The fact that they think we’re crazy proves the point. Your grandchildren will hear of freedom in whispers, from wildmen whom their leaders have declared insane.
OK, this is a possibility. So he let some Rep senator boost his standing wth the working man, reducing the dem chances of regaining the senate so he could campaign?
So then we have this:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/kerry.senate.vote/
How is this serving his constituents? By not being there on their behalf? Giving them no voice or representation? Say what you will about Bob Dole, he realized you can’t serve your constituents well if you miss 80% of the vote. An executive (governors, too - W and BC get a pass) can do at least some work from almost anywhere, but legislators have to be there. Heck, some even still run for the Senate while they run for VP? You should be limited to ONE run for office on the ballot at a time. I didn’t vote for Dole, but I like the way he handled this.
Possibly Kerry fears a Rep will be appointed to his seat if he resigns. If so, say it. And rule that appointees to national office, if not scheduled to stand for re-election within 1 year, will have a special election 6 months after they are installed. (if a senator dies or resigns 6 months into a 6 year term, you shouldn’t be stuck with his replacement for 5 1/2 years)
By that token, Bush should either resign the Presidency so he can concentrate full-time on campaigning, or else withdraw from re-election so he can concentrate on being President.
You couldn’t be more transparent.
Somebody should tell that to the fucking Times. Who was it that said they should change the name of their paper to Senior Officials Say?
wring, can we agree that no, not every single one of the people supporting the Republican polemic industry is doing it out of a strict one-to-one conformance with every single opinion expressed therein, but that it’s probably safe to say that most of the people buying the books and listening to the radio shows are sympathetic to the views they’re paying for/spending time listening to? Is that such an outrageous assertion? That if you listen to Limbaugh and buy Hannity’s and Coulter’s books, chances are you’re exactly the sort of idiot we’re talking about?
And again, like Evil Captor’s saying: the Southern Strategy, the aforementioned polemic industry, the Religious Right–can we all join hands and get together and agree that the GOP consciously and purposefully (and obviously) panders to the idiots? Can we further agree that this does not mean you have to be an idiot to be a Republican?
I’m transparent? You looked right thru
where I distinguished between executive branch and legislative branch. Also note, I gave Bill Clinton (BC) a pass. Presidents can get some work in where they are - abroad, Camp David, Texas, Martha’s Vineyard, wherever. They do not have quorums (quora?) or votes.
If I were spouting right-wing ideology, would I be giving **BILL CLINTON ** a pass? We know how much he is loved by the far right…
Your token, on closer examination, is a worthless slug.
No real distinction exists for purposes of this discussion. You think members of Congress have nothing to do but sit around waiting for voting time? No committee work, no constituent services, no fundraising, no speeches? Voting is almost the *least * time-consuming of their duties, and it’s even delegatable normally. When the political spotlight isn’t on, many or even most votes are cast by proxy.
You might well be, if it were necessary to support your predetermined condemnation of a Democrat. Ya know, that’s an interesting twist - your view of those you are accustomed to thinking of as your enemy is so shallowly simpleminded that you think *their * view of *you * must be even *more * shallowly simpleminded.
Stay in school, kid. You have a lot to learn.
Cite? Most votes are by proxy? In full session?
If you look above, I said:
I shifted to the latest Dem when Apos asked:
** Apos ** did not ask about Bush. I chose Kerry, as he is currently running.
I graduated. May I suggest you take a course in reading? You seem to miss a lot. Selective viewing? And unless you can back your proxy remark, you need a brushup in Civics or governmental procedures.
actually, if you look back, my main point was/has been/always is: there seem to be no shortage of idiots in every large group. That making a statement like “why are there so many in that group” includes an assumption about relative frequency (relative both to the population at large and to within the group). when making statements like that (as the op did), one needs to be able to defend it. Data is not the plural form of the word “anectdote”.
I believe (personally) that Rush et al espouse some pretty idiotic things, but not everything they say is idiotic, and one cannot assume that the greater majority of folks who are their fans are supporters of the idiotic portions there of. Rush, in particular is an ‘Entertainer’. just as I wouldn’t presume that all of Andrew Dice Clay’s fans really took his shit seriously, or that fans of Mel Gibson also believe his own forays into semi lunacy, I don’t presume that all those who enjoy Rush et al believe all of his b/s, or that folks who are left leaning believe that Michael Moore speaks nuttin but the truth.
and sympathetic to the view does not equal “falls for and agrees hook line and sinker”. I’m sympathetic to Moore’s position of “ban Bush”, but that doesn’t mean at all that I believe everything he puts out.
all I"ve ever attempted here was to (at first) try and point out to the OP that perhaps that brush he was using was a tad on the broad side and that if he wanted to be taken seriously, maybe a re-thinking of his position was in order.
Instead, he’s responded w/names and all, additional cites detailing how many people bought Ann’s book, additional quotes from individual idiots etc.
I’m certain that the Republican party has deliberatly sought out support from the conservative church going public, but hell - ‘conservative’ is where they’re at (‘they’ meaning the republican party). I don’t assume that because some one is conservative or goes to church that a correlation between that and lack of knowledge occurs. There’s any number of conservative folk here, who have some level of religion and they ain’t all knuckle dragging morons. well maybe one or two (I kid, I kid). and therefore, I don’t believe that the republican has deliberately sought out idiots as their party base.
and every single goddam time a liberal posts this sort of lazy thinking knee jerk bullshit, the thinking conservatives and the middle of the roaders can all roll their eyes again and quote Reagan “there you go again”.
and it hurts my message, being a liberal but not a fucking lunatic [sup]tm[/sup]
anyhow, I attempted to get the op to see that his position was less than logical. At this point, I’m content to put him in the same category of those other shit stirrers who have nothing more interesting to contribute than stuff we can point at and laugh.
Well said. Calm, rational, reasonable speech. I think the loonies on both sides embarrass people who could otherwise have civilized disagreement. You seem more contemptuous of people whose views are closer to yours than others you respect more.
Perhaps not part of the Democratic platform . . . yet, but here’s a very high profile group which advocates a total ban on handguns. This website is property of the Violence Policy Center (also known as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence which is officially linked to the Million Mom March - each of these three groups parrots one another’s policies):
http://www.banhandgunsnow.org/
And there’s the statement of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), on CBS’s 60 Minutes: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.”
What is loony and irrational about the following?
And before I forget, here are some other indications of the kind of people whose vote the Republicans are trying to get
- Bush attacks Kerry as being a “flip-flopper”
- Bush attacks Kerry as being “pessimistic”
- Bush attacks Kerry for being rich and yet speaking for the common man
Cite you say? Here
Ohhh, he’s a “flip-flopper”, what sophisticated rhetoric!
And, ohmygod!, he’s a “pessimist”, let’s stay away from that!
And, let’s not forget, Bush is not rich, he *really is * one of us, a common man :rolleyes:
Who else would these attacks be targeted to, but the less-than-brilliant among us?
Ah, lurkernomore, it seems you do think Senators do nothing but vote, that being the only point you’re contesting. We can take the rest of that spluttering as a concession that the ability to take time from executive and legislative jobs is equivalent, and that your original claim is as transparent as I said.
Here’s your sign.
Yes, repeat no.
Yes, these ploys play to biases. But intelligent people are just as likely to harbor such biases as unintelligent people, an appeal to bias is not as effective, perhaps, but still worth the trouble. I know a quite intelligent man who throbs inside when he sees that crapola about GeeDubya clearing brush. He can’t help it, he’s prejudiced in favor of “old-fashioned” values, what he imagines to be “heartland” wholesomeness, even though he knows that GeeDubya is as much a rancher as I am a neurosurgeon.
No comprende
I don’t think they are ‘just as likely’.
Actually, I have a general question. How intelligent can a person be if he harbors a couple of obviously stupid ideas? How should we classify a person if they are generally intelligent in most aspects, except of a couple of very stupid ideas they have? I agree this happens. Shouldn’t there be a ‘weakest link’ type of approach?
That is, shouldn’t you be considered as intelligent as your least intelligent beliefs/ideas?
On a related note, many racists are “good people” in all aspects of their life (towards their family, friends and neighbors). But, when it comes to the race they hate, they become very hostile and possibly dangerous. How “good” is this person? Shouldn’t you be considered as good as your least good attitude towards humans?
This is a bit of an aside, but it has puzzled me for a while how someone can be so “good natured” with their friends, family and even strangers from their “preferred race/group”, while having deep hatred and even a mean streak towards their non-preferred race/group. Anyway, this is most likely easily explained by anthropologists/psychologists.
Right. And Polerius’ OP was basically one anecdote, and it’s totally fair to ask that, if someone’s going to go tossing around thread titles like this one, they provide a little more meat to their assertions. Which Polerius has stuck around to attempt to do, so score one for the edifying process of debate.
Now, my main point is that I don’t buy your main point. Yeah, there is of course going to be some population of idiots in any large group, especially if you’re talking about the only two major political parties in a country of 290 million people. But I’m saying it’s totally reasonable to assert that there is a relatively higher frequency of idiots in the GOP, because again, the Republican party actively courts the idiot vote. I’m saying that possibly since Nixon took over the racists from the Democrats with the Southern Strategy, and definitely since the ascendence of the Republican polemic industry and the Religious Right (see clarification on the RR below), the Republican party maybe hasn’t cornered the market on idiots, but they’ve got the majority of 'em.
Okay, sure, he’s an entertainer. But he’s a totally different kind of entertainer than Mel Gibson or Andrew Dice Clay, because his entire shtick is to talk about the stupidity, the venality, the treasonous anti-Americanness of half the fucking electorate, with no particular allegiance to fairness, truth, or even simple decency. There is a difference between buying a ticket to see a misogynist stand-up comedian, or a fiction movie like The Passion, and allying oneself with a guy who makes his living in a democracy demonizing–not disagreeing with, not spiritedly debating with, not angrily contesting the views of, demonizing–anyone who disagrees with him politcally. Which, again, is at least half the people in the goddamn country. Jew-baiting masochist porn and profane nursery rhymes rarely get translated into legislation or policy; political views do. So yeah, I’m going to say that if you’re sympathetic to Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Savage, and all the rest of the shitstains who make money by holding forth on how “liberals” aren’t just wrong, they’re bad people, you’re probably an idiot. Not to mention an asshole.
Also, I don’t know that I’m willing to stipulate that fans of Andrew Dice Clay aren’t usually idiots, either.
There’s one Michael Moore. There’s a damn battalion of Republican polemicists, writing books, ranting on the radio, and occupying the opinion shows of various cable news channels. Again, advantage: Republicans. And as I said above, the Republican “entertainers” have as their core message the evil of liberals, while Moore seems mostly to be about the evil of oligarchs. I draw a distinction between going after an administration or business you deplore and going after the entire population of the other side.
I’m not talking about people who are religious and conservative. I’m talking about the Religious Right. Pat Robertson, Rick Santorum, the leadership of the Southern Baptist Church. Those who want to legislate their (vile) idea of theology, and to whom the Republican party panders with hateful shit like the Federal Marriage Amendment. Those who are too stupid to comprehend the idea of a secular government.
Of course you’re not a fucking lunatic. Why should you have to prove that you’re not a fucking lunatic? Jesus Christ, why would you want to dignify kind of bad faith that would cause someone to enter into a debate assuming that any liberal must be a fucking lunatic?
Of course there is.
That’s the half that voted for Gore. The fact that they couldn’t figure out how to make holes in a piece of paper shows that they never got beyond “cutting with scissors” in kindergarten.
QED.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually, Shodan, that would be slightly more than half. I wouldn’t bring it up if I didn’t know how important a strict adherence to fact is to you. Just to clarify: more people voted for Algore than GeeDubya. About half a million, IIRC. More. Voted for Gore. Against Bush. Didn’t want Bush. Wanted Gore.
Wouldn’t have mentioned it, except for knowing what a stickler for accuracy you are.
I concede nothing.
I ask for a cite on something you assert as a fact, that most votes are made by proxy.
I take this as your inability to provide a cite for a “fact” which you made up and which is totally wrong. Your ignorance is thus demonstrated.
I doubt much constituent service is done outside DC or his state either. Some? Yes. What time is he spending doing constituent service? Meeting in commitee?
If the Senate or Congress can do all their work on the road, why do they even have meetings?
Can you provide your cite?
Didn’t think so.
Two friggin’ seconds on Google, mouthbreather.
Having abandoned all your previous claimed points, your count now stands at zero. Go back to lurking - you’re not ready for this board yet.