The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Seriously? And you guys think those who say you want a socialist utopia use fear tactics?

[JediKooter]

Socialism/communism are no different to me, but, with some differences and I want neither and would voice loudly against both and I think there would be plenty of people regardless of religious affiliation to rise up against it. I have some reservations if enough christians would do the same if things started going towards a christian theocracy in this country.

What I described is how I envision a christian theocracy would be like in this country. It would be like Footloose on a nationwide scale, but, Kevin Bacon is sent away to a camp and never heard from again.

But really my point was, I would not be surprised if there is a large number of people who would be more than happy with a christian theocracy in this country. If you want to read into that, I can't stop you, but, it means nothing more than what I said about not being surprised.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I guess when you say "large number" than can mean plenty of different things.

[albionmoonlight]

The sad/scary part is that the people get the government they deserve.

The reason that neither the Dems nor the GOP have gotten serious about reducing the deficit is that they would lose elections. When a party is in power, it has to expand government AND lower taxes to get public support these days.

The real problem is that the kinds of things that the long term health of the country needs (higher taxes AND massive spending cuts on popular programs like Medicare, Social Security, and defense) will cause short term disaster for whichever party has the courage to enact them. Because people vote their IMMEDIATE self-interest these days.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Or rather, they are the true Republicans (what do you think the Republican Party was in the 50s, 60s, and 70s?) and the super small government, socially conservative (c'mon, O'Connell is against masturbation for God's sake!) folks are the RINOs.

oooh!! well played!!!

[CAsterling]

Socialism/communism - I really strugle to understand why people are against these systems. At their most pure they are systems that are designed to have people work harmoneously together and promote helping and assisting everybody to reach a decent standard rather than having a rich and poor class based on how much money a person can gather.

Is your financial welfare more important than helping your fellow citizens, because to me that is what a capitalist society promotes (not aimed at a specific person, just an observation of capitalism).

Yes I understand that the real world application of these systems hasn't gone too well in various attempts to date, but it doesn't mean the goals they promote are good and shouldn't be the ones we strive for.

I worry about the Tea Party and/or GOP and its goals, which seem to have the unintended consequence of every man for himself and screw those that can't keep up - Yes I know that isn't the intent, but that is the message that they manage to portray to me.

I was a right wing supporter with a desire for some moderation and in a lot of things I still am, but over the last few years I find I have more beliefs in common with the Democrats.....which worries me as I never expected that to happen..

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The sad/scary part is that the people get the government they deserve.

The reason that neither the Dems nor the GOP have gotten serious about reducing the deficit is that they would lose elections. When a party is in power, it has to expand government AND lower taxes to get public support these days.

The real problem is that the kinds of things that the long term health of the country needs (higher taxes AND massive spending cuts on popular programs like Medicare, Social Security, and defense) will cause short term disaster for whichever party has the courage to enact them. Because people vote their IMMEDIATE self-interest these days.

Very true

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I guess when you say "large number" than can mean plenty of different things.

I can't really say where the demarcation point would be from a small number to large number. For arbitrary reasons, lets say a couple of million would be a large number in my opinion.

Originally Posted by CAsterling

Socialism/communism - I really strugle to understand why people are against these systems. At their most pure they are systems that are designed to have people work harmoneously together and promote helping and assisting everybody to reach a decent standard rather than having a rich and poor class based on how much money a person can gather.

Because time and time again throughout recent history, we have seen how easily those two systems are manipulated and perverted by the people and most cases, the one person in power and then easily turned into a dictatorship. And there's one thing they don't take into consideration...life just isn't fair.

The core principles of those two concepts do makes sense to a certain degree, however, there seems to be a problem once humans are actually involved in it. It's kind of like the Chargers: They look great on paper, but, once they take the field, they turn into a huge disappointing failure.

[Glengoyne]

Hopefully Castle will go Lieberman, and run independent.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The sad/scary part is that the people get the government they deserve.

The reason that neither the Dems nor the GOP have gotten serious about reducing the deficit is that they would lose elections. When a party is in power, it has to expand government AND lower taxes to get public support these days.

The real problem is that the kinds of things that the long term health of the country needs (higher taxes AND massive spending cuts on popular programs like Medicare, Social Security, and defense) will cause short term disaster for whichever party has the courage to enact them. Because people vote their IMMEDIATE self-interest these days.

+1

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The sad/scary part is that the people get the government they deserve.

The reason that neither the Dems nor the GOP have gotten serious about reducing the deficit is that they would lose elections. When a party is in power, it has to expand government AND lower taxes to get public support these days.

The real problem is that the kinds of things that the long term health of the country needs (higher taxes AND massive spending cuts on popular programs like Medicare, Social Security, and defense) will cause short term disaster for whichever party has the courage to enact them. Because people vote their IMMEDIATE self-interest these days.

Well said.

[CAsterling]

[quote=JediKooter;2348899]Because time and time again throughout recent history, we have seen how easily those two systems are manipulated and perverted by the people and most cases, the one person in power and then easily turned into a dictatorship. And there's one thing they don't take into consideration...life just isn't fair. QUOTE]

I can't disagree with your point, it is a concern with those systems and as that wonderful phrase goes, those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

However in today's world are we better set up to understand the pitfalls and learn from the experiences of the past and design a system that would take the best of those systems and the best of the capitalist systems. Shouldn't that be what we strive to achieve.

I live in a country where a person can get rich based on their looks and no talent, yet others are working 2 or 3 jobs to support their families and still don't reach the poverty line (and what is designated as the poverty line is I believe too low).

We need to find a way of making America what it was intended to be, and taking the best of all ideas and making something great rather than as appears to be the current trend and demonising those who oppose our point of view (again not aimed at anybody, just an observation of politics and the media in todays world).

This is what worries me about the GOP/Tea Party and Democrats - rather than work together for a common aim they only accept agreement with their own opinions as the correct course - which can't be good for the long term of America even if it is good for the short term for the people involved.

[ISiddiqui]

Btw, I thought this was a great place to put this article by David Brooks of the NY Times, a True Republican and not one of those right-wing RINOs like John Boehner and Jim Demint (and yes, I'm going to go with this because the wackos that took over in the 80s and 90s are dramatically different from the midcentury Republican party).

Op-Ed Columnist - The Day After Tomorrow - NYTimes.com

The Day After Tomorrow
By DAVID BROOKS

Every political movement has a story. The surging Republican Party has a story, too. It is a story of virtue betrayed and innocence threatened.

Through most of its history, the narrative begins, the United States was a limited government nation, with restrained central power and an independent citizenry. But over the years, forces have arisen that seek to change America’s essential nature. These forces would replace America’s traditional free enterprise system with a European-style cradle-to-grave social democracy.

These statist forces are more powerful than ever in the age of Obama. So it is the duty for those who believe in the traditional American system to stand up and defend the Constitution. There is no middle ground. Every small new government program puts us on the slippery slope toward a smothering nanny state.

As Paul Ryan and Arthur Brooks put it in The Wall Street Journal on Monday, “The road to serfdom in America does not involve a knock in the night or a jack-booted thug. It starts with smooth-talking politicians offering seemingly innocuous compromises, and an opportunistic leadership that chooses not to stand up for America’s enduring principles of freedom and entrepreneurship.”

Ryan and Brooks are two of the most important conservative thinkers today. Ryan is the leading Republican policy entrepreneur in the House. Brooks is president of the highly influential American Enterprise Institute and a much-cited author. My admiration for both is unbounded.

Yet the story Republicans are telling each other, which Ryan and Brooks have reinforced, is an oversimplified version of American history, with dangerous implications.
The fact is, the American story is not just the story of limited governments; it is the story of limited but energetic governments that used aggressive federal power to promote growth and social mobility. George Washington used industrial policy, trade policy and federal research dollars to build a manufacturing economy alongside the agricultural one. The Whig Party used federal dollars to promote a development project called the American System.

Abraham Lincoln supported state-sponsored banks to encourage development, lavish infrastructure projects, increased spending on public education. Franklin Roosevelt provided basic security so people were freer to move and dare. The Republican sponsors of welfare reform increased regulations and government spending — demanding work in exchange for dollars.

Throughout American history, in other words, there have been leaders who regarded government like fire — a useful tool when used judiciously and a dangerous menace when it gets out of control. They didn’t build their political philosophy on whether government was big or not. Government is a means, not an end. They built their philosophy on making America virtuous, dynamic and great. They supported government action when it furthered those ends and opposed it when it didn’t.

If the current Republican Party regards every new bit of government action as a step on the road to serfdom, then the party will be taking this long, mainstream American tradition and exiling it from the G.O.P.
That will be a political tragedy. There are millions of voters who, while alarmed by the Democrats’ lavish spending, still look to government to play some positive role. They fled the G.O.P. after the government shutdown of 1995, and they would do so again.

It would be a fiscal tragedy. Over the next decade there will have to be spending cuts and tax increases. If Republicans decide that even the smallest tax increases put us on the road to serfdom, then there will never be a deal, and the country will careen toward bankruptcy.

It would also be a policy tragedy. Republicans are right to oppose the current concentration of power in Washington. But once that is halted, America faces a series of problems that can’t be addressed simply by getting government out of the way.

The social fabric is fraying. Human capital is being squandered. Society is segmenting. The labor markets are ill. Wages are lagging. Inequality is increasing. The nation is overconsuming and underinnovating. China and India are surging. Not all of these challenges can be addressed by the spontaneous healing powers of the market.

Most important, it would be an intellectual tragedy. Conservatism is supposed to be nonideological and context-driven. If all government action is automatically dismissed as quasi socialist, then there is no need to think. A pall of dogmatism will settle over the right.

Republicans are riding a wave of revulsion about what is happening in Washington. But it is also time to start talking about the day after tomorrow, after the centralizing forces are thwarted. I hope that as Arthur Brooks and Paul Ryan lead a resurgent conservatism, they’ll think about the limited-but-energetic government tradition, which stands between Barry Goldwater and François Mitterrand, but at the heart of the American experience.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by CAsterling

I can't disagree with your point, it is a concern with those systems and as that wonderful phrase goes, those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

However in today's world are we better set up to understand the pitfalls and learn from the experiences of the past and design a system that would take the best of those systems and the best of the capitalist systems. Shouldn't that be what we strive to achieve.

I agree with this. This country has so many resources, be it brain power to mineral resources, etc...that there really is no excuse as to why no one should be homeless or going hungry, until you really take a hard look at what's happening and it's complex. It can be anything from people just being lazy to political ideologies.

I live in a country where a person can get rich based on their looks and no talent, yet others are working 2 or 3 jobs to support their families and still don't reach the poverty line (and what is designated as the poverty line is I believe too low).

I have no problem with people getting rich as long as they did not hurt others in the process. Some people have to work 2 or 3 jobs because they dropped out of school and have no real skill set. That can be corrected, if that person is willing to do it. Yes, the poverty line is definitely too low and should also take into consideration as to what region of the country they are in. If you are in southern California, the poverty line is going to be much higher than it is in Wyoming.

We need to find a way of making America what it was intended to be, and taking the best of all ideas and making something great rather than as appears to be the current trend and demonising those who oppose our point of view (again not aimed at anybody, just an observation of politics and the media in todays world).

I totally agree with this. It's ok to have a difference of opinion and that sometimes sparks innovation. A country can really only survive if it is willing to be progressive and not be afraid to change for the overall good of the populace and the overall 'health' of the country.

This is what worries me about the GOP/Tea Party and Democrats - rather than work together for a common aim they only accept agreement with their own opinions as the correct course - which can't be good for the long term of America even if it is good for the short term for the people involved.

I've said it over and over: A politicians only job (regardless of party affiliation) is to get themselves re-elected and if that means defying all logic to do so, they will do so and at the cost of the people. Coupled with the fact that the people share some of the blame for that for repeatedly voting these same people in time and time again.

Good points CAsterling

[JPhillips]

Question: Has there ever been a real Republican President or have they all been RINOs?

Discuss.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CAsterling

Socialism/communism - I really strugle to understand why people are against these systems. At their most pure they are systems that are designed to have people work harmoneously together and promote helping and assisting everybody to reach a decent standard rather than having a rich and poor class based on how much money a person can gather.

Is your financial welfare more important than helping your fellow citizens, because to me that is what a capitalist society promotes (not aimed at a specific person, just an observation of capitalism).

Yes I understand that the real world application of these systems hasn't gone too well in various attempts to date, but it doesn't mean the goals they promote are good and shouldn't be the ones we strive for.

The goals are good, it's just that people have never trusted the government as the "organizer" of everyone's assets to carry out those goals (and certainly history affirms that lack of trust).

But the goals of communism and socialism are practiced in smaller, private groups and organizations (even within families), and I think people do like to live that way.

[DaddyTorgo]

where do i sign up for european-style democratic-socialism??

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

where do i sign up for european-style democratic-socialism??

You could make it part of your Republicans-winning retreat plan to show up in Europe to sign up, but they have very strict immigration policies to make it all work.

But even assuming that kind of thing could work here, I don't recall anyone in power, Democrat or Republican, pitching any kind of Scandinavian health care plan here. What we get is amazingly both more expensive and less effective, and yet we're told it will fix everything. It's really one big party in the U.S., they just convince us they're totally different to keep us arguing and distracted.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by CAsterling

We need to find a way of making America what it was intended to be, and taking the best of all ideas and making something great rather than as appears to be the current trend and demonising those who oppose our point of view (again not aimed at anybody, just an observation of politics and the media in todays world).

What do you believe America was intended to be? Is it not a place where people are free to do as much (or as little) as they desire?

Because if you think about it...in order for everybody to equally benefit from a form of government...they must all present the exact same value add. What if some citizens do not want to work as hard? Should they be forced to? Should they be rewarded for not working as hard? What if they can't?

[CAsterling]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Question: Has there ever been a real Republican President or have they all been RINOs?

Discuss.

What exactly is a real Republican - not trying to be argumentative, I truely don't know how one is defined.

thanks

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

But even assuming that kind of thing could work here, I don't recall anyone in power, Democrat or Republican, pitching any kind of Scandinavian health care plan here. What we get is amazingly both more expensive and less effective, and yet we're told it will fix everything. It's really one big party in the U.S., they just convince us they're totally different to keep us arguing and distracted.

FWIW - I agree with you on this. They're 99.9% corporatist-whores.

[DaddyTorgo]

RE: O'Donnell's amazing support:

Originally Posted by PPP

While O'Donnell may have ingratiated herself to Delaware's small group of registered Republicans over the last month she's turned off everyone else. An August PPP poll in Delaware found her favorability rating at 23/33. It's now 29/50.

If Castle had won he would have received more Democratic support than any other Republican Senate candidate in the country. Now our polling suggests with O'Donnell's victory that Coons will win more Republicans than any other Democratic Senate candidate in the country. That's because of a general unwillingness to support O'Donnell from Castle's moderate base- folks from the centrist wing of the GOP are planning to support Coons 54-31. Overall he takes a full 25% of the GOP vote while also largely consolidating the Democratic base for a 72-13 lead on that front. He also has a narrow 42-36 advantage with independents, a group Democrats are losing with most everywhere else.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CAsterling

What exactly is a real Republican - not trying to be argumentative, I truely don't know how one is defined.

thanks

That's part of the joke .

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

(what do you think the Republican Party was in the 50s, 60s, and 70s?)

Similar to today, except back then RINO's were referred to as Rockefeller Republicans

[CAsterling]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

What do you believe America was intended to be? Is it not a place where people are free to do as much (or as little) as they desire?

Because if you think about it...in order for everybody to equally benefit from a form of government...they must all present the exact same value add. What if some citizens do not want to work as hard? Should they be forced to? Should they be rewarded for not working as hard? What if they can't?

America should be a land governed by people who work for the good of all its people (not just their friends, sycophants or the ones who can help pay to get them elected). I want my government to be planning for where this country is going in 10, 20, 50 and 100 years from now, and making sure the infastructure required is built whilst constantly adjusting and improving those plans based on how society changes, I don't want them worrying about how to improve their standing in the polls next week.

I would like a land free of religous bigotory (sp?), a place where opportunites are there for those who want them and where where each person is treated based on their merits.

It's not about how hard you work or how hard you want to work, its where you get the opportunity to work as hard as you want to rather than watching your jobs disappear or move overseas so a corporation can meet wall street earnings expectations.

Where your religon has no bearing on how you are treated, and where treating everybody fairly no matter what differences exist is the norm. I want people to care more about their neighbour than they do about how to scam a few extra bucks on their tax return.

I want America to be Utopian, and whilst I know it will never be that good, I still believe those that dedicate themselves to public service and get paid by the people should strive for perfection and continue to aim for a utopia to benefit future generations.

I want it all and I want it to happen here.....and sooner rather than later would be a bonus

Yes I know I want a lot, and will probably have to settle for a little, but why set the bar low just because that can be achieved when you will achieve more by aiming higher.......yes I'm an Idealist, but what the heck.

[JPhillips]

Wow. Maybe some of them they really do want to go back to 1860.

The National Federation of Republican Women (NFRW) held its annual fall Board of Directors meeting in Charleston, S.C. last weekend – a decision the organization is likely regretting after several controversial pictures from one of the meeting’s sponsored events began surfacing on the internet.

One of the pictures shows S.C. Senate President Glenn McConnell - who FITS readers will recall enjoys dressing up as a Confederate General – posing in his Rebel garb with a pair of African-Americans dressed in, um, “antebellum” attire.

The event in question – dubbed “The Southern Experience” – was held last Friday evening at the Country Club of Charleston. Hosted by the South Carolina Federation of Republican Women, it was included on the national conference’s official itinerary.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Similar to today, except back then RINO's were referred to as Rockefeller Republicans

Your delusions are incredible. Dwight Eisenhower was never considered a "Rockefeller Republican" but was probably the most admired Republican since Reagan came along. Nixon, of course, had loads of support until Watergate happened and his VP, Ford, were also not very big on the whole "any government regulation or taxes is socialism" meme.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Your delusions are incredible. Dwight Eisenhower was never considered a "Rockefeller Republican" but was probably the most admired Republican since Reagan came along. Nixon, of course, had loads of support until Watergate happened and his VP, Ford, were also not very big on the whole "any government regulation or taxes is socialism" meme.

You conveniently skip over Goldwater, and also ignore the earlier major foreign policy differences of Eisenhower & Taft which represented a schism of its own.

Of course that's okay, as you also skip over the reality that the party hasn't been what you're referring to in some 30 years, and that it seems reasonable to refer to the more modern composition of it when discussing it in current context (which is what I did) but hey, if that makes you happy then {shrug} by me.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Wow. Maybe some of them they really do want to go back to 1860.

At least they left the chains out of the pictures this year.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Wow. Maybe some of them they really do want to go back to 1860.

At least they had live music...

[flere-imsaho]

It's funny, after 2008 I really expected to see a civil war-style fight for the soul of the GOP. I didn't expect them to wait until the midterm elections to get started with it, however. Excellent timing, guys.

[JediKooter]

Too funny, the Glenn Beck Conspiracy Theory Generator:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...575%2C550%3A25

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You conveniently skip over Goldwater, and also ignore the earlier major foreign policy differences of Eisenhower & Taft which represented a schism of its own.

Of course that's okay, as you also skip over the reality that the party hasn't been what you're referring to in some 30 years, and that it seems reasonable to refer to the more modern composition of it when discussing it in current context (which is what I did) but hey, if that makes you happy then {shrug} by me.

You realize that Goldwater was someone who popped up because hardly anyone wanted to run against Johnson that soon after the death of Kennedy, right (Lodge won the primaries in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New Jersey before dropping out and Rockefeller was doomed because of personal scandels - adultery kills anyone)? And Goldwater got slaughtered to a pulp.

And heck, if you want to define the proper Republican party, then you interloapers should get out and form your own damned party & stop backing RINOs like O'Connell while disparaging true traditional Republicans like Castle.

And if you are going to bring up Goldwater as a traditional Republican in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, then I get to bring up George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain as true Republicans from 1980 until now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's funny, after 2008 I really expected to see a civil war-style fight for the soul of the GOP.

I think that was more of a (relatively) bloodless coup. This is more like the first round of taking out the trash.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Also, Barry Goldwater was pro-abortion and pro-gay rights and called Jerry Falwell a jackass when Falwell was at the height of his powers. He'd be called a RINO by Beck and Limbaugh too.

And Jon.

[cartman]

Nice quote from the head of the Delaware GOP:

"I could buy a parrot and train it to say, ‘tax cuts,’ but at the end of the day, it’s still a parrot, not a conservative."

[SirFozzie]

I agree with Jon about this being the first round of the trash being rounded up and taken out..

I just disagree what part of the R party is the trash.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by cartman

Nice quote from the head of the Delaware GOP:

"I could buy a parrot and train it to say, ‘tax cuts,’ but at the end of the day, it’s still a parrot, not a conservative."

Ah, but could you train a parrot to vote for TARP?

Checkmate.

[larrymcg421]

CNN/Time poll has Murray over Rossi 53-44. That's the second straight poll showing her with a 9pt advantage. Looks like one of the toss up states is swinging the Democrats way.

[RainMaker]

I know everyone likes to throw out the European socialist stuff, but are we really that different? There are things that they provide that we don't and vice versa. It just seems odd how we call European countries socialists and forget that most everything we use is socialized.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I know everyone likes to throw out the European socialist stuff, but are we really that different? There are things that they provide that we don't and vice versa. It just seems odd how we call European countries socialists and forget that most everything we use is socialized.

I won't get as much into the socialism as I will the police state aspect... seeing the "gotcha" camera mentality that is prevalent all over Europe (especially in London) catch on in the United States in the last 10 years is not promising. I know we can thank both Bush and Obama for this but that seems to be a much larger blow to freedom than socialized medicine or banking.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Well, the thing is, I can almost see the argument some European countries are socialist, but there is much hilarity in calling Obama a socialist.

Why?

Because the difference between the Bush 2008 budget that every Republican save maybe Ron Paul voted for and the Obama 2009 budget was a total of about 3% in total GDP as far as increased spending. Evidently, a shift that small in government spending sends us from a budget every Republican in office is happy to vote for to socialism.

Don't let the facts get in your way (first stimulus during W Bush)...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-101

145 GOP Nay, 45 GOP Yay

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

Senate:

NAYs ---25
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)



There are definitely plenty of big government Republicans but you are wrong when you claim there are only 1 or 2 fiscally conservative Republicans. I will give credit to Democrats who voted against this nonsense as well. (Though I think they did for other reasons)

[miked]

Man, I'm scared of the possibility of the GOP running the country if Sharron Angle is capable of winning in a general election. I watched her for a few minutes on the O'Putz factor last night and man, she is just terrible. Like scary stupid.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by miked

Man, I'm scared of the possibility of the GOP running the country if Sharron Angle is capable of winning in a general election. I watched her for a few minutes on the O'Putz factor last night and man, she is just terrible. Like scary stupid.

Seriously. My 15 year-old brother would make a better Senator than she would. He's certainly more intelligent.

The anti-intelligence backlash that this country (or at least parts of it) has is honestly...baffling to me. I seriously do not get it.

People wonder why America is a nation in decline - that's one good reason right there.

Is there anyone on this board who is willing to come out as one of those "anti-intelligence/anti-intellectual" folks? I'm honestly curious to try to find out what the deal is with that mindset.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Seriously. My 15 year-old brother would make a better Senator than she would. He's certainly more intelligent.

The anti-intelligence backlash that this country (or at least parts of it) has is honestly...baffling to me. I seriously do not get it.

People wonder why America is a nation in decline - that's one good reason right there.

Is there anyone on this board who is willing to come out as one of those "anti-intelligence/anti-intellectual" folks? I'm honestly curious to try to find out what the deal is with that mindset.

I am with you on the anti-intelligence stance the GOP has seemed to have for a while. (Though I won't pull a SteveBollea and claim all of the GOP are idiots) I can remember the 2008 Republican presidential primary debate where Ron Paul would state facts and history and the rest of the candidates would laugh and talk religion or in slogans. Ron Paul is the nut?

I will say this though about intellectuals. It is one thing to be smart and educated but when someone like Paul Krugman who was encouraging people to spend, buy houses, and spend more before the market crashed and then turns around and acts like he has a solution to the problem he helped create you have to laugh. Or the intellectual who thinks they know better than I do about what I should eat or if I can take drugs or knows better than all of the third world countries about how they should manage their affairs. That is when they overstep their bounds and no longer deserve respect for their "intelligence".

To answer your question though (after my normal off topic Libertarian rant ) I think the answer is religion. As long as we continue to respect people who take these holy texts literally (I always quote the percentage of Americans who believe in Noah's ark literally) we are going to be a country of idiots.

[flere-imsaho]

When I got my coffee this morning I noticed that right on the front page of USA Today is the phrase "Civil War in the GOP".

Delicious.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

To answer your question though (after my normal off topic Libertarian rant ) I think the answer is religion. As long as we continue to respect people who take these holy texts literally (I always quote the percentage of Americans who believe in Noah's ark literally) we are going to be a country of idiots.

True.

It's fucked up though. I mean...even the Pope comes out and says that evolution is legit, and yet people still wander around out there thinking that Flintstones was a reality, or that humans have only been around 10,000 years, or whatever the number is.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I dislike it when someone acts as if studying something in college means their opinion on that subject is gold and not up for debate.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I dislike it when someone acts as if studying something in college means their opinion on that subject is gold and not up for debate.

I dislike that too. Of course it's up for debate.

I have just come to the conclusion though that you can't have a rational debate with someone who refuses to acknowledge basic facts. And I'm not talking (D) or (R) "facts." I'm talking...science.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

True.

It's fucked up though. I mean...even the Pope comes out and says that evolution is legit, and yet people still wander around out there thinking that Flintstones was a reality, or that humans have only been around 10,000 years, or whatever the number is.

It all comes down to repsecting ignorance. I think pretty much every ancient history course studies Thor but they never take it a step farthur to exlplain that this God that nobody believes in anymore is what Jesus will be in the future. Something simple like that might take the 70% of people who believe in Noah's Ark literally number down a few notches.