[hyteckit]

You know, it.

Democrat wins special election in Florida – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...6KqXgD9F2MKFO1

With the big losses tonight, I think a clear message has been sent.

No longer can the Republicans cater to special interests and a narrow political point of view. They need to bring to their party a "big tent" with a diversity of viewpoints.

No longer can the Republicans rely on being the party of no, party of hell no, party of filibuster, and party of tea baggers.

Oh right. Republicans don't want to be a "big tent" party.

They have a 'conservative purity' test that Ronald Reagan fails by a wide margin.

Conservative "Purity Test" Too Right Wing for Ronald Reagan | | AlterNet

[Rumor]

From what I have gathered here and elsewhere, the Tea Party consistent of people from varying ends of the spectrum. They are all Republicans or conservatives.

[ort888]

How do those percentages stack up with previous elections in that district?

[Laminar]

I've got a big tent for you.

[DrTacoMD]

Originally Posted by ort888 

How do those percentages stack up with previous elections in that district?

Good question. I haven't been able to find any numbers in my preliminary search, but the district has been represented by a Democrat since its inception in 1983, so this may not mean anything.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Democrat wins special election in Florida – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs
The Associated Press: Democrat wins Fla. US House special election

With the big losses tonight, I think a clear message has been sent.

What, that an insignificant victory for a Democrat in a Democratic stronghold is somehow significant?

No longer can the Republicans cater to special interests and a narrow political point of view. They need to bring to their party a "big tent" with a diversity of viewpoints.

If narrow political viewpoints had been their "problem" prior to the 2006 elections, we may not be in much of this mess. The narrower they are, the more popular they become. Trust me. Your "special interests" indictment against Republicans is friggin' laughable, you must know that right? I mean, my God man the Democrats are so beholden to special interests right now (personal and otherwise) they couldn't tell their plummeting approval numbers from a share in Pfizer.

No longer can the Republicans rely on being the party of no, party of hell no, party of filibuster, and party of tea baggers.

You're right. They need to rely more on being obstructionist, antagonist, party of f___ no, party of no way, and party of lower taxes, limited government, and fiscal responsibility.

Oh right. Republicans don't want to be a "big tent" party.

It's a shame too because all the humanity in it and stuff. Everyone should agree. You know what would really suck? If all this bitching about taxes and stuff held back the sunset on the Bush tax cuts for those in the middle income brackets. Hmm. On second thought, maybe it's not that Republicans don't want a bigger tent, they just don't want the smell.

They have a 'conservative purity' test that Ronald Reagan fails by a wide margin.

Conservative "Purity Test" Too Right Wing for Ronald Reagan | | AlterNet

Did you read your own article? The article cites the 10 points of the purity test then turns it over to comments asking if Reagan passed them. It doesn't say a word about whether or not he passes them nor does it give any examples of him not passing them.

By a wide margin... egadz man with reading material that moist, it's amazing you find the time for this forum.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Did you read your own article? The article cites the 10 points of the purity test then turns it over to comments asking if Reagan passed them. It doesn't say a word about whether or not he passes them nor does it give any examples of him not passing them.

By a wide margin... egadz man with reading material that moist, it's amazing you find the time for this forum.

It makes the claim in the header.

You are correct though that it doesn't opine further. I'm curious which ones the author thinks he failed. I see Reagan agreeing with 8 to 10 of them.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

It makes the claim in the header.

Oh I see where the article makes the claim just as hyteckit did, it just doesn't offer one word of support for it. I did get a kick out of the additional reading offered the leftist hand-cymbal clapping monkeys on their hard-hitting news source AlterNet;

• 10 ways to force the stinking rich to share their wealth
• Why are the Feds giving tax breaks
• The return of Christian Terrorism
• How the FCC can protect the internet from Pro-Corporate Judges and greedy telecoms
• How to talk to a Tea Party

[DrTacoMD]

Originally Posted by subego 

It makes the claim in the header.

You are correct though that it doesn't opine further. I'm curious which ones the author thinks he failed. I see Reagan agreeing with 8 to 10 of them.

There's a page two.

EDIT: Here's a direct link to page two: http://www.alternet.org/story/144181..._reagan?page=2

And here's the whole article as a single page: http://www.alternet.org/story/144181...an?page=entire

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

From what I have gathered here and elsewhere, the Tea Party consistent of people from varying ends of the spectrum. They are all Republicans or conservatives.

A recent poll by CBS (usual dosage of sodium chloride recommended) and Washington University conducted recent polls, over 1500 people surveyed in various states, with over 875 being Tea Party members:

89% supporters are white
68% members haven't even visited the Tea Party website
75% over the age of 45
81% believe homosexuals should not be allowed to marry
87% believe homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children
94% believe homosexuals should not be allowed to serve in the military
65% believe homosexuals should not be protected against job discrimination
55% believe blacks are not hard working
59% believe blacks are not intelligent
58% believe blacks are not trustworthy
58% believe latinos are not hard working
56% believe latinos are not intelligent
56% believe latinos are not trustworthy

84% believe the above opinions reflect the majority of Americans.

http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/mssrp_table.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/po...are_041410.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/po...rty_041410.pdf

[subego]

Originally Posted by DrTacoMD 

There's a page two.

EDIT: Here's a direct link to page two: Conservative "Purity Test" Too Right Wing for Ronald Reagan | | AlterNet

And here's the whole article as a single page: Conservative "Purity Test" Too Right Wing for Ronald Reagan | | AlterNet

I hit that page more than once and still missed that every time. Thank you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by DrTacoMD 

There's a page two.

EDIT: Here's a direct link to page two: Conservative "Purity Test" Too Right Wing for Ronald Reagan | | AlterNet

BLAST! Man I scoured that friggin' article. Oh well... here we go again. Apologies to hyteckit et al.

[DrTacoMD]

Originally Posted by subego 

I hit that page more than once and still missed that every time. Thank you.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

BLAST! Man I scoured that friggin' article. Oh well... here we go again. Apologies to hyteckit et al.

Yeah, it's a tiny frigging little yellow link hiding a little ways below the text. It's obnoxiously hard to find.

So now that that's out, what do you guys think about the author's points?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by DrTacoMD 

Yeah, it's a tiny frigging little yellow link hiding a little ways below the text. It's obnoxiously hard to find.

Nice catch!

So now that that's out, what do you guys think about the author's points?

I'm putting together a lengthy response and should have it ready before COB tomorrow.

It starts with a couple of questions out of the gate;
Can a point really be considered a failure if the example either A. serves a net Conservative agenda... or B. serves one of the other purity test points? Take the alleged failure on spending in point #1 for example. Military spending? Tax cuts? From engaging their link to the Heritage.org article it certainly seems these are included and they are the lion's share of the failure, but uh...

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

A recent poll by CBS (usual dosage of sodium chloride recommended) and Washington University conducted recent polls, over 1500 people surveyed in various states, with over 875 being Tea Party members:

89% supporters are white
68% members haven't even visited the Tea Party website
75% over the age of 45
81% believe homosexuals should not be allowed to marry
87% believe homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children
94% believe homosexuals should not be allowed to serve in the military
65% believe homosexuals should not be protected against job discrimination
55% believe blacks are not hard working
59% believe blacks are not intelligent
58% believe blacks are not trustworthy
58% believe latinos are not hard working
56% believe latinos are not intelligent
56% believe latinos are not trustworthy

84% believe the above opinions reflect the majority of Americans.

http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/mssrp_table.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/po...are_041410.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/po...rty_041410.pdf

This just in...breaking news from CBS: Flawed polling and related conclusions furthers our agenda. In other news, 65 workers die in printing press accident while furiously attempting to make Obama's Health care bill deficit neutral. And in an unrelated story 65 unemployed find jobs at US treasury, signaling the end of the recession.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What, that an insignificant victory for a Democrat in a Democratic stronghold is somehow significant?

Hehe...

It's a play on this thread:

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...emocrat-party/

and this thread:

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...rting-already/

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

This just in...breaking news from CBS: Flawed polling and related conclusions furthers our agenda.

Nearly all of those figures came from the University of Washington, not CBS, and the few that came from CBS were similar to those reported by UoW.

Do you have an alternative poll?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Nearly all of those figures came from the University of Washington, not CBS, and the few that came from CBS were similar to those reported by UoW.

Do you have an alternative poll?

Three national polls from the Winston Group showed;
- The Tea Party is comprised of 57% Republican, 28% Independent, 13% Democratic
- Approximately 66% self-identify as Conservative, 26% moderate, 8% liberal
TeaParty myths

Gallup Polling shows;
Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large. That's the finding of a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 26-28, in which 28% of U.S. adults call themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement.
It should be noted here, they're claiming to be supporters, not members. OlePigeon cited a poll claiming only a small percentage of members have visited the Tea Party website, but I don't recall the poll saying anything about membership. They're talking about the differences between those who support the movement and those who don't.
- higher income
- more educated (NY Times polling) Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated - NYTimes.com

The questions showing a racist tendancy? That's easy. They polled liberals who A. are more racist than anyone and B. are playing by the crashtheteaparty.org well-documented rules of slandering them by pretending to be supporters. ACORN, HuffPo Organizing Efforts to Infiltrate Tax Day Tea Parties to Shape Media Coverage

I've never in my lifetime seen so much fear of a mainstream, grassroots effort. It's amazing. Fear and ANGER!!!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

A recent poll by CBS (usual dosage of sodium chloride recommended) and Washington University conducted recent polls, over 1500 people surveyed in various states, with over 875 being Tea Party members:

89% supporters are white
68% members haven't even visited the Tea Party website
75% over the age of 45
81% believe homosexuals should not be allowed to marry
87% believe homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children
94% believe homosexuals should not be allowed to serve in the military
65% believe homosexuals should not be protected against job discrimination
55% believe blacks are not hard working
59% believe blacks are not intelligent
58% believe blacks are not trustworthy
58% believe latinos are not hard working
56% believe latinos are not intelligent
56% believe latinos are not trustworthy

84% believe the above opinions reflect the majority of Americans.

http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/mssrp_table.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/po...are_041410.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/po...rty_041410.pdf

Seems as though if there was no pre-planned agenda to try and find some kind of racist element to tea party people (which itself would create a bias and slant the poll), they'd also include the results of questioning such as whether or not they thought most white people where "trustworthy" or whether or not they thought most white people where hard workers.

It's my guess that most of these people understand human nature, and believe that the world is filled with stupid, lazy people who will take advantage of others for their own gain. It's really not really hard to blame them.

Did they include the results of that sort of questioning to act as sort of a "control?" Otherwise, the numbers are pretty much meaningless.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Did they include the results of that sort of questioning to act as sort of a "control?" Otherwise, the numbers are pretty much meaningless.

I'll remember to use that line for every poll *you* share.

[subego]

Originally Posted by DrTacoMD 

Yeah, it's a tiny frigging little yellow link hiding a little ways below the text. It's obnoxiously hard to find.

So now that that's out, what do you guys think about the author's points?

Intellectually dishonest.

Like the DOMA example. Clinton had gays stay at the White House too, and he signed the bastid into law.

Or, the union example. Reagan was against Taft-Hartley when he was in his 30s, and was a Democrat, but didn't seem to have a problem using that law to stick it to the air traffic controllers in his 60s, when he was a Republican.

There are others, but these stick out.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

A recent poll by CBS (usual dosage of sodium chloride recommended) and Washington University conducted recent polls, over 1500 people surveyed in various states, with over 875 being Tea Party members:

89% supporters are white
68% members haven't even visited the Tea Party website
75% over the age of 45
81% believe homosexuals should not be allowed to marry
87% believe homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children
94% believe homosexuals should not be allowed to serve in the military
65% believe homosexuals should not be protected against job discrimination
55% believe blacks are not hard working
59% believe blacks are not intelligent
58% believe blacks are not trustworthy
58% believe latinos are not hard working
56% believe latinos are not intelligent
56% believe latinos are not trustworthy

84% believe the above opinions reflect the majority of Americans.

http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/mssrp_table.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/po...are_041410.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/po...rty_041410.pdf

Just a point of clarification. This study is from the University of Washington which is a public university in the state of Washington. Washington University is a private university in St. Louis, MO.

That said .... the survey results speak volumes.

OAW

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I'll remember to use that line for every poll *you* share.

If you can, feel free to point out any huge flaws in whatever I share, as I did. That's part of "debate."

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Seems as though if there was no pre-planned agenda to try and find some kind of racist element to tea party people (which itself would create a bias and slant the poll), they'd also include the results of questioning such as whether or not they thought most white people where "trustworthy" or whether or not they thought most white people where hard workers.

Bingo.

Ask me if I think black people are lazy, untrustworthy cretins and I'll say "yes".
Ask me if I think latino people are lazy, untrustworthy cretins and I'll say "yes".

But then...

Ask me if I think white people are lazy, untrustworthy cretins and I'll say "yes".
I trust the Japs though. Good people.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Bingo.

Ask me if I think black people are lazy, untrustworthy cretins and I'll say "yes".
Ask me if I think latino people are lazy, untrustworthy cretins and I'll say "yes".

But then...

Ask me if I think white people are lazy, untrustworthy cretins and I'll say "yes".
I trust the Japs though. Good people.

LOL! I'd answer the same way. Either the guys who did the survey:

a. Decided for some reason to only share some of it's findings, which is suspect.
b. Are really stupid.
c. Are really intellectually dishonest.

I've not yet seen evidence of A., so I'm assuming B. or C. If that (and leftists admitting that they are trying to hijack events by planting people acting racist or violent) is really all the other side has than I can see why they seem to be running scared.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

*various polls*

None of those contradict what was stated in the polls I listed. Actually, the one about the average member being wealthier and more educated is also mentioned in the polls.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If you can, feel free to point out any huge flaws in whatever I share, as I did. That's part of "debate."

I've seen flaws pointed out many times. The irony is that you aren't as concerned about the quality of the polling when the poll result supports your opinion (just as you're claiming to be the case here).

[BadKosh]

I'd like to see the questions and how they were asked. The libs are intellectually dishonest and have questionable morals and character (as has been demonstrated since 2007 and before), and they are trying to paint the tea party folks as ignorant racists and worse. Any idea when the union thugs will start being interviewed by the media who won't check to see if they are tea party types or disruptions?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

None of those contradict what was stated in the polls I listed. Actually, the one about the average member being wealthier and more educated is also mentioned in the polls.

The polling shows that support for the Tea Party is more diverse and representative of the general population than is ever suggested by those who are angered and afraid of people who don't think like them.

The link at the end shows that there are those who are so angered and afraid of people who don't think like them that they'd actually implant racism and ignorance by representing it at Tea Party events. It's the progressive way. It'd be even easier to do this in an anonymous online survey. I'm calling bumpkus on the whole thing including the points raised by others about a lack of control in the survey.

A silly survey for an even sillier audience.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The polling shows that support for the Tea Party is more diverse and representative of the general population than is ever suggested by those who are angered and afraid of people who don't think like them.

The link at the end shows that there are those who are so angered and afraid of people who don't think like them that they'd actually implant racism and ignorance by representing it at Tea Party events. It's the progressive way. It'd be even easier to do this in an anonymous online survey. I'm calling bumpkus on the whole thing including the points raised by others about a lack of control in the survey.

A silly survey for an even sillier audience.

It is pretty odd that you would come to such generalizations about progressives while blowing off the possibility that a population of conservatives might be a bunch of ignorant dumbasses. Are you really in the Ann Coulter crowd in thinking that there is something innately inferior about progressive individuals?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It is pretty odd that you would come to such generalizations about progressives while blowing off the possibility that a population of conservatives might be a bunch of ignorant dumbasses. Are you really in the Ann Coulter crowd in thinking that there is something innately inferior about progressive individuals?

I myself understand your point, but I think it's Einstein who defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." All the "isms" expect for capitalism have all been tried and have failed time and time again, yet progressives insanely seem to want to keep going back to that well of defeat.

It seems as though progressives are often times either unable to see clear patterns in general human nature which doom utopian ideas about how societies should run, or see them and somehow think that their plans are the ones which will overcome the very basic nature of humans. I think it's because conservative thinkers usually base their ideas on the knowledge that humans have a will to survive and will generally (there are lots of exceptions) do what they can to protect themselves over their fellow man. For example, it's pretty clear that the poll above was put together by a "progressive" (or again, someone just being intellectually dishonest) because they didn't put together the poll thinking it possible that some people simply don't trust their fellow man to do what's in their best interest or what's in the best interest of others.

So, maybe it isn't an "innately inferior" intellect that conservatives see, rather an basic flaw in the way that progressives view human nature as a whole. That's what I think the problem is.

[Doofy]

^ QFT.
All caps bypass.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

All the "isms" expect for capitalism have all been tried and have failed time and time again ...

Even capitalism failed 18 months ago and the conservative President at the time resorted to socialism in an attempt to save the economy.

How quickly they forget ...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It is pretty odd that you would come to such generalizations about progressives while blowing off the possibility that a population of conservatives might be a bunch of ignorant dumbasses. Are you really in the Ann Coulter crowd in thinking that there is something innately inferior about progressive individuals?

Is this what the Anne Coulter crowd thinks? Hmm. I guess so then. Yes, I'm with the Anne Coulter crowd that believes progressives define their ideology by spewing names of people they were told they shouldn't like.

Liberalism and more specifically progressivism is the result of youthful naiveté, angst, and anger. It is useful as a social outlet while in college, but has little purpose or practical application in reality.

Conservatism is generally the product of responsibility, age, and wisdom. It is something that occurs to you after you leave the nurturing confines of college, after your first child and mortgage payment.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Even capitalism failed 18 months ago and the conservative President at the time resorted to socialism in an attempt to save the economy.

How quickly they forget ...

What you've forgotten:

• The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act compelled banks to make loans to low-income borrowers through threat of financial penalties.
• Now with portfolio stock-full of subprime loans, banks were protecting themselves by issuing larger fees for these riskier mortgages. After all, they have to try to remain solvent unlike government programs.
• Result? Predatory lending laws. Legislation drafted to ensure banks could not protect themselves against prior laws that made them less solvent.
• The government in its infinite wisdom decided to back investors with a new Fed monetary policy essentially bailing out investors in the event they succumb to the inevitable losses of subprime lending. This helped create fallacious housing values that have been skyrocketing for over a decade and encouraged unhealthy, riskier market behavior.
• This eventually resulted in adjustable rate mortgages that people couldn't afford at the new rate and other means of banks trying to remain solvent through the assumption of a shoddy portfolio such as... credit default swapping.

How is this a failure of capitalism?

Capitalism does not bail out those who make poor decisions because it wants to ease symptoms. It simply wants to remain solvent. It has to do so in spite of the hostile policies of a Federal government that has no regard for solvency. (postal service, medicare, social security, etc...) This is not a failure of capitalism. This is from beginning to end, a failure of Fed policy and legislative interference. Government interference creates a moral hazard; policies that mitigate risk causing riskier behaviors. i.e. Government policies that insulate people from the consequences of their actions.

For example, subsidized federal flood insurance causes people to build more homes in high-risk flood areas than they would otherwise. As caring people, we feel a great deal of sympathy for homeowners bankrupted by flooding and support assistance for them. The result? Remove incentives to rebuild on higher ground.


Bush? Proof that liberal policies under a conservative have the same likelihood of failure as the liberal policies of a liberal.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Even capitalism failed 18 months ago and the conservative President at the time resorted to socialism in an attempt to save the economy.

How quickly they forget ...

The financial institutions were pushed over by the Dems in congress who ignored their duties, and mismanaged FANNIE, FREDDIE, and the banking industries to take on the bad loans in the first place. Obama was in on the lawsuit scams in the past as he shook down banks for bucks based on fabricated reports that implied racial bias. The author later admitted it was fraud. This abuse has been going on for decades. The Carter admin first started and it got worse every time the Dems ran congress. Ask Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

[Wiskedjak]

It makes no difference if the economic collapse was the fault of the Democrats or the Republicans. Both operate within a capitalist system.

Note: I'm not saying one ism is better than another. I'm just saying it's false to claim that capitalism is the only ism that hasn't failed. The reality is that you need a mix of isms for a healthy economy. In fact, I completely support a capitalism heavy economy, but I also support balanced perspectives.

[stupendousman]

As it's been pointed out, capitalism didn't fail the United States government, the United States government failed capitalism by it's policies and actions. The policies that where put into place forced corporations to take actions which were not in the best interest of profit, and where not fair for those risking capital.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes, I'm with the Anne Coulter crowd that believes progressives define their ideology by spewing names of people they were told they shouldn't like.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

It makes no difference if the economic collapse was the fault of the Democrats or the Republicans.

Sure it does. It wasn't consrvatives who allowed things to fail, it was specific actions by liberal Democrats that did. Their oversight, their hatred of successful capitalists, and the fact they haven't learned from history of what works and what doesn't. Why do they continue to piss away billions on crap that the polls say isn't wanted by the voters? Are they corrupt and bent on ruining the US, or are they just stupid and lacking morals and character?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Sure it does. It wasn't consrvatives who allowed things to fail, it was specific actions by liberal Democrats that did. Their oversight, their hatred of successful capitalists, and the fact they haven't learned from history of what works and what doesn't. Why do they continue to piss away billions on crap that the polls say isn't wanted by the voters? Are they corrupt and bent on ruining the US, or are they just stupid and lacking morals and character?

IIRC, it was the Bush administration that went on a drunken sailor spending spree, and it is primarily Republican leaning bankers, insurance industry execs, and others who decided they could make the rules that suit them. You, as usual, can't see the forest for the trees.

As to what the public wants, ask them if they really want a select few who control everything, while they see their pay and benefits slashed regularly over the past several decades. The banking, insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital industries aren't controlled by Democrats; they're controlled by corrupt, immoral, and unethical people who are far more Republican than Democrat.

[BadKosh]

Blame bush, Blame Bush, blame Bush. Same old broken record.

Sorry, saw the news reports covering Obama's shakedowns, and also read the congressional record concerning Frank and Dodd. (Do a Youtube search to see the news reports on Obama. This crap was happening even BEFORE Bush. Try the Carter Admin. Look who was running congress, not who was president. Its the congressional and Senate committee's assigned oversight which fails every time the Dems are running things. Same for ethics committees under Dems.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

IIRC, it was the Bush administration that went on a drunken sailor spending spree

YouTube - Dancing Bush/ Drunken Sailor

[Doofy]

Annnnnd just so we don't leave the Dems out...
YouTube - Chimps doing the Irish/River Dance

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Blame bush, Blame Bush, blame Bush. Same old broken record.

How is that any different from your "Blame Dems, Blame Dems, Blame Dems" broken record?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

How is that any different from your "Blame Dems, Blame Dems, Blame Dems" broken record?

It's not, but you're not supposed to point that out.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Blame bush, Blame Bush, blame Bush. Same old broken record.

Sorry, saw the news reports covering Obama's shakedowns, and also read the congressional record concerning Frank and Dodd. (Do a Youtube search to see the news reports on Obama. This crap was happening even BEFORE Bush. Try the Carter Admin. Look who was running congress, not who was president. Its the congressional and Senate committee's assigned oversight which fails every time the Dems are running things. Same for ethics committees under Dems.

You obviously missed the point of my post, but that's not surprising.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Is this what the Anne Coulter crowd thinks? Hmm. I guess so then. Yes, I'm with the Anne Coulter crowd that believes progressives define their ideology by spewing names of people they were told they shouldn't like.

Liberalism and more specifically progressivism is the result of youthful naiveté, angst, and anger. It is useful as a social outlet while in college, but has little purpose or practical application in reality.

Conservatism is generally the product of responsibility, age, and wisdom. It is something that occurs to you after you leave the nurturing confines of college, after your first child and mortgage payment.

My life experiences suggest completely different things including the notion that conservatives are not terribly bright, but so what? What does that tell us? They are about as useful and valid as your observations, but the difference is I normally wouldn't even share this because I realize that making statements like this is pretty pointless, and I know not to really put too much stock into even my own generalizations.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My life experiences suggest completely different things including the notion that conservatives are not terribly bright, but so what? What does that tell us? They are about as useful and valid as your observations, but the difference is I normally wouldn't even share this because I realize that making statements like this is pretty pointless, and I know not to really put too much stock into even my own generalizations.

I merely said "it's the progressive way", I didn't frame it as a segment of dumbass progressives. In fact, hijacking the free speech of others by leveraging a generous media with their crafted stigmas of the Tea Party crowd by infiltrating and representing it is quite shrewd.

All I'm doing is juxtaposing some common traits among politically-driven youth with the progressives/liberal demographic and likewise with conservatives. If perceptions were useless, they wouldn't define so much of the debate and drive so much of the polarization you see here.

You responded with "is this what the Anne Coulter crowd thinks?" and then followed up claiming your life experience taught you about the lacking intelligence among conservatives. I never challenged progressives' intelligence. I mean, the mere fact that you would choose to address me in light of the incredible array of generalizations behind the OP is telling right? Or did it just come off as a knee-jerk defensive posture?

Anyway, it's not like I don't know my audience here; the Michael Moore crowd I guess you'd say.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You obviously missed the point of my post, but that's not surprising.

Likewise.