Again, show me where I agreed with this assertion.
It’s true that the OP did not have a thesis. But you weren’t responding to the OP. You were responding to a quote in the OP, to which Tooth responded, to which I responded. That we’re in this thread at all is apparently happenstance.
This is a message board. Nothing much is required.
It’s a statement of fact. You’re implying that I agree with the assertion. What I expected was either silence, since no one wanted to take the time to find a counterexample, or a post with links to perfectly reasonable statements, additional Pitting vitriol optional. simple dismissal does nothing for me. Genuine counterexamples are interesting.
I don’t know who you’re talking about here. It sure isn’t me.
No, she’s just the only person anyone’s ever heard of to say it. And idiots pick up on the story, and mangle it, and misatttribute it, and get it ass-backwards, and then argue about it online. You’re talking out of your ass, not for the first time, and someone other than me will have to spend his time explaining to you why you’re as determinedly stupid as you are. I’ll just assert for the last time that you definitely are too stupid for me to argue with, and that’s saying quite a lot about the depths of your stupidity. I’ve argued with REALLY thick people before, but you’re too much for me.
I don’t know anything about that, but the link has a video of Rand Paul talking about NDAA and SOPA and making perfect sense on both counts. Not a huge fan of his but it’s a case where he was one of few people talking sense on both issues. He’s certainly not wrong because the video is embedded on a site run by people with kooky bumper stickers.
Google it. First page, Pauline Kael. Google is your friend. Well, mine. Maybe not so much yours, being about facts, and stuff.
[/QUOTE]
Am I the only person for whom it appears that elucidator replied to this post before Terr made it?
Seriously, are there people here who don’t think the right has pandered to the uneducated? Death panels, Obama’s birth certificate, “honest rape,” etc. “Global warming scam.” Obama wants to kill disabled children and bring back slavery. Book banning and state rape.
I know, I know, “not us, you! you’re only saying that because you disagree with us! you’re partisan!” That’s just more of the deflection and blame-cycling away from the reflection that would end the stupidity.
Self-identified Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats to have 4-year college degrees. The trends for the years 1955 through 2004 are shown by gender in the graphs below, reproduced from a book published by Joseph Fried.[
Regarding graduate-level degrees (masters or doctorate), there is a rough parity between Democrats and Republicans. According to the Gallup Organization: “**oth Democrats and Republicans have equal numbers of Americans at the upper end of the educational spectrum — that is, with post graduate degrees…”
The answer is of course Republicans pander to the uneducated. They are a huge proportion of the voters and historically have been very effectively pandered to by Democrats and vote for Democrats more than for Republicans.
Well, I see two options. One, ask yourself why you are a Republican, especially if your relevant criteria are loving your family, working hard and trying to help other people when you can.
Or two, be a whiny bitch when general criticisms are directed at a group you consider yourself to be affiliated with for some unspecified reason.
Who started the interstate system? I don’t get your point. Ron Paul wants us back on the gold standard. The EPA and international dialogue are both considered near treasonous to the contemporary GOP.
I guess I don’t consider Goldwater, Eisenhower or Nixon to be the GOP (despite them being so). Goldwater hated the contemporary GOP and was going to co-write a book with John Dean condemning them before he died. Eisenhower said of people who subscribe to contemporary GOP philosophy ‘their number is negligible and they are stupid’. Coulter denounced Nixon as a liberal.
Maybe I misspoke in my earlier post. The GOP presidents had some good ideas in the past. But those ideas came from people who hated and feared the troglodytes who have taken over the party now.
FWIW, even Bush had some good ideas. The second chance act and the malaria/hiv/tb initiative in Africa were both good accomplishments. Maybe I am just exposing myself to the most dogmatic GOPers both in person and via the media.
Keep in mind that the Democrat vanguard consisted of Theodore G. Bilbo and Robert Byrd. The Free Soil Party may have been better, but Lincoln was also of the opinion that wage labour wasn’t the ideal to which those seeking to abolish slavery should strive.
There are big differences between the taxed-too-much educated anti-union pro-business country club cocktail party Republicans, the war hawk big military neo-con Republicans, the small government leave-me-alone libertarian paleoconservative log cabin Republicans, and the social conservative homophobic hayseed pro-life vaginae-should-be-sewn-shut-until-marriage gynecology-should-be-regulated education-makes-people-stupid-and-liberal Palin-loving economy-is-bad-because-people-have-sex-before-marriage-and-lack-Christian-morals Republicans. The TEA Party seems to be a mix of the taxed-enough-already crowd that started the tea-bagger movement and the social conservatives who commandeered the movement.
There are some overlaps among these general factions, but the social conservatives are the most vocal and fervent. They threaten to defeat (with success in some cases) GOP politicians during recent past primary elections and future primary elections. The cocktail party GOPers hold their noses and tolerate the right wingers for the sake of votes. The Rovian neo-cons will attack the Dems as anti-American and tell lies to the far right as long as it helps voter turnout and helps win elections.
Prominent right wing evangelical types (Falwell, etc) embraced Reagan during his 1980 candidacy and presidency, and the GOP has pandered to that crowd to varying extents ever since. Gingrich really pushed for party purity and an attitude of no compromising with the enemies, Democrats. Limbaugh, Fox News, Drudge, and others have been very influential the past 15 to 20 years. There was a lot of right wing backlash against JFK and Clinton after their respective elections, but the election of Obama more vigorously stirred up the zany elements of the right wing. I’ve lost count of the number of right wingers I’ve heard say that Obama is the anti-christ
Nixon and Eisenhower would be left wing pinko-commie pro-union treehuggers from the perspective of some of today’s GOP politicians and voters.
Funny, you don’t hear the GOP talk about Bush a whole lot these days.
The DC Democrats have some lousy policies and positions IMO but at least they don’t try to embrace insanity and extremism.