The government also says, "And of course, not all of it will be going to Joe. We'll tuck some away for a rainy day when we as a nation really need it, but also for your health care costs should you get sick. Because we are a nation where we take care of each other, because doing so is the highest expression of humanity."
To which I would reply, "Oh I totally agree. The better society we create the more we as a people can progress and evolve, without leaving large sectors of our nation behind. This means not only more business, but better schools and envirnoment."
So you see, taking care of the environment is good and all, but unless that's coupled with a desire to take care of your fellow man, it's still just self-serving and not very Jesus-like.
Plato once said that the danger of a democracy is that votes can be bought, in that people will end up voting for whoever gives them the most bling in their pockets, and when that happens, society will eventually collapse. Isn't the Republican party basically trying to buy voters with their tax rebates, while at the same time not having programs to create social justice and take care of the environment?
|
|