[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 27°F  
Dense Fog Advisory
Saturday, Nov. 22, 2014

The Party of Fear

Posted Saturday, February 25, 2012, at 11:01 AM

If the Republican Primary has taught us anything so far is that the candidates and the party at large still believe that they win elections simply by scaring people into voting for them.

One of the main reasons that Barack Obama won the Presidency in 2008 was the idea that his campaign was about hope for the future and putting the country back on track while McCain's campaign was about scaring people about what would happen if they did not vote for him.

The Republican Party has long ran on this mode but they have ramped it up since 9/11 and are going full bore this year.

One candidate has apparently decided to play his full hand at scaring people and that is Rick Santorum. The man has a horrible vision for America if they do not vote for him. He has apparently decided that if Americans vote for anyone other than him than the United States is headed for a fate worse than death. Hardly a day goes by without some outrageous quote coming from him mouth.

He routinely puts the full blame on Obama, naturally. He even questions the President's religious views (mostly because he does not believe that Obama's beliefs are Santorum's) and if he were questioning Obama's views as simply being different than his he may have a pretty good point but Santorum question's whether Obama is even a Christian. We do have something in the country that we like to call Religious freedom. Santorum apparently only believes that it applies to who he considers to be Christian if he thinks that his beliefs of Obama's faith should disqualify him from being president.

Yet that is not even the worst that Mr. Santorum has said in the last few days about America.

Just this past week he said that if Obama were reelected president that the United States would lose it's "very essence".

When he was asked to clarify his statement he responded with this very odd and vague statement:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That idea that we are free people and that government is limited to protect those rights -- that's what the Constitution is there for, to protect those rights."

In attempting to clarify his statements even further (which he did not) he took a very strange swipe at the French, after all everyone loves to hate the French.

http://thehill.com/video/campaign/212421...

Let us go ahead and skip past Santorum's noted ignorance of American history in his statement where he combines the first part of the Declaration of Indenpendence and parts of the Constitution and just called the whole thing as part of the Constitution. Let us instead focus on his assistance that the Constitution is there to protect our rights but never actually says what rights Obama is not protecting or ignoring right now. Since Santorum brought up the Constition and protecting rights let us take a look at his record as a Congressman. He voted for Defense of Marriage Act which took rights away from gays and lesbians. He voted for the creation of Homeland Security which allows the government to spy on Americans.

While I was reading the above article for this blog I noticed a rather striking comment made by Mr. Santorum and his complaints about the media not doing what he wants them to do.

"They are trying to spin a narrative. They don't want talk about Obama's record of jobs. They don't want to talk about what he's doing to destroy the fiscal condition of this country. They don't want to talk about his record of destroying every alliance we have in the world, while at the same time trying to appease every enemy in the world."

I am going to break down this long quote into bullet points in order to answer Mr. Santorum:

"They don't want to talk about Obama's record of jobs." - That actually should please Mr. Santorum because if the media actually talked about Obama's job record it would that much harder for Santorum or any Republican to beat Obama. In the last year alone job creation has gone up every month. Obama has already created more jobs in four years than his predecessor did in eight.

"They don't want to talk about what he's doing to destroy the fiscal condition of this country." - this statement is rather vague as Santorum does not elaborate on what he actually means. If left alone over the next decade the debt this country currently has will be almost completely wiped out. If Republicans get their way and repeal Obama's very Republican Health Care Law it will cost the United States money.

"They don't want to talk about his record of destroying every alliance we have in the world, while at the same time trying to appease every enemy in the world." - This is just a straight out lie but since Santorum is supposedly such a Godly man I guess it's okay for him to lie. Our allies are more supportive of our foreign policy than they ever were under Obama's predecessor. Republicans are very vague on their meaning when they talk about appeasement. They have to be because remember they are just trying to scare people into voting for them.

That is the key for the Republican Party this election cycle try to scare people into submission and voting for them while at the same time being very vague about those reasons.

I question Santorum's true religious beliefs. He often quotes the Bible and points to his faith but in my eyes he is not a Godly man because he just can not tell the truth to save his life. He makes up issues to blame on Obama or anyone not like him. I question anyone's faith that continuously and knowingly lie. Do I think his faith disqualifies him for the office of the President? No, but his lying certainly does not help.

Just as an aside I had to chuckle this week when Republicans went apocalyptic over rising gas prices this week. Remember this special brand of Republican will take any and all opportunities to blame Obama. As it was noted here several months ago by a poster who is either a Republican or Libertarian speculators are the chief cause of rising gas prices and that is why he predicted when Obama opened up the nation's emergency reserve to lower gas prices why it would not work.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

"Let us go ahead and skip past Santorum's noted ignorance of American history in his statement where he combines the first part of the Declaration of Indenpendence and parts of the Constitution and just called the whole thing as part of the Constitution. Let us instead focus on his assistance that the Constitution is there to protect our rights but never actually says what rights Obama is not protecting or ignoring right now."

I guess I know enough of history to not conflate two documents the way you do. He didn't say the first line was from the Constitution as you attribute to him. He said the Constitution exists to protect rights. Do you not think that is its purpose? If not what is the purpose? It seems you are trying very hard to turn someone's words into something they didn't say.

You further go on to criticize his voting "against rights". What part of the Constitution are you claiming protects the right to marry?

So if Santorum is evil for voting for Homeland Security, is Obama evil for using its power?

Finally what help, or assistance if you prefer, is he providing to the Constitution that you are complaining of?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sat, Feb 25, 2012, at 11:26 AM

Mike, one and all, you might wish to go to this site, and decide for yourselves if there is a potential for concern:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3aCfR8rm...

A good History teacher should be able to search out the truth of these considerations. A thought.

-- Posted by Navyblue on Sat, Feb 25, 2012, at 1:45 PM

That is pure absurdity Navyblue, sorry to say.

Obama's citizenship has been proven. He was born on US soil, therefore, he is a citizen. That is the way the Constitution works. Although, Republicans have tried to change the Constitution as well in order to get Schwarzenegger a shot at the WH. More recently, Republicans have been clamoring about amending the citizenship sections of Constitution to prevent what they pejoratively refer to as "anchor babies."

Regardless, Obama's citizenship has been demonstrated over and over again. It is a non-issue.

Conspiracy theories are fun though, I admit.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Feb 25, 2012, at 2:08 PM

Welcome back, Benevolus. I expected your return, as I doubted you were "done". Same as Michael.

Michael says about Santorum, "He routinely puts the full blame on Obama, naturally."

Michael also says, "Obama has already created more jobs in four years than his predecessor did in eight."

Does the president ever create jobs? I had the impression that the private sector created jobs, while the government merely fed off that sector through taxes. Even if you think the government hiring people equals job creation, there are fewer people working for the federal government now than when Obama was elected.

Full blame or full credit. Both are wrong in my opinion.

Fear is relative. If you fear the things Obama has done and is trying to do, then it's legitimate. If you don't fear those things then somebody like Santorum can't make you afraid, I don't believe. So Michael is not afraid of Obama and his policies, and thus, he ridicules those who are.

We all fear something, Michael. Even you. I think you fear being wrong. You certainly explode when anyone says you are.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Sat, Feb 25, 2012, at 7:46 PM

John,

"With regard to debating an individual poster's hypocrisy/fairness/etc (including my own), to quote Michael: "I'm done.""

I assume you are referring to the above...

If you bother to read the words, I never said I was done posting. I said I was no longer going to engage in arguments about hypocrisy and fairness.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Feb 25, 2012, at 8:57 PM

John writes: "So Michael is not afraid of Obama and his policies, and thus, he ridicules those who are."

I am afraid of Obama's policies, and yet I do not think I have been ridiculed by Michael.

For example, it is absurd that as a share of the GDP, taxes are the lowest (especially for rich) they have been in this country in 50 years. This is directly a result of Obama's policies.

Unmitigated warfare continues unabated.

Gun rights keep expanding.

More undocumented workers have been deported in 3 years under Obama than in 8 years under Bush.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Feb 25, 2012, at 9:05 PM

"A good History teacher should be able to search out the truth of these considerations. A thought."

Yes, all one has to do these days is go to youtube. I'm sure it's 100% reliable.....

-- Posted by bberry on Sun, Feb 26, 2012, at 2:34 AM

Benevolus,

So is it correct to say that you fear Obama's policies because they are not "left" enough for you?

I don't know about you but I thought the conspiracy video was funny. There are sure a bunch of mooks in the world.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sun, Feb 26, 2012, at 3:29 PM

SWNebr,

Obama's policies have consistently been to the right of even Reagan, the right wing's darling. I think the country expected a Democrat in Obama (I sure did), but I am not sure that I would want to defend many of actions his actions as even vaguely Democratic.

I suspect that a vote for Romney or Paul in 2012 would, at the very least, be predictable.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Feb 26, 2012, at 8:40 PM

"Our allies are more supportive of our foreign policy than they ever were under Obama's predecessor."

Link to todays news:

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/supporter-h...

Pakistan is normally listed as one of our allies, or was under the previous administration.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Sun, Feb 26, 2012, at 8:45 PM

National debt now stands at $16.4 trillion now.

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/

It was a mere $10.0 trillion in 2008.

At this rate we should ALL be afraid.

The Wyoming House has passed a bill to study the use of state issued currency and other emergency measures in case of US ecconomic collapse.

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/...

It seems we have some folks who actually believe you can spend your way to prosperity--too bad so many live in DC and run our government.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Sun, Feb 26, 2012, at 9:07 PM

Please tell me it's not so, a politician who would lie, cheat, steal and deceive someone for their own worldly needs/goods. Next your going to try to convince me a lawyer would do this also.

Unfreaken believable.

-- Posted by Keda46 on Sun, Feb 26, 2012, at 11:10 PM

"If the Republican Primary has taught us anything so far is that the candidates and the party at large still believe that they win elections simply by scaring people into voting for them."

Yeah - the Republicans tell the truth about Obama...and it scares the bejeezus out of people.

Good call, Michael.

-- Posted by Mickel on Mon, Feb 27, 2012, at 6:50 PM

"Yeah - the Republicans tell the truth about Obama...and it scares the bejeezus out of people."

Or perhaps more accurately, it scares the bejeezus out of people who are inclined to believe Republicans (i.e., other Republicans).

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Feb 27, 2012, at 7:39 PM

New word coined recently:

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Thu, Mar 1, 2012, at 12:45 PM

This"New"word was conceived at least a decade ago and originally applied to G.dumya. Whom it fit like a glove btw.There is compelling evidence this was an operating concept of the Bush administration.

After Bush's America occupied Iraq, many of the members of the Baghdad American embassy were selected for their loopy ideological beliefs - thereby guaranteeing their ineffectual qualities would rise to the top, (or is that sink to the bottom).

Ineptocracy was clearly institutionalized and demonstrated in the second Bush administration when many of the most inept members of the first administration were promoted to higher positions in the government, or were given the Medal of Freedom. Proof positive that ineptocracy exists.

Used in a sentence, "The ineptocracy of the Bush administration, staffed with ineptocrats, resulted in an ineptocratic response to the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina.

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Thu, Mar 1, 2012, at 3:23 PM

And then later, we have the ineptocracy of the Obama administration. Giving money to the auto worker unions, stealing from the bondholders, giving bankers bailout, spending $5 trillion of borrowed money to accomplish less than nothing.

There's nothing more dangerous than an inept government that "has to do something!" If the money wasn't spent we'd have 8% unemployment--oops, we did and got 10%.

Obama can read from a teleprompter, lie with abandon, curse the rich while feeding from $10K a plate dinners with them, and convince the poor that he is their salvation while keeping them on the "welfare plantation" for life. (reliable votes though). Champion of the "gimme" voter.

Loopy? You bet.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Thu, Mar 1, 2012, at 10:24 PM

Not a word of that made any sense, John. Sorry to say.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 1:13 AM

Every word made perfect sense John. Happy to say.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 5:59 AM

I guess wallis speaks Ignoranti too, the indigenous language of Nutsville.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 10:45 AM

I also speak Ignoranti Benevolus. And I know you are intelligent enough to know exactly what JohnGalt was writing about. You speak of others "ignorance" because you dont agree with their point of view. And you appear to be deeply offended when someone of the conservative "ilk" disagrees with your viewpoint. And you respond in kind; what does that say about you?

-- Posted by doodle bug on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 11:12 AM

Doodle bug,

Read the following passage more carefully (and try not to barf at the blatant racism of "welfare plantation")

"...and convince the poor that he is their salvation while keeping them on the "welfare plantation" for life."

If you understand (and more importantly agree with) this part of John's nonsense...then yes, I unapologetically believe that you are likewise ignorant (at least where politics is concerned).

What would you say of me if I argued: Catholics hate and mistrust women, and the Catholic church wants to take over the world by over-populating it with Catholics, which is why they are so afraid of birth control (you see, if I believed that, I could join John's parade of ignorance).

Agreeing or disagreeing with me has less than nothing to with it. Simply put, maintaining a belief that Obama (or Democrats generally) want people to remain poor can only be an indication of one of two things: 1) ignorance; 2) unfettered stupidity.

Bear in mind, ignorance is a least optimistic because knowledge and information can cure ignorance. There is not cure that I know of for unfettered stupidity.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 11:24 AM

Benevolus, correct me if I am wrong. I do not remember the post or the thread; I believe you referred to George Bush in a derogatory manner, something regarding his intelligence or mental capacity. It is not racism, but do you not practice the very things you abhor in others?

Not to justify bad behavior by pointing out bad behavior by others, but I believe we ALL engage in it.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 12:33 PM

Slipping...slipping....gone

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 12:34 PM

Doodle bug,

Didn't you read earlier, Benevolus refuses to see his hypocrisy. No point in bringing it up.:)

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 12:36 PM

Doodle bug,

We will have to agree to disagree. I do not believe that referring to racist comments as ignorant is a bad thing. Rather, it is warranted, justified, and necessary.

I respect your opinions (and your levity). That you can abide overt racism is fine. I suspect it is not asking a lot to understand why I don't.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 1:48 PM

PS

I "abhor" racism. I suffer stupidity but not glad. I am ignorant of many things. However, I do not practice the first, I try to combat the second, and the third is simply about the continuity of learning.

Regardless, the answer to your question: "It is not racism, but do you not practice the very things you abhor in others?"...is: no. I do not practice what I abhor in others.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 1:51 PM

Benevolus, did you not disrespect George W. Bush's mental capacity/acuity?

-- Posted by doodle bug on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 2:55 PM

Ben - I can promise you that I am no idiot.

Thanks for the name calling however. You are a gutter dweller. People should put you on ignore.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 5:13 PM

Wallis, an idiot you are not. Supporting racist commentary though? Tisk. Tisk.

Doodle,

You may have to refresh my memory.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 6:45 PM

Benevolus,

When someone says "welfare plantation" and sets it off in quotes like that, why do you think it is an expression of blatant racism and not a reference to the theory of Star Parker's book?

Hasn't this come up before around here?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 9:08 PM

What Racist commentary????? You are making things up again.

You are an inconsistent poster that has a different tone often.

It is like you have several people posting on your handle.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 9:34 PM

The Department of Agriculture on its website boasts of serving more people on food stamps than ever before in the history of this nation. http://www.usda.gov/documents/Results-Nu...

On the same website, they exhort people to not feed the animals in our national parks. "because it causes them to become agressive". Apparently the animals also become dependent rather quickly and lose the ability to care for themselves.

http://www.fs.fed.us/safety/

Irony threshhold achieved.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 10:59 PM

Benevolus, I am unable to find the reference. Therefore, I will apologize and withdraw the charge.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 11:18 AM

SWNebr,

I heard a Republican who has a disabled child say that we do not need to be spending tax dollars on teacher training for special education because it is just "tard wrangling, and anyone can do it."

I was so surprised at such a claim because I would think that someone who lives with the struggles and beauty of child with special needs would be more sensitive...I guess that like Parker, even people who are members of an often disparaged group can make insensitive comments.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 11:44 AM

Benevolus,

Wow, you really are proving yourself a troll. And, I am not suprised that you have heard something like that. I hate to imagine the quality of people you choose surround yourself with.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 12:30 PM

Benevolus,

I'm sorry but I find your claim utterly preposterous. I think you are sinking to new lows and have no credibility. It's amusing how far you are willing to stretch in attempting to make yourself look other than you are. Since you only offer alleged hearsay, it seems that this may just be a complete fabrication. Anyone who would use that language in any setting, even repeating hearsay, shows a low caliber of character in my book.

What company published that Republican's book?

For the sake of argument, let us examine your faulty analogy assuming that you do associate with such insensitive people and heard that comment.

Parents of children with special needs are not members of an often disparaged group. Generally society seems to place them on a pedestal, much like you did in your comment.

Finally, there is a difference between insensitive comments and racism or hate speech. But you are correct, I imagine everyone makes insensitive comments. Except for the posters around here who are never wrong, naturally.

I hope you were able to recover from your surprise and confront the Republican you heard, expressing your support for teacher training. If you see him or her again, please share my disappointment in his or her attitude as well.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 2:32 PM

Benevolus,

I've had another thought, meeting my quota for the year.

Why is it important that the "insensitive parent" you "heard" was "Republican"? Are you just trolling and trying to stir a settled pot? Or is it your contention that only non-Democrats can be jerks?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 4:20 PM

"And then later, we have the ineptocracy of the Obama administration. Giving money to the auto worker unions, stealing from the bondholders, giving bankers bailout, spending $5 trillion of borrowed money to accomplish less than nothing".

Show me where Obama gave money to the UAW because I can show you where bush and not Obama gave money to bankers.So show me where Obama gave money to the UAW.You can't because It did NOT happen the way you're wishing,hoping,drooling,and dreaming it did, did it?? and what bond holders got their money stolen,any names?

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 4:32 PM

Benevoulus is proving that his handle has been compromised. He or she has multiple people using the handle and they are just mocking this forum. As a group we should "just ignore" the poster Benevoulus.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Mar 4, 2012, at 7:16 AM

"Show me where Obama gave money to the UAW because I can show you where bush and not Obama gave money to bankers.So show me where Obama gave money to the UAW.You can't because It did NOT happen the way you're wishing,hoping,drooling,and dreaming it did, did it?? and what bond holders got their money stolen,any names?"

Well, actually, I think Obama signed that a few weeks after his inaguration.

-- Posted by bberry on Sun, Mar 4, 2012, at 8:27 AM

SWNebr,

I assure you that my story is 100% true. Not only is this person Republican, but they are also an Iraq war vet. This is not my friend; I am friends with this person's brother. Anyhow, it may have been an attempt to be shocking, or funny, or whatever, but I think we might all agree that that attempt was poorly conceived, highly offensive, and puzzling given that this person has a child with Down syndrome.

What you are feeling when you read the words "tard wrangling" is the exact same feeling that I get when I read "welfare plantation."

The difference is that John uses that phrase proudly, and the other crazies (ahem, wallis) see no problem with it. I sue the phrase to demonstrate a point, a given your (and others') reaction, it worked.

At least you (and the rest of you) can now empathize with me. When I read "welfare plantation" the poster using the term and posters who support that, AND those who say nothing and allow it stand are likewise "sinking to new lows and have no credibility".

Just sayin.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Mar 4, 2012, at 12:46 PM

"Benevoulus is proving that his handle has been compromised. He or she has multiple people using the handle and they are just mocking this forum. As a group we should "just ignore" the poster Benevoulus"

Ahhh yes the ol' torch and pitchfork crowd is alive and well because we don't like what he is writing.

Typical right wing mob mentality.I'll bet if they knew where he lived they would burn his house down and run him out of town on a rail

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Sun, Mar 4, 2012, at 12:52 PM

Wildhorse please know some history of Ben. Benevolus claims to be a Master degree Educated Statistician. Yet he goes on wild rants and then comes back and claims his "roommate" logged on? Why would a middle aged man have a roommate anyway?

He is now throwing out hateful and hurtful terms and using lines like 'I heard someone say".

That doesn't sound like a highly educated person that basis his profession on hard facts. It sounds like his "roommate" has hijacked his handle again.

Remember Ben claims to be fair and actually has said he is NOT voting for Obama. So if anything I am turning on one of my own.

The Mccook Gazette has actually found some bipartisanship. Me, the Capitalist is discounting the opinion of a Conservative (Ben who is not voting for Obama). You, the Democrat is defending the non-Democrat. It is a great day.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Mar 4, 2012, at 1:30 PM

I think that you're a little bumfuzzled there wally.It has little to do with the labels you've decided to hang on people and more about the way you've appointed or should I say anointed yourself as a faux leader of some of the people on this site in declaring that "As a group we should "just ignore"the poster Benevoulus". It's the mob mentality that you're trying to impose here that's irritating,wally has lots and lots of money so he's gotta be right and know everything about Ben.Argue with WHAT is written not with WHO wrote it, and if you find that you can't dispute WHAT was written then just don't reply like many including myself have done in the past.You act like your some type of Sherlock Holmes and you and some of the others on here have just discovered that Clark Kent is really Superman.Yes Sherlock it is a GREAT DAY and I'm going to enjoy it as there ain't many left.

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Sun, Mar 4, 2012, at 3:16 PM

Wallis,

Just so you have your ducks in a row, the only claims I made about my education were:

"Wallis,

I earned my bachelors degree in criminal justice and my masters in demography. I am currently working on an advanced degree in Geographical Information Systems. You probably use ArcGIS or some version of it in your line of work, no?"

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Oct 18, 2011, at 12:49 AM

and...

"Wallis,

Yes, ArcGIS is absolutely used for staking oil well locations. I could be wrong, but I suspect that if you are doing any remote sensing, studying the locations of natural resources, using GPS to geolocate possible sites for future oil wells, that ArcGIS or one of its counterparts is involved. If not, you ought to look into getting yourself a GIS specialist. You wouldn't be sorry.

The department was FSU's Center for Demography and Population Health."

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Oct 18, 2011, at 12:01 PM

Both of these claims are true. Also, what do you mean "middle-aged?"

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Mar 4, 2012, at 3:19 PM

I assumed you were in your 40's. You implied you were a seasoned professional. Are you actually in your 20's with little to no work experience?

Would you also admit that at times you have thrown out opinion pieces that were "one off" type issues and you made general statements.

You seem to try to pick fights with certain people and argue over things aren's even worthy of thought. Then you make childish comments and statements. Then you actually make a lot of sense. I.E. your inconsistentcy. Then you admit that your rommie used your handle. It just seems like that happens a lot.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Mar 4, 2012, at 9:23 PM

I believe Star Parker made a good point in using the term "welfare plantation".

Slaves could not leave the plantation because they were prisoners there; they were also fed and housed by someone else.

People on the welfare plantation are also unable to leave, but the chains that bind them are the chains of government subsidies.

Socialism is always slavery; it is always the enemy of individual freedom. The control that central planners require to accomplish the goals of socialists always destroys the freedom of the individual.

Socialists seek freedom from need and for social equality, but the implementation of their plans always entails coercion of the individual.

Libertarians, by contrast, seek freedom of opportunity for all citizens. Free people can then improve their lives on their own. That is what advanced the living conditions of mankind so much in the past two centuries in the free western nations.

What is bringing that to a halt now is the growth of socialism. We are seeing the end result the economic decline of the West.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Sun, Mar 4, 2012, at 11:12 PM

Benevolus,

You use a tactic you "abhor" to try to annoy people? How is that any different from Starr Parker or posters here using words to shock? Or do you only "abhor" racist speech other denigrating speech is ok? I am forced to sadly conclude so when you repeatedly post insensitive words.

You are also exhibiting the tactic your equine defender criticizes. You have chosen to make personal attacks and refuse to respond to the argument people are making.

You throw the race bomb, without addressing the idea behind the shock language. Then you introduce new shock language for no apparent purpose other than to annoy, ignoring the message of posters you just say inflamatory things. I think there is an online expression for such behavior, begins with a "T" if I recall.

I ask again,what difference an insensitive person's political affiliation make? Comparing a author who uses shock language to some schmoe off the street is lazy. Finally, parents of children with disabilities are not in a group society often disparages.

Funny how you continue to post insensitive language to show how "sensitive" you are, I'd think with any person of decorum could avoid using such crude and inflamatory terms. You show yourself to be cut from the same cloth as JohnGalt1968.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 7:29 AM

SWNebr,

I believe that I said that I abhor racism, though I also believe I referred to the term my friend's brother use as "highly offensive."

Of course I do not condone that type of speech. I say again for the sake of clarity: my point in bringing up that very true story was to get folks like you to understand that what you feel when you read "tard wrangling" is what I feel when I read "welfare plantation." Irrespective of the source, speech can be racist, denigrating, insensitive, etc., and given the visceral reaction you are having, I suspect my point is working.

All we have to do now is understand each other. You fought back when ccarlson (sorry if that isn't right) made a comment you thought was insensitive. You felt it necessary to stand up for what you believe and to speak out against the use of language that is dismissive, mocking, etc., of real people with real problems.

Now, understand, that is what is happening here. I am simply in your shoes now.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 10:43 AM

Oh and SWNebr,

"I ask again,what difference an insensitive person's political affiliation make?"

Pattern: a combination of qualities, acts, tendencies, etc., forming a consistent or characteristic arrangement:

JohnGalt (conservative) => "welfare farm"

Rush Limbaugh (conservative) => calls Sandra Fluke, Geogretown Law student a "slut" and loses 7 advertising companies.

Friend's brother (conservative) => "tard wrangling"

Are you seeing the emergence of the same pattern that I am? Perhaps this is simply an anomalous uptick, or perhaps it is just an election year, or perhaps I am especially attuned right now for whatever set of reasons. Or perhaps that scientific study that I post about conservatives and racism (insensitivity)/intelligence is actually bearing out before our eyes?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 11:14 AM

Benevolus,

I see you continue to be insensitive.

When I address posters who use bigotted terms I try to address what they say to change minds. You just call people racist, which we all know there is no defense of.

What did you say to your friends brother? Why do you bring up completely unrelated story that doesn't apply here? I don't "abhor" your friend's brother I wish he was a better person.

Do you think he hates people with disabilities?

When you stand by and let people use hate speech are you condoning it?

"given the visceral reaction you are having, I suspect my point is working."

What visceral reaction are you referring to? All I see is that you directed a story at me using a term you know I find offensive. Bravo. I don't direct terms I know you find find offensive at you just to get a "reaction" By doing so I think you show a lack of character.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 3:14 PM

Oh and Benevolus,

OMG three numbskulls, one of whom may not exist make stupid comments and that is indicative of a nationwide pattern? I really hope you use better methods in your schooling.

What about Ed Shultz using the same term Rush recently used? Does that mean Liberals hate women or is it just that radio show hosts are? Comments by Bill Mahr about Sarah Palin? Must be indicative of all Liberals huh?

Quite a pattern you've discovered there genius. In case you missed the sarcasm, no I don't see any overarching pattern that Republicans/conservatives are by nature bigots. But then again I'm not attuned to assuming that of people the way you say you are.

I guess, whatever it is you need to try to convice yourself you are superior.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 3:27 PM

SWNebr,

You misinterpret my intentions. Getting a rise out of you is not the point. "Welfare plantation" is every bit as hateful, misguided, unhelpful, and offensive as "tard wrangling". They are the same thing: abhorrent. The story is perfectly relevant though because 1) both highly offensive terms come from people who should know better--i.e., a former welfare recipient/drug abuser/abortion patient/etc, turned Republican leader...and a parent of a child with Down syndrome; and 2) I desired to have detailed, nuanced, and public discussion about the use of JohnGalt's use of an offensive term (thank you for facilitating that by the way), and that story offered me an entrance into such a discussion (as proven by our current discussion).

Just because both Parker and my friend's brother are a position which enables them to comment on their former/current situation with some authority, does NOT mean that their comments are valuable, sensitive, meaningful, etc.

If you take one thing away from this, I hope this is it: I am not now, nor would I ever, condone the use of either phrase in application to a perceived action/reality. In my mind they are both deplorable misrepresentations of the intentions of the state/government. Welfare is very much about the state helping people--so too is teacher training in SpEd. The reduction of these to "welfare plantation" and "tard wrangling" are identical reductions of highly moral and necessary functions of government.

"What did you say to your friends brother?"

Sadly, I kept my opinion to myself. And I also think I am less of a person for it. While it is certainly easier to speak out with the anonymity here, I still believe that ignorant and bigoted speech (no matter the source) should be examined and challenged.

"What visceral reaction are you referring to?"

You and several other posters insist on insulting me, ignoring that I have not once condoned either of the phrases in question. In fact, I have very publicly stated the quote I mentioned is "highly offensive" yet you ignore this fact. You do this in a completely unreasonable justification of the continued attacks on my character. Again this ignores that I am reacting to two offensive comments, not making them. The reason I believe your reaction to be emotionally visceral is because your posts are usually tempered and clearly you are not being reasonable about the situation.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 3:42 PM

SWNEbr,

This = visceral. Res ipsa loquitor.

"Quite a pattern you've discovered there genius. In case you missed the sarcasm, no I don't see any overarching pattern that Republicans/conservatives are by nature bigots. But then again I'm not attuned to assuming that of people the way you say you are.

I guess, whatever it is you need to try to convice yourself you are superior."

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 3:44 PM

Benevolus, I have a question.

Did you know that the author of the term "welfare plantation" was black? (Star Parker I mean) You seem to assume that some "honkey" like myself was the author.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Parker

You have wailed at length about this being a "racist" term. In what way, pray tell? And why would a black person use such a term?

I will admit the term is provocative; I assume that was intentional on the part of Ms. Parker. Sometimes, we are provoked to think. You might want to resort to that yourself.

I am beginning to think what you really find "abhorrent" is inconvenient truth.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 4:27 PM

So what I want to know, is there any tard wrangling at the welfare plantation?

-- Posted by Keda46 on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 4:49 PM

bberry, sorry for such a late reply. Job pressures.

Here is a discussion of the auto bailout under BOTH Bush and Obama. Obama actually provided more money to the auto makers. You will see that the bondholders contracts were voided by the government, in that they received 10cents on the dollar they were owed (in stock not money).

http://www.ehow.com/facts_7369370_auto-b...

The upshot is that the UAW workers got to keep their jobs, and their contractual wages while everyone else's contracts got ripped up (unconstitutionally, I might add). If Obama had let the companies rightfully go bankrupt, the UAW workers would have lost their contractual rights, as well.

The whole thing is just as I described it. Except that it was not inept; actually it was corrupt politics, at its finest.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 4:55 PM

John,

A refer you to these paragraphs in answer to your question:

"The story is perfectly relevant though because 1) both highly offensive terms come from people who should know better--i.e., a former welfare recipient/drug abuser/abortion patient/etc, turned Republican leader...and a parent of a child with Down syndrome..."

"Just because both Parker and my friend's brother are a position which enables them to comment on their former/current situation with some authority, does NOT mean that their comments are valuable, sensitive, meaningful, etc."

The point being (obviously) that a black person can say racist and bigoted statements about other black people. Take as another example Malcom X's exhortation that Martin Luther King, Jr. was an "uncle tom" for desiring non-violent reform and cooperation with the white establishment. In the same way a father of a child with down syndrome can make bigoted statements about children with Down syndrome.

In addition, I am not certain why you put "honkey" in quotation, but I assure that I did not refer to as such.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 5:20 PM

Your complaint is noted, Grandmajo. Thank you for your comments.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 5:53 PM

Benevolus,

I'm sorry that you feel you're being unfairly attacked. After all, you haven't done anything like call people who don't agree with you racist, crazy, or stupid.

There was no reason to inject yet another offensive story into the picture yet you choose to continue to do so. I don't think anyone doubts you abhor racism, just perhaps your perception of it, especially since you are predisposed to assume the people who post on these blogs are stupid racists (by your own admission.

Since you have already conviced yourself that the posters are stupid racists you look for "hidden" meaning behind word and action.

You attempt to lecture me on reason. How reasonable is it to draw from a sample of three, in some cases questionable interpretations, and apply that to the whole? For someone who professes to have degrees that utilize heavy loads of statistical analysis, your skill is sorely limited.

A final thought: "Just because both Parker and my friend's brother are a position which enables them to comment on their former/current situation with some authority, does NOT mean that their comments are valuable, sensitive, meaningful, etc."

I wonder if you know what "authority" means. You say that these people speak with authority and while I would agree authority doesn't entail sensitivity, it does encompass value and meaning when used as you did.

From M-W online Authority: 2.a. : power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 8:04 PM

Benevolus,

Clarify something for me. Do you hate, or are predisposed to discriminate against people with cognitive disabilities? Or do you concede that the term "welfare plantation" is not inherently racist, but was used to draw attention to a legitimate non-racist topic?

You really can't have it both ways. If "welfare plantation" is horribly racist and not used to draw attention in a provocative way to Star Parker's view of the problems with the welfare system than it is only used as in racist terms(or "insensitive", you seem to confuse the two words). If that is the case, your apocryphal story of the father of the child with special needs proves that you are bigoted towards people with cognitive disablilities, just by using the story.

Now, if you were using the slleged real and not imagined story to lend weight and credibility in a provocative way to what you were trying to rebuke others for.... Well I hate to tell you but you undermined your whole point by using the tactic. See, it is hard to discredit a tactic as discriminitory by using the same tactic and claiming that what YOU did wasn't bigoted.

Personally I believe that you are just being a troll to attempt to get under someones skin. Otherwise why use a subject that SW has taken others to task for? Especially one that you have to say "no really the story is for really reals, I swearsies". If I was a bigoted troll against the 'right', such as you are appearing more and more to be, I would go after the anti-GLBT crusaders that are caught apparently soliciting sex from persons of the same gender. For one it is much easier to cite examples rather than "I know a guy who knows a guy".

Just to throw out some more proof as to why I believe you are a bigoted troll... What did it have to do with anything that your "friends brother" is a Republican? I would think that what he said would never be okay no matter who you are...

TTFN

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 11:12 PM

SWnebr,

Nothing I said was bigoted at all. I could make the same outrageous (note how I am acknowledging that the following is outrageous) claim of you--you didn't explicitly dismiss JohnGalt's use the phrase therefore you are a racist moron.

I maintain that the comment made by my friends's brother was reviling. The difference that you cannot see, which I am not going to help you see obviously (which may at least confirm the moron part of the claim of above), is that JohnGalt uses the term with pride. He believes that it is not bigoted, hateful, diminishing, etc.

Clearly, that is not the case where I am concerned. You cannot be honest and question my integrity on this one, my friend. John unabashedly uses racist commentary, by a racist black woman; he uses her shocking phrase as proxy for his beliefs. There is no possible way you can have a shred of integrity and make the same claim about me. The valid reasoning for my inclusion of the very true story I told is outlined nicely above. I refer to it if you have any further questions.

Goodnight, SWNebr.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 12:47 AM

"The whole thing is just as I described it. Except that it was not inept; actually it was corrupt politics, at its finest."

I don't think I was ever in disagreement. The first paragraph of my last response was a quote from Wildhorse.

I apologize for the confusion and good luck with the job.

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 7:28 AM

Benevolus,

Good Morning!

I don't remember saying you used bigoted language, but I guess if you want to get down to brass tacks, so to speak, you did say conservatives are racist and stupid, which seems pretty bigoted. You do realize bigotry does not only include racism right?

Every response to me has been yet another personal attack and evasion, you're beginning to remind me of Michael when he posted. You haven't ever addressed any of my questions. Pretty hard to debate when one side refuses to respond appropriately. All you have done is introduce a pointless straw man story.

I disagree, you cannot make an outrageous claim about my support for what you percieve as racism, at least not honestly. Nor do I think I made any outrageous claim about you. Did you or did you not say conservatives are racist and stupid?

The "valid reasoning" for your story as far as I can tell is that you think it proves your conclusion that conservatives are all bigots drawn on your exhaustive sample of three. Can you explain how this reasoning is valid. I've asked you before and you've not answered, see above.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 8:44 AM

Let's not forget leading liberal radio/TV talk host Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingraham a slut. MSM response, crickets. Hypocrisy, blatent. Respect for MSM, none.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 12:06 PM

SWNebr,

I am happy to address your points, just make them one at a time please, it is beginning to become difficult to understand what it is you want me to address.

Let's start here:

"Did you or did you not say conservatives are racist and stupid?"

Of course I didn't. I cited research (in the form of a question) that used empirical evidence and statistical analysis to illuminate possible links between conservatism, racist/bigoted beliefs/attitudes, and IQ tests (in both the UK and the US--i.e., geographically distinct cases--so larger generalizability).

In both the US and the UK, conservatives scored significantly higher on tests that measured racist or homophobic attitudes, and scored significantly lower on IQ tests compared to control groups.

I had a long and detailed conversation about this with Wallis. The study was conducted by reputable statisticians and the results were published in peer reviewed journals.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Carl Sagan

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 12:22 PM

Benevolus,

I apologize for making raising more than one issue, I didn't mean to strain your abilities beyond their limits. From now on I will only ask you one question per post because apparently more than one is too confusing. Understandable what with all punctuation and paragraph breaks and whatnot.

I disagree with your denial. I think you are trying to hide behind a distinction without a difference.

Just to clarify, you don't think that to use that study as an example that conservatives are racist or homophobic or stupid is valid?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 2:01 PM

Benevolus,

Here is my one issue for this post so as not to strain your abilities.

Ed Shultz used the same term Rush recently used. Bill Mahr makes all sorts of terrible remarks about Sarah Palin. Does this indicate a pattern of misogyny amongst Liberals?

Maybe the pattern would be more clear if I "heard" a Democrat in my private life make a rude commment about women and told the story here. That would appear to be the trifecta needed for your study.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 2:06 PM

SWNebr,

Thank you for repescting my limitations; your magnanimous and graceful apology is greatly appreciated.

"Just to clarify, you don't think that to use that study as an example that conservatives are racist or homophobic or stupid is valid?"

Just to muddy the waters...I think the study is facinating because on the one hand it does seem to lend a bit of scienfitic credence to a stereotype many of those to left of the rightwing harbor.

On the other hand, there are many personal friendships that I have with conservatives/Republicans which contradict whatever pattern the researchers observed. I find science that contradicts my personal experiences fascinating--I think that holds true for many people.

I will address your other post once we have concluded this line of discussion.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 2:34 PM

Benevolus,

That line is concluded as far as I'm concerned, when asked a direct question you obfuscate or "muddy the waters" in your words. I am satisfied you will not answer any more fully. Further discussion is pointless.

I am interested if you will prove any more willing to answer other questions or if you will continue to be evasive, I will reserve judgment.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 2:52 PM

SWNebr,

That response was not evasive in the least. I apologize if the answer is overly complex and it "strains your ability" to comprehend.

So it is clearer for you: the science that was mentioned contradicts my personal experiences (is that clear enough for you).

Next topic:

"Ed Shultz used the same term Rush recently used. Bill Mahr makes all sorts of terrible remarks about Sarah Palin. Does this indicate a pattern of misogyny amongst Liberals?"

No. Not in the example that you provide.

I would propose that there is a fundamental difference in an attack against a person and an attack against a group of people. Meaning, for example, we ought to have commentators who judge our potential leaders; often those who express opinions of those leaders use caustic commentary to do so. For the most part this is not upsetting to me. Rush, Savage, Mahr, or even Sam Eldridge don't bother me much--EXCEPT when they use a person that they are critcizing to 1) stand-in for all people of a certain group; 2) make comments that disparage entire groups of people based on the perceived shortcomings of a member (or a few members) of that group.

Hope that was clear enough for you.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 4:23 PM

Sorry, bberry, you are right. I should have responded to Wildhorse.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 4:32 PM

Benvolus reminds me of the announcer on "All Things Considered" on PBS radio.

The condescending tone in his voice, stooping to explain to us what's really happening in our world, and how we should relate to it.

Without their able assistance we dim-witted conservatives and libertarians would have no chance at a real understanding of anything. The studies cited by Benevolus support this view.

I get it now. I can see how Benevolus is horrified by the ignorance and insensitivity of the rest of us.

I do have some redeeming qualities though. I can balance my checkbook. I can pay my bills without government assistance. I have even earned taxable income, every year since the 1960s. I can read and write, generally without too many errors. My generation learned these skills.

I, too, am horrified, but by other things. By large segments of society who lack ambition or industry. By large segments who do not recognize a higher power. By large segments who are illiterate and lacking in the most fundamental elements of education. I am horrified that in many high schools the majority do not graduate. I am horrified that in many areas the majority of children are born in a home without a father. By government bailouts of the corrupt financial banking elites, as well as the lazy. By the routine trampelling of our great Constitution. By the seeming acceptance of crude and despicable language, gestures, and ideas in rap music. By the lewd behavior of people in gay pride parades, celebrated by the media. By the destruction of our currency. By the bankruptcy of our governments, city, state, and nation.

I am horrified by the decline in social standards in this once great nation. I see those as mere symptoms of an overall decline, economic, educational, moral, and social. This decline is not noticed by those so young as Benevolus. It helps if you have lived longer, making it too obvious to ignore.

Old folks consider what has caused such a decline. The answers are obvious, but generally unspoken because the answers are deemed "insensitive", "judgmental", or "politically incorrect".

Since we cannot discuss the causes without provoking offense among the supposed elites (who camp out in academia, the media and in government), those of us in the real world, who provide the financial support those groups, cannot hope for any cures.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 5:35 PM

John,

You are beyond help anyway, so it wouldn't particularly matter if there was a cure for your terrible afflictions.

I would submit to you, however, that I have been around the ole block as much or more as you and probably in half the time it has taken you age (not so gracefully). I have lived in both DC and Oakland. I have worked in north Omaha more recently collecting data as an intern for a for-profit data collection company. I still have folks I consider friends living in the places you and your "enlightened" generation might refer to as "welfare plantations".

But as an olive branch to at least help mitigate the clearly impassable chasm of ideas between the

two of us, here is what I could agree with from your ramblings:

I too am horrified...

* by large segments of society who lack ambition or industry.

* by large segments who are illiterate and lacking in the most fundamental elements of education.

* that in many high schools the majority do not graduate.

* that in many areas the majority of children are born in a home without a father.

* I am horrified By government bailouts of the corrupt financial banking elites, as well as the lazy.

* by the bankruptcy of our governments, city, state, and nation.

However:

I could care less about those who do or do not recognize a higher power.

Rap music is great, especially The Roots and De La Soul.

Gay pride parades are of zero concern to me.

And I not sure what you are referring to when you mention...

* the destruction of our currency.

* the routine trampling of our great Constitution.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 5:55 PM

Benevolus,

"I would propose that there is a fundamental difference in an attack against a person and an attack against a group of people. Meaning, for example, we ought to have commentators who judge our potential leaders; often those who express opinions of those leaders use caustic commentary to do so. For the most part this is not upsetting to me. Rush, Savage, Mahr, or even Sam Eldridge don't bother me much--EXCEPT when they use a person that they are critcizing to 1) stand-in for all people of a certain group; 2) make comments that disparage entire groups of people based on the perceived shortcomings of a member (or a few members) of that group."

I'm not sure if I understand enough doublespeak but I'll try to muddle through. Let me know how far off from what you meant to get across.

There is a difference between attacking a person v. attacking a group.

Attacking an individual person is bad.

Attacking a group is ok.

Attacking leaders and potential leaders is ok.

Attacking a person as a stand in for a group is bad.

Making disparaging comments about a group based on a few examples is bad.

Is that an approximate translation of your post or am I missing something? That's how I interpret what you said. If you think attacking is too harsh of a term,feel free to substitute with a term you like, I just used it because that's what you used.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 8:40 PM

SWNebr,

You whiffed (is this where I make fun of your "abilities" to read?).

Here it is again: I am not, for example, opposed to the caustic language that Limbaugh uses to criticize Obama--the individual. Nor am I particularly offended by Mahr using caustic terms for Palin--the individual.

Attacking (to use your word) groups of people, however, is a problem for me UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. Note: I am using the examples from above hypothetically:

If Mahr used Sarah Palin to represent women in a negative light, that would be upsetting. Saying Sarah Palin is an idiot is fine; saying women are dumb because Sarah Palin is an idiot is not fine.

The same is true of Limbaugh/Obama. Saying Obama is a terrible person is fine; saying that black people are terrible because Obama is terrible is not fine.

So to recap: using one person to represent a group in a negative way is not fine. Criticizing individuals is much more tolerable.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 9:14 PM

Trampling of our great Constitution:

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/vie...

I know it's only art. The instances of our federal government exceeding it's constitutional authority are far too numerous to get into. If you can't see them, then pointing them out to you is...well, pointless. You can run your cursor over parts of the painting to receive the meanings intended by the artist. I do love technology!

Destruction of our currency:

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

You can use this calculator to see how much the dollar has fallen in value over any period, including the span of your life.

Nice to see that we agree on most things.

As to the things that horrify us both, pray tell, what are the causes and what might be the cures?

(I dare not say, lest I be accused of horrifying crimes against humanity.) But perhaps you would be so bold.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 9:51 PM

John,

I will answer your question in more detail, John, but hold up a sec...you realize that you referred me to a painting a conservative made of Obama LITERALLY standing atop the Constitution as your proof that the Constitution is being trampled on, right? You must, you said "I know its only art." Can you not see the ridiculousness of that?

Additionally, I am not as old as you, so I am not sure when the last time the 'if you don't know than I'm not telling' argument worked, but it certainly hasn't been in my lifetime. That didn't even work in grade school, which is the last time I heard someone use that line of reasoning.

Try to back up your claims John, and not with partisan paintings that literally depict the metaphor you are using. Wow.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 1:37 AM

Your comments have been noted Grandmajo. Thank you for your thoughts.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 1:56 AM

Just to clear up a little of the mess between the comparison of Rush Limbaugh's use of the word "slut" and Ed Shultz's use of the word "slut".

Shultz was suspended from his job after he used the term and once he returned he sincerely apologized for using the term and promised never to use the word again.

Limbaugh continually used the word over a three day period and only apologized after sponsors starting dropping him. It should also be noted that when he did "apologize" he prefaced it with complaining (for the fourth day in a row) about having to talk about the sex lives of women (which he brought up to begin with). Also, to date he has not been suspended.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 2:18 AM

It has been quite entertaining and interesting watching this thread as several posters have attacked one poster for calling names and attempting to shame that poster by turning around and calling him names.

This group, as always, is very entertaining.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 2:19 AM

Michael,

I agree, Always entertaining.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 2:26 AM

Navy, your link would hold a lot more water if the pastor posting this knew his own history or knew how government actually worked. All of those constitutional amendments that he brought up did not pass and even if they had passed they would have then be subject to votes in every single state legislature of the union and would have only have become Amendments if three-fourths of the state legislatures approved it. Even if, in the realm of make-believe, that had actually happened it would have had no affect on Obama as Constitutional Amendments are not retrograded (in other words they don't grandfather). It would have only affected the next President.

How this, in this man's mind, proves that Obama is an illegal citizen and thus not able to serve as President is really beyond me.

Secondly, as has been discussed several times on this blog. Congress passed a law nearly sixty years ago that stated that for someone to born a United States citizen only one parent needed to be an American citizen (aside from being born in the country).

It's just the same crap as usual. Obama is a United States citizen pure an simple. It has been proven time an time again. At this point anyone STILL believing that he is not a citizen is nothing more than a conspiracy theorist that can be cast aside with the people that believe that George W. Bush brought down the towers, that there was another shooter that shot JFK, that we never landed on the moon, that Sasquatch (Bigfoot) exists, that aliens are real, etc.

Until real proof is offered (and not just simply theories) it's nothing more than hogwash.

How you believe anything offered up by that video has the slightest thing to do with History just bewilders me.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 2:43 AM

Such an ironic title from a Democrat!

Democrats are the original Party of Fear.

Fear those crazy bible-quoting, gun-clinging hicks.

Fear the Free Speech rights of Christians so drastically that IRS rules were created to enforce speech codes on churches

Fear the free expression of religion to the point of trying to force it completely out of all public areas

Fear the Second Amendment rights so fervently that there are now thousands of limitations to the simple right to carry arms

Fear the Wrath of Nature to the point of trying to make everyone believe that solar and wind energy really will provide a good-enough life style

Fear the idea of self reliance to the point of creating a "safety net" that now contains such absolute necessities as cell phones and high-speed internet.

What Democrats really fear is a mirror. If they ever realized that they, themselves, embody 99% of the things they try to blame on conservatives, the whole left side of the country would implode.

:-)

By the way, Mike, great job on staying gone. It's so nice to see a Democrat that can keep his word. LOL

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 8:09 AM

Benevolus,

I'm not sure why you think I "whiffed" as the only difference I note is in my first dichotomy.

I guess trying to understand someone rather than going off half cocked is an aspiration worthy of being mocked in your world view. I'm not sure what that says about you but I have some ideas.

So attacking a group is bad.

Attacking individual is ok unless that attack is directed at group.

The others seemed to be accurate of what you meant.

Is this the correct interpretation?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 8:44 AM

Michael,

My memory may be a little foggy. Did Shultz apologize before he was forced to? Also did he voluntarily step aside or was he suspended by his employer?

Who is Rush Limbaugh's employer?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 8:46 AM

Probably not, because after all, who really likes wrinkled up white guys anyway?

Grandma

Wait a minute, I personify an old wrinkled up white guy.

-- Posted by Keda46 on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 9:49 AM

SWNebr,

I would say that your first dichotomy was a rather large whiff, since it was in no way what I wrote.

Also, I thought that mocking one another, especially in terms of "abilities", was cool, since you started it.

Here is the deal, you are trying to simplify what is inherently not simple (classic conservative maneuver by the way). Read the post again, in particular, examine the language of this line carefully (note it was in all caps so that you wouldn't miss it--which you obviously did)...

"Attacking (to use your word) groups of people, however, is a problem for me UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS."

I then proceed to delineate two examples of those "certain conditions." The implication of course is that under other conditions, criticizing a group of people is warranted. We can discuss those conditions as well if you like.

I would further suggest to that what I wrote is that, "I am not, for example, OPPOSED [emphasis added] to the caustic language that Limbaugh uses to criticize Obama--the individual. Nor am I PARTICULARLY OFFENDED [emphasis added] by Mahr using caustic terms for Palin--the individual."

Also, I summarized my thoughts as follows:

"Criticizing individuals is much more tolerable."

Not opposed, not particularly offended, and much more tolerable, are all phrases that do not suggest "attacking individuals is OK"; they do suggest, however, that I personally am LESS put off by people criticizing individuals, than I am by people criticizing groups of people UNDER THE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 2:27 PM

Benevolus, I said it was only art; I said it was not proof, and that you would not accept any proof that was pointed out to you. And actually, it's only SOME conservatives care about the constitution they have sworn to defend, at their inaugurations. But what a beautiful picture. Did you see the "horrified" look on the faces of George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson as they viewed President Obama stomping the Constitution? Did you see FDR, Clinton and Teddy Roosevelt applauding? Art immitating life for a change. http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/vie...

The evidence of the feds tromping on the Constitution is everywhere, for those who wish to see.

Quickly, a few examples of the feds exceeding their constitutional authority,just off the top of my head:

(1) last year the supreme court agreed that the law, against corporations making campaign contributions, was unconstitutional, in violation of free speech.

(2) last year the supreme court agreed that DC had exceeded its constitutional authority by making gun ownership there impossible, in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

(3) last year the supreme court said that Chicago (the president's home town) exceeded its constitutional authority by making gun ownership there impossible, in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

(4) ObamaCare law is certainly unconsitutional; the supremes will rule later this year. It's not just my opinion, either.

(5) the BATFE running guns into Mexico last year (one of the guns killed a border patrol agent) was unconstitional by any stretch of the imagination.

(6) the bailouts of banks, auto mfgs, insurance companies, etc are all violations of the constitution.

That's a quick six, Benevolus. There are thousands more, unless like many folks, you don't think the Constitution was written to limit the federal government in any way.

I recognize that the Rs are as guilty of this as the Ds so please don't go there. I am an independent libertarian. I don't like the actions of either major party. For the most part, they are both big spending, freedom destroyers.

I presented evidence of the destruction of our currency, and you conveniently ignored that subject. My position is therfore sustained.

Apparently, all you can do is be horrified about things. You don't know the causes or the cures.

When I or others have tried to address either the causes or the cures, you have ridiculed us.

According to you:

I am beyond hope

I am a blatant racist

I am insensitive

I am dim (as you insinuate all conservatives tend to be)

I am ridiculous

I make no sense

I write nonsense

I am ignorant

I am afflicted with unfettered stupidity

So use your skills to define the causes and cures, instead of treating those who disagree with you as an evil enemy, to be stomped with ridicule, rather than refuted in a civilized manner.

Otherwise, we must conclude that you operate with a spear because simple, civilized discussion is beyond your abilities.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 2:31 PM

John,

The skill of the painter is apparent. The content is a joke.

Here is how a perceive your list: an enumeration of statements without any support. You take for granted that Obamacare is unconstitutional, yet you do not say how.

Take a moment, and actually defend one of your six statements.

As an aside, doesn't number 2 serve to uphold the constitution, thereby rendering it an invalid example?

The rest are simply opinions. A readily apparent Constitutional breech is not detectable among any of the above. That is not to say you are wrong, just that you need argument, not conjecture. You made the accusation, thus, the burden of proof is on you.

"I presented evidence of the destruction of our currency, and you conveniently ignored that subject. My position is therfore sustained."

I will happily discuss this issue with you, but not until we get through our current discussion. Therefore, yes, your position is obviously sustained.

Regarding the aforementioned list I affirm it in its entirety, predicated largely on your uncritical, ignorant, and racist use of the term "welfare plantation".

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 3:40 PM

Benevolus,

So from what you say it is ok to attack Conservatives you don't agree with but not ok for Conservatives to attack those with whom you agree.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I don't know why you think I started mocking people's abilities, I'm just trying to respond to your request. Also, I don't know why you would think you need to make fun of my "abilities" to read. The error was interpretation of intent not of form. If you are trying to mock me, you're not very good at it.

I'm curious about your conversation with JohnGalt1968. What does the Constitution's hind end, detectable or otherwise, have to do with anything?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 4:30 PM

SWNebr,

"So from what you say it is ok to attack Conservatives you don't agree with but not ok for Conservatives to attack those with whom you agree."

You've been telegraphing that one, buddy. Of course that is not what I said. Absolutely not. Epic fail. You dishonestly misrepresent my statements, and you have been trying to lead me to that argument, but your attempt was unsuccessful. Thank you for finally revealing your foolish intentions though.

Using your example, here is what I really said: It is okay to criticize either Dems or Reps so long as the criticism is fair (I know you don't know what that is). I would not condone, for example, an attack on Republicans if Sam Eldridge is being made to stand-in for all Republicans.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 5:02 PM

As an aside, an error in interpretation is an error in reading. I am sure you don't know this, but there are levels of processing in reading; the most basic of which is the decoding of text. This, of course, is not tantamount to understanding the text. You may be able to understand the form and successfully read the words in a German novel, but unless you understand those words, we cannot legitimately claim you have higher order literacy skills.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 5:02 PM

Oil prices and S&P look to be gathering momentum.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 5:33 PM

Likewise: Natty Gas. Marathon (MRO) and Devon Energy (DVN) are killing it today.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 5:43 PM

Benevolus,

"Epic fail" Lolz

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 8:36 PM

"Regarding the aforementioned list I affirm it in its entirety, predicated largely on your uncritical, ignorant, and racist use of the term "welfare plantation"."

Benevolus, I cannot interpret this sentence.

http://www.amazon.com/Uncle-Sams-Plantat...

For only $8.99 plus s/h you can have your own copy of Star Parker's book. It would help you understand the modern slavery implicit in our welfare system.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 8:45 PM

Benevolus,

My only intention was to get you to give a straight answer, and you're right I failed. You're too cunning to answer a question. The rest is just taken from your attitude and words.

You've still never even addressed any of my questions at all. I thought you talked about wanting a debate, but a debate is a two way discussion or exchange of ideas. You've devolved into name calling and mockery.

Here are more than three, is this a pattern or is it only a pattern when you think conservatives are racist or stupid?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 9:08 PM

John,

"Benevolus, I cannot interpret this sentence."

I am not surprised.

Also, I have read about the term enough to be familiar with the insipid and ridiculous nature of it.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 9:58 PM

"As an aside, an error in interpretation is an error in reading. I am sure you don't know this, but there are levels of processing in reading; the most basic of which is the decoding of text. This, of course, is not tantamount to understanding the text. You may be able to understand the form and successfully read the words in a German novel, but unless you understand those words, we cannot legitimately claim you have higher order literacy skills."

Wow, that doesn't sound pretentious or snooty at all. After all, if someone doesn't understand it is all THEIR fault...

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 10:08 PM

SWNebr,

I am not going to systematically go through and answer each of your questions. That does not mean I do not want a debate. A debate does not begin with a question, it begins with a proposition. It also requires a party arguing the affirmative and a party arguing the negative.

"You've devolved into name calling and mockery."

Just following your lead; screwball :)

"Here are more than three, is this a pattern or is it only a pattern when you think conservatives are racist or stupid?"

First, I have never said I think that conservatives are racist or stupid. I cited researchers that made that claim. I DID day that the research contradicts my personal experiences with conservatives (that even includes you buddy).

But let's say for the sake of argument that I did say what you are lying about...this would be response...

I do not have to open your link to know that one would not have to try very hard to find patterns of stupidity, intolerance, etc amongst liberals, or any other group for that matter (including academics, presidents, oilmen, Catholics, etc).

The question for you is: what scientific evidence can you provide me that demonstrates there is a statistically significant pattern of stupidity and intolerance amongst liberals, or any other group for that matter?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 10:12 PM

Benevolus,

"This, of course, is not tantamount to understanding the text. You may be able to understand the form and successfully read the words in a German novel, but unless you understand those words, we cannot legitimately claim you have higher order literacy skills"

Once again you use a faulty analogy, quite a pattern you've developed. It isn't an issue of understanding the words. The issue is trying to decode the doubleplusgood newspeak you use when feeling proud of your non-answering skills into English.

Also interesting that you appear think your blog post responses are "higher order" literature. It looks to me like Sir Didymus is on to something.

Anyway since you won't address that issue directly either. I'll move on.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 8:43 AM

Benevolus,

Next single issue so as not to strain your abilities:

How reasonable is it to claim a pattern that applies to millions based on three examples?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 8:54 AM

"I am not surprised.

Also, I have read about the term enough to be familiar with the insipid and ridiculous nature of it."

Of course you're not surprised. That sentence is incoherent.

Let's not discuss what's wrong with any ideas. Let's just dismiss them as "insipid and ridiculous", not worthy of consideration. Let's call them "blatantly racist and insensitive". Let's bash the presenter rather than come to grips with the ideas presented, eh?

Let's not realize that the term "welfare plantation" refers to the modern slavery that exists in today's welfare system. In that, you can't get out of it. You will be in it all your life once you take the first welfare payment; your parents were very likely trapped in it, and your children will be trapped in it. "Welfare plantation" is not about race. It's about how people are enslaved by the system. Slavery is not a black thing (as made clear by the author's race), but a freedom thing. FREEDOM or SLAVERY.

I love people and want them to be free. You appear to love people and want them to be trapped in dependency, in slavery to the state.

Isn't ignorance how people followed Aristotle's ideas about gravity, in error, for hundreds of years? Do you still hold that the earth is flat? Do you still put snow on a patient's frostbite? Just ignoring any new ideas, dismissing them with prejudice and disdain.

A great book on the topic is "The Closing of the American Mind". http://www.amazon.com/Closing-American-M...

You were probably too young when that book came out to be aware of it. But the biases of academia were already rampant in 1988. Just like they were in the days of Copernicus and Gallileo. Just like they were when the Wright brothers were showing us how to fly.

New discoveries nearly always come from people outside of academia. People who take a fresh look at things without preconceived notions.

Open up your mind to new ideas. Let the freshness in.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 9:30 AM

SWNebr,

So as not to strain your limited ability to read, I will keep my response simple...

"How reasonable is it to claim a pattern that applies to millions based on three examples?"

It isn't. And that is why I asked a question, and did not make an assertion.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 11:11 AM

SWNebr,

I ask again:

The question for you is: what scientific evidence can you provide me that demonstrates there is a statistically significant pattern of stupidity and intolerance amongst liberals, or any other group for that matter?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 11:13 AM

"New discoveries nearly always come from people outside of academia."

This is also extremely ignorant. It is far more accurate to say that because of university research, science and technological advancement is possible. The following is not even close to exhaustive.

INVENTIONS

Saccharin

Rocket Fuel

Insulin

Vitamin D Fortification

Concrete Steam Curing

Plexiglass

Pablum

Heart-Lung

Machine

Polio Vaccine

Fluoride Toothpaste

Pacemaker

Ultrasound (practical application)

Warfarin (coumarin)

Seat Belt

CEA(Carcinoembryonic Antigen)

Gatorade

LCD

MRI Technology

Cisplatin

Recombinant DNA Technology

Kentucky Bluegrass Hybrid

Canine Parvovirus Vaccine

Kennel Cough Vaccine

Restasis

Adenocard

Factor IX Gene Product

LASER Cataract

Surgery

Allegra

Synthetic Taxol

Trusopt

Emtriva

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac...

DISCOVERIES

Ultrasound to detect weakened bones

Using light emitting chemicals to detect disease

Fluoride and tooth decay

The portable defibrillator: saving lives wherever

Combating a world killer: the Hepatitis B vaccine

How proteins work

Genetic fingerprinting

Cancer and cell division

Liquid crystal displays (LCDs)

Glass, photocopiers and solar panels

Road bridges

Low-cost satellites

http://university-discoveries.com/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 11:25 AM

I did NOT say nothing was ever discovered in colleges. I would say that the big discoveries do not come from there.

Einstein's teachers thought he was lazy and dim-witted.

Henry Ford did not invent the automobile in college and did not go to college.

The computer you are using (personal computer) was invented by Steve Jobs. Also, not invented in a college, and he dropped out of college to work on computers in the real world. His professors most likely had no clue what he wanted to do.

Thomas Edison never went to college. I hope you've heard of him.

Einstein's teachers thought he was lazy and dim-witted.

Cell phones were invented at Bell Labs, not at a university.

If you have flown, you might thank the Wright brothers. Their father contended that "if man was intened to fly, God would have given him wings." They never went to college, tinkering with bicycles, instead. Manufacture the first aluminum block engine to accomplish flight.

Caveat: I am college educated, and I will never invent anything. I have great admiration for those who do.

My MAIN point was that when it comes to new IDEAS academia has always lagged, biased by preconceived notions, especially in the social studies area. And you ignored completely the meaning of "welfare plantation" and my true contention that it has nothing to do with race.

You are biased against new ideas, unable to even consider them in a fair way.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 12:02 PM

Benevolus,

"It isn't. And that is why I asked a question, and did not make an assertion."

The question you asked formed an assertion. You asked if I saw the same pattern you did. Thus you asserted you saw the pattern.

To refresh your memory.

"Pattern: a combination of qualities, acts, tendencies, etc., forming a consistent or characteristic arrangement:

JohnGalt (conservative) => "....... farm"

Rush Limbaugh (conservative) => calls Sandra Fluke, Geogretown Law student a "...." and loses 7 advertising companies.

Friend's brother (conservative) => ".... wrangling"

Are you seeing the emergence of the same pattern that I am?"

No I still don't see a pattern any more than I see a pattern of liberal misogyny. Interesting that you see a pattern in one case but not the other.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 12:44 PM

Benevolus,

"I ask again:

The question for you is: what scientific evidence can you provide me that demonstrates there is a statistically significant pattern of stupidity and intolerance amongst liberals, or any other group for that matter?"

I'm sorry I didn't see you ask me that before and for failing to respond I apologize. I always seek to answer questions.

The answer to your straw family (it seems a bit too big to just be one man) question would appear to be that study you posted earlier. I'm not sure why you asked. But then again, I never asserted or even suggested that was the case, that was you who did so.

I will say however that I tend to be skeptical of any statistical analysis since in my experience, a person can create a study to show any result they desire regardless of reality.

Can you please either re-post the link to that study or tell me where it appeared on the boards before. I don't really want to waste a bunch of time looking for it again.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 12:53 PM

John,

"My MAIN point was that when it comes to new IDEAS academia has always lagged, biased by preconceived notions, especially in the social studies area."

Your main point is PLAINLY incorrect. Without academia, very little progress would be made in our world in terms of medicine, science and technology, engineering, archaeology, psychology, law, etc. Universities train people to go into these (and many more) fields, and researchers use the university as a base to test new hypotheses and ideas, conduct research and perform analyses, etc. This is not even disputable. Universities are precisely the place where new ideas come from. I state again: to suggest otherwise is completely and stunningly ignorant.

"And you ignored completely the meaning of "welfare plantation" and my true contention that it has nothing to do with race."

This is the last I will say on the topic to you or anyone else: "Welfare plantation" purposefully prays upon the images of the terrible (White Male) practice of slavery, and then proceeds to draw irrational parallels to welfare recipients who are often stereotyped as predominantly black. Of course welfare recipients are mostly white, so there is no logic under-girding the term to begin with.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 9:01 PM

SWNebr,

Wrong again. Your ability to detect naunce in language is quite poor.

"The question you asked formed an assertion. You asked if I saw the same pattern you did. Thus you asserted you saw the pattern."

What I said was that I saw "the emergence of a pattern." Emergence means: the event(s) consisting of the start of something. All patterns have to emerge from somewhere. First one case, then two, the three, and on and on. Not rocket science at all, friend.

"Interesting that you see a pattern in one case but not the other."

Not really. Science supports one example and not the other.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 9:05 PM

SWNebr,

I believe this is the original study.

http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/...

Here are a couple news articles in case the wording is too nebulous and "double-speaky" for you.

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelli...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 9:14 PM

Benevolus,

I realize that you most likely not respond, but the logic in your apparent statement,'conservatives R stoopid' as proven by you cited source, is faulty. The study is talking about predjudice as mediated from lower cognitive ability through conservative ideology. (sucks when you try and call someone out thinking they are ignorant and you end up with egg on your face.) It doesn't state that conservatives are stupid, or racists. what it does try and point out that folks with lower cognitive abilities filtered through a conservative ideology are more likely to embrace predjudice, for a variety of other reasons. Nice try to try and stump us silly conservative hicks.

Although, it does show nicely the bigotry that you apparently feel. Don't feel too bad, you have your own group to hang with. That is what the DailyMail came up with too. It does amuse me that a "moderate centrist" such as yourself that seems to like to pass himself off as educated(if not intelligent) would not actually read the article.

It is not suprising to me though, that someone with your reported background would use a paper done by someone looking to study large groups to attempt to label and belittle those he disagrees with. But the logic is faulty. Look up the meaning of mediator as applied to psycology.

P.S. Thank you again for exposing your bigotry, it always makes me smile.

P.P.S. Yes, I have a bit of a background in behavioral science, that is why I can see through many of your ploys. Nice try tho!

TTFN

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 11:18 PM

Didy,

First of all, the only thing I have said about the results of the study are that they contradict my experiences with conservatives. I also said that there seems to be a pattern emerging in my life more recently that the science confirms. If you care to read above a bit more carefully, I think you will find that what I said was that I find scientific results that do not mesh with my reality fascinating.

Also, whatever drivel you were spouting about he research, I never claimed as an argument. Nothing of what you wrote above makes a lick of sense, and clearly you didn't comprehend the article. I will say that your understanding of behavioral science, and science in general is pretty pathetic. But you do enough to reveal that yourself, don't you?

Finally, the Daily Mail is a UK rag. Please demonstrate to me where and how they support American liberals. Also, there is not one sentence in that article that is unobjective or not factual...but please but your middling research skills to work to try and show me the bias.

Too easy, Didy, and just think, I am half asleep. Pleasant evening anyway, Didy.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 12:04 AM

Benevolus,

Ah, forgive me, I see where I was mistaken. You never HAVE come out and said that conservatives are stupid, just many of your links seem to try to suggest or support that claim. that claim. However, the fact remains that the study doesn't prove that conservatives are less intelligent than others. That wasn't the point of the study at all. It is just what small minded fools tried to snigger about.

P.S. I never said the research was biased. It is a good example of how facts can be used to support untruth though. So many people confuse facts with truth.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 1:31 AM

Didy,

I never HAVE come out and said conservatives are stupid because I have too many conservative friends, family members, and colleagues to make any such claim myself. Perhaps Nebraska (and UNL specifically) is a pocket of abnormally intelligent and tolerant conservatives; maybe if you travel to West Virginia things take a turn toward the racist and dumb. The point however is not that all conservatives are stupid, it is that research supports the idea that there is a pattern of intolerance and low-intelligence amongst conservatives in both the UK and the US that isn't attributable simply to random variation.

One can find patterns of intolerance and stupidity in any group; likewise, one can find genius and cosmopolitanism in any group as well...at any time in history. The scientific question being addressed by the research is: do certain groups with certain ideological characteristics attract certain kinds of people? In the case of the research in question, the answer appears to be yes...Conservative groups are attractive to people with low-intelligence and high levels of intolerance in statistically significant numbers.

Bear in mind Didy (and everyone else)...this DOES NOT mean that Conservative groups do not also attract the best and brightest among us. One might hypothesize that Conservatism attracts both the stupidest and the smartest simultaneously, and the rest of us gathered near the middle of the bell-curve gravitate toward centrist or left-wing ideologies.

We should conduct a study to try and prove that hypothesis. I suspect that we would get a serious amount of grant money...err wait...would that be too much like a gubment handout?

PS

JohnGalt,

Good news and good work from our local University: Something to be proud of...

"Starting in April, 10,000 police departments will have access to a new mobile software tool for tracking crime in their communities, thanks to technology developed at UNL. Red Brain Law Enforcement Services LLC, a new university spinoff, will release CrimeView NEARme to allow police officers to access location-based crime data.

Over the last six months, 75 Lincoln police officers piloted the app and found it to be what Lincoln Public Safety Director Tom Casady called a "groundbreaking new technology for police officers. There's nothing else like it available." Realizing NEARme's commercial potential, the development team created Red Brain Law Enforcement Services to further develop and market the software. They worked with NUtech Ventures, the nonprofit responsible for building partnerships between the university and the private sector, to start the company and license the software."

Boom. UNL innovation and ideas, meet the free-market. You are welcome, capitalism. Thank you for your tax dollars.

http://www.unl.edu/

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 10:51 AM

Case in point...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Mar 12, 2012, at 4:56 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same
(6 ~ 8:37 PM, Sep 5)

Goodnight Sweet Prince
(3 ~ 11:45 AM, Aug 15)

Elections Matter
(14 ~ 2:15 AM, Aug 9)

Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)