They are worse than ever:
They are also on about abortion like never before.
They have been doing this a long time now.
But again I ask, Lobohan’s point revolved around him reaching for the “but people are stupid” excuse for which **Gigo ** pondered why would he have to be reaching for that excuse and here we are with you defending the using of the ‘stupid people’ excuse.
You can keep digging if you like but the message is clear America!
You are too stoopid to use your own brains, we (the left) will swoop in and save you from your own stupidity!
From your Southern Strategy cite :
Bob Herbert, a New York Times columnist, reported a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater, published in Southern Politics in the 1990s by Prof. Alexander P. Lamis, in which Lee Atwater discussed politics in the South:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger”.[5]*
Lee Atwater, for those who don’t know, was the Karl Rove of the 1960s/70s GOP party.
I am not concerned with “saving” them.
I merely think they should not have a seat at the table when policy is being negotiated. That is not to say conservatives should not be allowed at the table. Having a mix of ideas is generally a good thing. But the rules of evidence should be adhered to. If one side keeps insisting that the health care reform is really a means to kill grandma then they should be told to fuck off and leave the negotiations to the adults who care about facts.
Well, I was making the point that the OP was excluding a big middle, but that does not mean that there is a chunk that is deluded or crazy. (This goes also for the extreme left BTW)
This was explained half in jest by these guys first:
Just as it is not good to exclude the middle that is not crazy or dumb, it is not good to assume that there is no crazy element present.
The point being that with a 27 percent unmovable base. the Repubs only need 24 percent to win. There is nothing the Dems can do to reach the base. We have them on this board and they are obdurate. So the policy of getting gun lovers, anti abortionists, and the religious right works because they don’t have that much work to do.
I happen to agree with you on this point but realize that while both sides have their crazy, the right does a much better job at getting their points across (talking points) so while the Dem’s focus is on ‘getting the facts right’ they are getting demolished in the communication arena.
Even on this board there is more crazy left than crazy right (might be the population of left vs right skewing things though)
Reality is not easily reduced to a bumper sticker. Conservatives live in a bumper sticker world, and anything more nuanced upsets them. So long as Democrats have this crazy hang up with logic, reason and critical thinking, they will never reach the fraction of the voters that value none of those.
Please don’t misrepresent what I said. You appear to have misunderstood it.
Republicans use lies and misinformation as a core messaging tool. Rather than have a debate about what to do about climate change, they simply lie and say it isn’t happening.
People who believe these lies aren’t necessarily stupid. They have simply been lied to by someone they trust. If someone you believe in tells you that climate change is a fraud, you would likely believe them if you didn’t have the information to refute it handy.
The left are the only ones offering real solutions. Right now, the right are (often) offering ideological solutions to problems, regardless of how things work in reality.
Again, people believe in nonsense because they are ignorant. Not because they’re stupid. You do understand there is a difference, right?
The right-wing crazies are actually in congress (bolding below is mine).
If you want I can provide cites of members of congress repeating the Birther line and the Death Panel line and pronouncements about the “Gay Agenda” and Obama is a socialist and so on.
Can you provide similar craziness from democratic members of congress in anything like the numbers we see it from republicans?
Well, the crazy Democrats don’t seem to grasp what a dreadful threat from Shaira law. That’s pretty nuts!
Yeah, and they seem to actually believe all that silly “climate change” and “evolution” nonsense those clueless scientist types are always going on about. Crazy!
Wow. I don’t think I have ever seen so many incorrect statements in a single post before. That’s got to be a new board record.
Care to explain which ones are incorrect? The right wing does, in fact, appeal to single-issue voters including all the ones listed above. And single-issue voters are prone to putting their cause du jour ahead of their own general welfare (although admittedly they may not see it that way). Moreover, Fox and talk radio are notorious for their right-wing bias and “preaching to the choir”. They do tend to paint their talking points with a psuedo-intellectual gloss, and override any actual intellectual attempt at discussion. I don’t know about controlling guests on *all *Sunday morning political shows…that might be stretching it a bit.
So I say again…which record-setting incorrect points are you referring to?
SS
Using Fox for a standard. I am sure you think you have an understanding. I have seen figures of right wingers on Sunday morning political shows. I made up nothing.
Trying to split hairs over the difference between “federal programs” and “social programs” doesn’t solve your problem. I responded to your OP by pointing out that, by and large, the federal government has chosen spending that benefits rich, white guys much more than spending that would benefit blacks or the poor. Now you say that much of the spending in question isn’t on social programs. So what? Why would any voter vote based on solely spending on social programs while ignoring all other federal spending? The bottom line is that most federal spending the Republican demographic of rich white guys while not benefiting, and in some cases actively harming, the Democratic demographic of blacks and the poor. Finding a single category within the federal budget in which that isn’t true doesn’t change the fact.
I always have to laugh (after I cry) when republicans say they are in favor of “smaller government.” What they really need to say is they are in favor of small government policies when it comes to tax breaks, lobbyists, and anything in favor of the rich.
Because they’re happy to spend countless dollars all over the country to implement draconian laws regarding abortion, and even basic reproductive health care. And they’ve not only fought against gay marriage, but many of them want to change the constitution to make sure it’s forever illegal. I don’t call that smaller government. Ditto with the “war on drugs,” and the incarceration of thousands of non-violent offenders. They could decriminalize marijuana and save a hell of a lot of resources, but I don’t see republicans fighting for that. In fact, they seem to want to make more things illegal, and see more people behind bars.
I’ll never be able to get my head around this sort of hypocrisy and inconsistency. I’m not saying democrats are perfect, but they aren’t trying to pull the rug out from under your feet. The whole republican plan to de-fund Planned Parenthood, while continuing to give government money to people like wanna be president Michelle Bachmann’s husband’s anti-gay brainwashing “counseling” center, is about as hypocritical as it gets. And that’s not even getting into how many of them want to use their religion to make laws for the rest of us. It’s craziness.
And the discussion of people voting against their own interests made me think of this article:
http://alstefanelli.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/about-people-who-vote-against-their-own-interests/
OMG might not want to believe that this is the true reason so many middle class people vote republican, but I’ve known so many people who use this reasoning, and it’s a powerful thing indeed.
Actually, the new crop of ‘Tea Party’ Republicans are also against corporate handouts and subsidies. Tim Pawlenty went to Iowa and told the crowd that ethanol subsidies are a bad idea. That took some guts.
But you’re right that the majority of the Republicans currently in the federal government are resistant to any change in tax law that raises revenue, even if it’s change that levels the playing field or ends unwarranted subsidies. And for that, they’re wrong.
There’s a very large fight going on within the Republican party between the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives. There’s a third group who is socially conservative but recognizes that fiscal issues matter the most and social conservative issues should be de-politicized in the interests of growing a coalition to fight bigger government. I don’t know which side is going to win yet. I think the fiscal conservatives and the libertarians are on the upswing at the moment, but there are a lot of big players in the social conservative movement who have a lot of clout. We’ll see.
Actually, I don’t think the war on drugs is a partisan issue any more. There’s just as big a faction on the right that wants drugs legalized as there is on the left, and there are plenty of drug warriors in the Democrat ranks. Barack Obama, for instance, whose Justice Department has stepped up raids on medical marijuana users and refuses to recognize state laws legalizing marijuana.
The National Review, which is probably the biggest and most influential ‘conservative’ magazine, has had an editorial stance calling for drug legalization for 15 years. And of course, the Libertarian right is for drug legalization as well (and for gay marriage and legal abortion).
On the other hand, if you think people have a right to use drugs if they see fit, how do you justify the FDA’s control of the prescription drug market? Don’t I have just as much right to take an experimental drug for my cancer as I do to smoke weed for my Glaucoma?
Unless you do any of the things THEY don’t like. Both sides are hypocritical. Both are trying to exert control over the public. They just choose different areas in which to do it. Michelle Bachmann doesn’t want gays to marry. Michael Bloomberg doesn’t want to allow you the choice of whether you want trans-fats in your diet. Republicans don’t want you to have an abortion, and Democrats don’t want to allow you to hire non-union workers or have a choice in what school your kid goes to.
That article is a bigoted smear written by someone who doesn’t understand what the true self-interest of the right is. For many of us, it’s not about seeing how big a slice of the pie we can extract from the government. My self-interest lies in making sure that freedom from government interference in our lives is maximized and that my daughter grows up in a country where she doesn’t have to get approval from a government flunkey before she blows her nose, in exchange for being given unearned financial security.
The comparison of the right to Nazi Germany is particularly offensive and ignorant. The National Socialists came to power promising big government fixes to social ills and a social safety net. They promised good wages for all, free public education, and all the goodies of the modern welfare state, if only the people would give them more economic and political power.
The people rioting in Greece and Britain are rioting for more government services. The Tea Party is marching for smaller government and more personal autonomy. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which ones are more likely to sign away their rights for more economic security and lead to authoritarianism.
Of course you do. You also have the right to know that the drug you’ve been prescribed is actually the drug your doctor wants you to take, and that the company that made the drug accurately reported the possible side-effects.
This is typical of left-wing thinking. You just invented a ‘right to know’, which actually isn’t a right but a restriction on my rights. My ‘right to know what’s in the drug I take’ is actually my lack of a right to take the drug until YOU have decided that I have the information I need.
If I truly have a right to take that drug, then I have the right to take it whether or not you think it’s a good idea, or whether or not you think the company that made it jumped through the right hoops.
As for my right to not take the drug unless I know what’s in it - I still retain that right. I can choose not to take it if I’m not satisfied that I have the information needed to do it safety. And if I feel I’m not qualified to judge, I have the right to seek out the advice of a doctor, or perhaps look to an agency like Consumer Reports to advise me.
Let me ask you - should pot be legalized? And if it is, should marijuana have to go through the same process? Should there be government regulators inspecting pot farms? Should it be kept off the market for 10 years while the EPA demands for safety and efficacy tests be done? Or would you just legalize it and let people simply buy it from local growers or grow it themselves?
If the latter, then I would suggest that you’re the one not being consistent. What if the growers spray it with pesticide? Who is going to ensure quality? What if unscrupulous operators start selling crappy ditch-weed instead of righteous bud? Don’t consumers have a right to be protected?
By the way, if any of you smoke pot, can you tell me if the quality of it has gotten better or worse over the years? Do you know anyone who has died from poisoned pot? If not, how do you reconcile that quality and safety with the fact that it’s completely unregulated? Hell, it’s even got very weak market regulation, because the illegal nature of it means it gets sold by fly-by-night dealers and people not trying to build a reputation as quality growers and sellers, because they can’t publicize their quality. If it’s pretty good now, wouldn’t it get even better once it was legal and people could gain market advantage by improving quality?
I’ve known pot smokers all my life, and what I hear from them is that the quality of pot has improved over the years, and the consistency is very good. And I’ve never heard of anyone being poisoned by tainted pot - except in the 70’s, when the government intentional sprayed Malathion on it in an attempt to disrupt the market by injecting uncertainty about quality and safety.