Politics

[dshans]

Me too.

Me three.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Wow!

I really must've hit a nerve on that one.

LMAO!

Um, NDFan4Life, would you believe me?

It isn't as much hit a nerve as hit the next talking point. It is not you. But for post-W Republicans the talking points are so slim that you can almost name them, and count, one, two, three, four . . .

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Okay.

1) I used to do computers for GM. GM doesn't just build cars for GM. For instance if you were in the Caribbean Islands in the '90's the Toyota you drove was probably a Cavalier that was built in, oh, lets see, Lordstown, OH. GM has had contracts with everybody.

2) And they are pro's at using facilities they are shutting down to complete short run productions. It used to take GM five years to shut a plant down, now it is about 18 months.

3) So I am betting that Janesville was destine for mothballs sometime in '07 and Obama was as unwise saying thing the way he did with Janesville as he was when he debated with Joe the Plumber. Can you believe what a political novice he was?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

The biggest problem in this country isn't the number of people that don't get it. That is only the second biggest problem. The biggest problem is that those people are under the mistaken impression that they do get it. If you look at the "leadership" on the right, there is not a single person of impressive intellect among them; the people that get ahead on the right have as their singular skill the ability to manipulate information and people.

You are wasting your time in this thread, my friend.

I think you're suffering from Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I think you're suffering from Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He can't. He doesn't have a right leaning bias.

 

[pkt77242]

ah...so we villify the side who determines a course, then uses buzz words to get their constituencies to buy in...pretty general approach once it moves from policy to the ground game...to point to it and say it is any more disingenuopus than how we got Obamacare in the first place is simply not credible.

I'm glad they (conservatives) came around to rational thought...anytime the government is involved in damned near anything outside a very narrow scope....it sucks...thats it...thats all. Label it what you will...but its simply all trying to warn people of imminent and epic failure....I'm ok with however thats gotta happen...just like you are ok with Reid and Pelosi doing everything they could to get this boat anchor passed.

So you are the problem then. Good to know. We need more intelligent discourse in our country not stupid **** like that. So when do you want to bring back Mccarthyism again?

 

[phgreek]

So you are the problem then. Good to know. We need more intelligent discourse in our country not stupid **** like that. So when do you want to bring back Mccarthyism again?

ohahahahahaha...oh...stop. Mcarthyism. I should qualify a little...I'll take that for sure, but I think BOTH sides deploy mouth pieces and those folks deploy a ground game that paints their side as valiant, right, virtuous, and the other side as evil. Both coopt words, bend meaning, or out and out lie...you are ok if it is coming from a D...but I am ushering in Mcarthyism...I gotta rep you for making me laugh so damned hard.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I think you're suffering from Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, I don't think so. First of all, its a misapplication of the concept. Secondly, I might be biased in certain respects, but what I am saying here is not at all controversial among educated people. If the country is split in half, I'd much rather be on the side that I'm on, in terms of the company we keep. The irony is that you ascribe my observations to a theory based on (or at least supported by) the observations of two people that the right wing considers evil (Charles Darwin and Bertrand Russell). It is almost as ironic as the tea party's infatuation with the founding fathers, who if given the opportunity to observe the tea party would dismiss them as unfortunate lunatics.

There are two or three people in this thread who seem to have actual ideas that are also somehow on the conservative side of things. Which is amazing to me, but to each their own. But in terms of educated people, they are definitely in the minority. That isn't anecdotal, that is based on empirical polling. So be upset about it if you want, but save the arm chair psychology for someone else.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Yeah, I don't think so. First of all, its a misapplication of the concept. Secondly, I might be biased in certain respects, but what I am saying here is not at all controversial among educated people. If the country is split in half, I'd much rather be on the side that I'm on, in terms of the company we keep. The irony is that you ascribe my observations to a theory based on (or at least supported by) the observations of two people that the right wing considers evil (Charles Darwin and Bertrand Russell). It is almost as ironic as the tea party's infatuation with the founding fathers, who if given the opportunity to observe the tea party would dismiss them as unfortunate lunatics.

There are two or three people in this thread who seem to have actual ideas that are also somehow on the conservative side of things. Which is amazing to me, but to each their own. But in terms of educated people, they are definitely in the minority. That isn't anecdotal, that is based on empirical polling. So be upset about it if you want, but save the arm chair psychology for someone else.

Hate mongerer

 

[pkt77242]

ohahahahahaha...oh...stop. Mcarthyism. I should qualify a little...I'll take that for sure, but I think BOTH sides deploy mouth pieces and those folks deploy a ground game that paints their side as valiant, right, virtuous, and the other side as evil. Both coopt words, bend meaning, or out and out lie...you are ok if it is coming from a D...but I am ushering in Mcarthyism...I gotta rep you for making me laugh so damned hard.

Sorry, I forgot the italics, it was meant to be sarcastic, not serious.

I do agree that both sides generally engage in it and the Dems still do some, but the Republicans have taken the cake lately (really anything Palin, Bachmann, etc have said in the past couple of years screams of crazyiness.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

What in the world did Clint Eastwood just do?

 

[Rhode Irish]

What in the world did Clint Eastwood just do?

I say this mindful of tact and I'm not trying to be insensitive, but I was kind of concerned he was having a stroke at one point. Its sad. I like Eastwood as an actor and a filmmaker, but this moment came about 15 years too late for him.

 

[phgreek]

Yeah, I don't think so. First of all, its a misapplication of the concept. Secondly, I might be biased in certain respects, but what I am saying here is not at all controversial among educated people. If the country is split in half, I'd much rather be on the side that I'm on, in terms of the company we keep. The irony is that you ascribe my observations to a theory based on (or at least supported by) the observations of two people that the right wing considers evil (Charles Darwin and Bertrand Russell). It is almost as ironic as the tea party's infatuation with the founding fathers, who if given the opportunity to observe the tea party would dismiss them as unfortunate lunatics.

There are two or three people in this thread who seem to have actual ideas that are also somehow on the conservative side of things. Which is amazing to me, but to each their own. But in terms of educated people, they are definitely in the minority. That isn't anecdotal, that is based on empirical polling. So be upset about it if you want, but save the arm chair psychology for someone else.

define please

This post and your previous in this discussion sounds like you are saying that because of your inate intellect (almost said god-given...whew), you "get it", and because you "get it"...you are a certain political lean. Are you saying that?

 

[Rhode Irish]

define please

This post and your previous in this discussion sounds like you are saying that because of your inate intellect (almost said god-given...whew), you "get it", and because you "get it"...you are a certain political lean. Are you saying that?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm not quite sure that I know how to answer this question. Obviously people hold beliefs and positions that they think are true or right, and I'm no different. If you dissect polling in terms of demographics, educated people tend to be more liberal. Also, and this is obviously anecdotal, my personal experience has been that the smartest people I know tend to be liberal, and the most ignorant people I know tend to be conservative. And I think if you really think about what "liberal" and "conservative" represent as ideas, this makes sense.

Obviously I don't believe that all liberals are smart and all conservatives are stupid. I was not just randomly trying to insult people in my post. I was responding to another poster insulting my intelligence and ascribing my viewpoint to a psychological defect.

And let me just add: you don't have to be uneducated to "not get it." There are plenty of ostensibly smart people, and successful people, who also don't get it. I'm watching one such very smart and very successful person speak right now.

 

[Bluto]

Man...Clint Eastwood...stick to directing bro.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I thought Clint was hilarious. Obviously liberals thought it was terrible. Hmmmmmm imagine that.

 

[Bluto]

Dont get me wrong Buster I thought it was hilarious too. See the country is not as polarized as people think.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I thought he was a mess. I hunch that several Romney staffers are getting reprimanded tonight.

 

[yankeehater]

I couldn't disagree with this more. Almost every word.

The President's Energy Secretary stated "we need to find a way to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe." Obama stated that under Cap & Trade (which he attempted to pass), that energy prices would "necessarily skyrocket."

There really is no denying that the President's policies want the price of energy to go up so that people use greentech. I didn't get that from Rush, or FN, I got it from Obama and Chu.

And it is somewhat based on my experience. I study and work in a field in which a good amount of people WANT $8 gas, so that Americans will be forced to leave their suburbs and build real cities again. Honestly, I could live a few dozen POSITIVES from high gas prices. They can.

As for the price of gas per se, you don't think that printing a trillion or so for that stimulus and the general weakening of the dollar plays into that? The Feds use an inflation meter that doesn't take into account food and energy (among other things), so they're clueless on this issue.

And even if alllll of that wasn't true, where's his plan to fix it?

Would you not agree that if coal is the cheapest energy resource ($30bil for $42% of our energy), switching to more expensive energy would make the cost of manufacturing increase and worsen our ability to compete on the global market? No? Even natural gas is 4x the price of coal.

These are the beliefs of statists to move people back to the cities while also destroying business. The liberals out in San Francisco are one of the many areas looking at taxing/charging the amounts of miles you drive; hence, causing people to move out of the suburbs and back to the cities while also destroying business.

Officials approve study of SF Bay area mileage tax - SFGate

 

[Bluto]

I thought he was a mess. I hunch that several Romney staffers are getting reprimanded tonight.

Hot mess for sure. Someone got canned.

 

[yankeehater]

GM Said to Halt Chevrolet Volt Production for Four Weeks - Bloomberg

For those that think the Government bailout was a success as was our drive to green energy here is some proof otherwise. Supply and demand ultimately determines what direction we will go and for a company that received $250k per car from the Government to build a car that sold for $50k this decision tells me the demand is not yet there.

 

[phgreek]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm not quite sure that I know how to answer this question. Obviously people hold beliefs and positions that they think are true or right, and I'm no different. If you dissect polling in terms of demographics, educated people tend to be more liberal. Also, and this is obviously anecdotal, my personal experience has been that the smartest people I know tend to be liberal, and the most ignorant people I know tend to be conservative. And I think if you really think about what "liberal" and "conservative" represent as ideas, this makes sense.

Obviously I don't believe that all liberals are smart and all conservatives are stupid. I was not just randomly trying to insult people in my post. I was responding to another poster insulting my intelligence and ascribing my viewpoint to a psychological defect.

And let me just add: you don't have to be uneducated to "not get it." There are plenty of ostensibly smart people, and successful people, who also don't get it. I'm watching one such very smart and very successful person speak right now.

ok...I understand...aprreciate you taking the time to clarify some...


...geographics alone seems a stronger correlation than any other factors of demographics...thus if you are Coastal-Metropolitan, or live in a university town...I can see your anecdotal situation quite easily.

Beyond your experience, and looking at polling numbers...from when? If you are merely looking at 08...meh, I'm not arguing the numbers...I am arguing their true meaning. If you are looking at numbers since Jimmy Carter, and you see a trend, I'd be interested. Even then...I always question the correlation beyond normal (statistical) between things in the human experience which are beyond black and white, yes and no, 1 and 0...I can see intelect/education and political leaning fluxuating about the mean rather violently at times...but over long periods of time...things should look pretty average....

 

[Bogtrotter07]

When I used to travel as part of a team, there were three of us Dennis, straight laced team leader, Lannie, the biker-mechanic, or he looked like one, and me.

Something as simple as agreeing on a place to eat was a major undertaking. One night Lannie and I were tired of eating burgers and dogs, which Dennis would have lived on.

So we suggested Mexican, and no, of course, that was too spicy, so I countered with Thai. Dennis shrieked, "No way, that is so hot, every time I eat it it burns my chest hair!" Lonnie replied, "Dennis, you are eating it wrong."

Guys you are debating wrong. You are not discussing. You are arguing. It is a little better, some of you are actually being concilatory, at times. But in general to work, you have to check the ego at the door, open things up for discussion stop the name calling and be willing to learn something. Almost everone has good points to make. Nobody is as stupid, ingnorant or whatever is that you are calling each other.

If you learn to create a discourse: a) you will have succeded where your most of your elected officials have miserably failed; b) you will do more to defeat the forces that represent a true threat to this nation than anyone.

Finally I watched "Bloody Sunday" last night. The kind of conflation that resulted in 27 unarmed protesters being shot, and fueld the IRA enlistment rolls, was a result of the same kind of conflation that exists in this political campaign.

 

[RDU Irish]

Semantics, really.

It still doesn't explain the fact that Obama lied to those workers in Feb. 2008.

Is promising the moon really a lie? If Kelly promises a win, is he a liar if it doesn't happen? No, he is a fool for making such a ridiculous statement. Preying on the ignorant masses that actually believe he could make it happen. Ryan was calling out the morons of the world that allow bigger idiots to run around making empty promises. Truly amazing to me is how quickly the media works to turn a valid point against him, and the fact supposedly intelegent people vehemently attack Ryan's valid point with an air of righteousness.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Originally Posted by NDFan4Life
Semantics, really.

It still doesn't explain the fact that Obama lied to those workers in Feb. 2008.

Is promising the moon really a lie? If Kelly promises a win, is he a liar if it doesn't happen? No, he is a fool for making such a ridiculous statement. Preying on the ignorant masses that actually believe he could make it happen. Ryan was calling out the morons of the world that allow bigger idiots to run around making empty promises. Truly amazing to me is how quickly the media works to turn a valid point against him, and the fact supposedly intelegent people vehemently attack Ryan's valid point with an air of righteousness.

You are eating it wrong. Here is what you interjected, about you.

 

[RDU Irish]

Bog - Your previous post was pretty good. It would be nice to discuss issues. I tried that and didn't really gather much from the opposition other than they think smart people should be given a blank check to do whatever they think is best for the ignorant masses, and anyone who questions that is an ignorant fool who needs to be saved from themselves. Sorry, I am not ignorant enough to miss your personal attack.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Bog - Your previous post was pretty good. It would be nice to discuss issues. I tried that and didn't really gather much from the opposition other than they think smart people should be given a blank check to do whatever they think is best for the ignorant masses, and anyone who questions that is an ignorant fool who needs to be saved from themselves. Sorry, I am not ignorant enough to miss your personal attack.

This part I understood. Thank you, and you are welcome. I do not understand any of the rest.

 

[BobD]

 

[RDU Irish]

As a person who has come to respect most of the people in this forum, I can't help but ask for a little advice. I’m a person who is pro choice, for gay marriage, and for fiscal responsibility. I support the second amendment, and the current funding for the military. As a veteran, I can tell you advanced weapons really are important. Who the hell do I vote for? Who best represents my wants for the country? Help a brother out. No one seems to check all the boxes for me. This is why I hate presidential elections. In the mid-terms I usually vote to balance power.

I believe you are a represent a larger percentage of the population than either side gives credit. In my view of the roll of government, I largely agree with your positions. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative over simplifies.

The problem for me, socially liberal means you can be as gay as you want just as much as you should be able to eat what you want, smoke what you want, etc, etc. If Democrats where as socially liberal as they claim, wouldn't they be indifferent to 48oz big gulps and happy meal toys? If Republicans were so fiscally responsible, wouldn't they find a way to defend this country for even 1% less than we spend today?

Fewer rules better enforced along with smaller, more effective government. One person is a career problem solver, the other is a career buck-passer. This one is easy. The last election really was a no-win situation since McCain and Obama were both horribly flawed candidates, and beyond inept on economic issues. If Hillary had won we would be in a much better place today, IMO.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I believe you are a represent a larger percentage of the population than either side gives credit. In my view of the roll of government, I largely agree with your positions. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative over simplifies.

The problem for me, socially liberal means you can be as gay as you want just as much as you should be able to eat what you want, smoke what you want, etc, etc. If Democrats where as socially liberal as they claim, wouldn't they be indifferent to 48oz big gulps and happy meal toys? If Republicans were so fiscally responsible, wouldn't they find a way to defend this country for even 1% less than we spend today?

Fewer rules better enforced along with smaller, more effective government. One person is a career problem solver, the other is a career buck-passer. This one is easy. The last election really was a no-win situation since McCain and Obama were both horribly flawed candidates, and beyond inept on economic issues. If Hillary had won we would be in a much better place today, IMO.

First bold: What does it mean?

Second: Interesting point.