I understand this is a swinger website, and this is certainly off topic, but we see a lot of political discussions, so we hope you don’t mind helping answer a question that has been vexing us for quite a while.
Why do (some/many, not all) conservatives believe some crazy things (e.g., Obama is a terrorist, Marxist, socialist, fascist, Maoist, racist, Muslim, Kenyan, anti-capitalist, alien, liar, the anti-Christ, a cactus, anti-business, an idiot, anti-work, anti-border control, anti-defense, anti-rich, anti-American, etc.) with absolutely no evidence other than Rush or O'Reilly or a blogger (Drudge et al) or a chain email said they know someone who knows someone who knows someone that… (e.g., saw Barack in a Mosque or beheading babies)...?
Why, if presented with a mountain of independent, verifiable data to support a position contrary to their dogma, they are completely unswayed and respond with “that is not true” or “I don’t believe that” or my favorite “you actually believe scientists (when discussing science) or doctors (when discussing medicine) or economists (when discussing the economy or fiscal/monetary policy) or accountants (when discussing taxes) or Muslims (when discussing Islam)? Why do they think no group of experts can be trusted or believed, yet believe everything they favorite personality says? And why, as more facts provided, the less likely the person will consider even rethinking their beliefs, or be open to the possibility that Rush or Beck or a blogger could have given them inaccurate or incomplete information.
So our question is why do many conservatives so readily accept seemingly obvious fabrications (or completely impossibilities - e.g., one cannot (simultaneously) be fascist, communist, Marxist and socialist) because it comes from a source they “trust” or is on their “side”, despite how unreliable the source may have been in the past or how poor their track record? They seemingly believe anything and everything spoken/written by enough fellow conservatives, regardless if there are any facts or independent information provided to support their position, but reject all information, data and facts if the source is a perceived to be a liberal?
Why does the source matter more than facts to many/most conservatives?
Also why do they attack the source of the correct information with scurrilous character attacks or baseless assaults on someone’s acumen and/or name calling rather than focus on an intelligent discussion of the facts provided, conclusions drawn or a respectful discussion of the question(s)/issue(s) presented?
Additionally often these people will be for greater role of religion in politics yet fight religious freedom for other faiths (e.g., Islam) mercilessly.
We don’t believe this curious, unusual behavior can be explained by simple gullibility, greater susceptibility to propaganda, low IQ or other dismissive explanation or other trivialization. These people (some of whom we met via SDC) are completely open minded to info from all sources when disusing other issues like sports (excluding of course, alleged divine intervention with Tim Tebow lol).
Please don’t respond with liberals are just as guilty, or progressives do the same thing; or sophomoric/unproductive name calling, serious answers only. Thank you!
For the non-US readers, your viewpoint is welcomed as well. Do you have anything similar in your country? Either currently or historical? How was it solved if at all (other than WWII)?
Taxes should be raised on every citizen; we have a 16 Trillion dollar national debt. The hard truth for many conservatives to follow is that we didn’t have a problem with Social Security and Medicare 10 years ago. In fact the biggest problem to the national debt is Medicare so you have two choices. Pull the plug on grandma or raise taxes.
Which goes a long way towards explaining both working class conservatism, the popularity and credibility of Faux News, and the wholly mistaken belief that mainstream journalism has a liberal bias.Climate change denial is a typical cognitive bias seen amongst conservatives around the world. "Gee, it's cold outside. So much for global warming" is a common cogdis response, akin to "wishful thinking".Now, many progressives also show similar traits - wishful thinking (eg. continued belief in Obama as a progressive). But on the whole, non-inherited liberals (that is to say, those who actually arrived at liberalism through meditation as opposed to "being a dem 'cos my family's always been dem) seem to have, IMHO, more open minds and trend towards debate rather than ad hominems.That should light up this debate! :-)
BOCABABE – I think sometimes it is more to do with payback then trying to make a cohesive point. I have shown him time and time again that the information I post is solid, but he is on some mission to prove me wrong whenever he can twist what little information he has to his point. Frankly I get bored dealing with many of them and only post articles with the factual sources so not to be bother with the back and forth. I try to confirm those facts through many sources and I post many of those facts from other sources of media like Forbes, and Fox News, but sometimes I have to rely on NPR, CBS or TMP, and even sometimes I go outside of the country to do my reading. You see I don’t stop reading an article because I don’t like what it is saying. I find out how true the information is by verifying through other outlets. I don’t post incomplete graphs missing pertinent information. Maybe if he stop trying to prove other people wrong he might get something right.
Chicken Little's Second GM Bankruptcy: The Gold Medal For Silly Op-Ed Pieces
Forbes contributor Louis Woodhill must deserve some sort of special recognition for his thinly-argued op-ed contribution forecasting an early second demise of GM.
As rationale, Mr. Woodhill cites a list of alleged GM ills, from the 2013 Malibu (last reported to be off to a very fast start and winning wide praise from the professional media) to declining market share in the US market.
The fact that he would focus on GM’s admittedly-lower US market share as a harbinger of impending doom demonstrates the most profound lack of understanding of the vehicle business. Product strength is only one component in the market share equation. Other elements affecting share are transaction prices, marketing spend, and propensity to make share-enhancing, low-profit sales to daily rental fleets.
To suggest that a cash-rich, profitable company with these characteristics is about to go under is, to me, “fatuous twaddle”. Mr. Woodhill should have done better.
GM will not be TARP and will not be repaid. –LOL
The Neverending Bailout: The U.S. Is Still Owed $133 Billion from Crisis Fund
The special investigator for TARP, the government fund that was created in the wake of the financial crisis, released a report last week that said the government is still owed $133 billion from the fund. In fact, there are 458 companies, most of which are small banks, that have yet to fully pay back the government. And it could be another 5 years before the bailout fund is fully wound down. Worse, we’re probably never going to get all of our money back.
Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/01/30/the-neverending-bailout-the-u-s-is-still-owed-133-billion-from-crisis-fund/#ixzz25XbQNdgA
Not sure "touting" is the best word, but they certainty derive a large portion of the credit especially since mitt has said he would have let GM die.
Why Obama's Economic Stimulus Worked
Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf told Congress recently, "Our position is that the  Recovery Act was not a failed program. Our position is that it created higher output and employment than would have occurred without it."
January 30, 2012
Explicit image available, join sdc.com to view Mitt Romney says Obama gave away car companies to union
Romney accuses President Barack Obama of mismanagement when GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse in late 2008 and early 2009.
He says the car manufacturers should have been allowed to go bankrupt and that Obama practiced "crony capitalism" in negotiating with union bosses. And in a CNN debate on Feb. 22, 2012, Romney said, "the president gave the companies to the UAW."
Here, we’ll take a look at that last claim.
It didn't look like much of a compliment toward Eastwood, since he was doing the questioning and part of the room. Nevertheless, I get from your explanation the spirit you intended was just a swipe at the RNC/Romney. It was a mistake for the RNC and Romney to have him out, not sure if it was being 82 or bad night, but someone in the campaign, family, or otherwise should have seen he wasn't on game that night. I hope my friends and family will do better by me when I'm not on game at that age; so point taken.
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Mack McDowell likes to spend time at the local knife and gun show "drooling over firearms," as he puts it. Retired after 30 years in the U.S. Army, he has d his study with books on war, framed battalion patches from his tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, a John Wayne poster, and an 1861 Springfield rifle from an ancestor who fought in the Civil War.
But when it comes to the 2012 presidential election, Master Sergeant McDowell is no hawk.
In South Carolina's January primary, the one-time Reagan supporter voted for Ron Paul "because of his unchanging stand against overseas involvement." In November, McDowell plans to vote for the candidate least likely to wage "knee-jerk reaction wars."
Disaffection with the politics of shock and awe runs deep among men and women who have served in the military during the past decade of conflict. Only 32 percent think the war in Iraq ended successfully, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. And far more of them would pull out of Afghanistan than continue military operations there.
While the 2012 campaign today is dominated by economic and domestic issues, military concerns could easily jump to the fore. Nearly 90,000 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan. Israeli politicians and their U.S. supporters debate over whether to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities as partisans bicker over proposed Pentagon budget cuts.
Mitt Romney has accused President Obama of "a dangerous course" in wanting to cut $1 trillion from the defense budget — although the administration's actual proposal is a reduction of $487 billion over the next decade.
"We should not negotiate with the Taliban," the former Massachusetts governor contends. "We should defeat the Taliban." He has blamed Obama for "procrastination toward Iran" and advocates arming Syrian rebels.
Romney, along with his primary rivals Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, had also accused Obama of "appeasement" toward U.S. enemies — a charge that drew a sharp Obama rebuttal. "Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaida leaders who've been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement," the president shot back. He has reproached GOP candidates: "Now is not the time for bluster."
If the election were held today, Obama would win the veteran vote by as much as seven points over Romney, higher than his margin in the general population, according to the poll.
In 2008, veterans favored Republican presidential hopeful John McCain — a distinguished war veteran and former prisoner of
Callie, Please re-read my post. Do you really believe the difference:1. between biological and nuclear weapons is "splitting hairs:?2. between attacking an innocent country and not is "splitting hairs?" 3. between 5,000 and zero Americans dying is "splitting hairs?"thank you for apologizing for name calling :)
Please do not add any further name calling posts. It adds nothing to the discussion we are thinking that deleting these may result in people feeling less of a need to respond in kind. But we likely will keep Doublique's post as an example of the worst of the worst. Among other things, we can't believe that anyone could hurl "European" as an insult, with a straight face! lol Please try not to continue to personally attack people, we understand people are passionate about these issues, but we are more interested in determining the root cause of our differences (not what the differences are).We understand that Doubulique is not representative of the conservatives on this site, (thank God! lol) but understanding how conservatives come to these or similare conclusions is of interest to us. It can’t be a simple as being very good at memorizing the worst of fox news, yet unable to recall anything from high school history. Also, although he may indeed be racist, that also feels like an incomplete/ unsatisfying answer.
Newly surfaced emails reveal problems going back to 2007 with the ATF office in Phoenix and guns ”walking” across the U.S.-Mexico border.
The emails about the Bush-era problems were given to Congress by the Justice Department as part of the congressional investigation into the ATF’s botched Obama-era firearms trafficking case, dubbed “Fast and Furious.”http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/new-documents-reveal-previous-problems-with-atf-phoenix-cases/ Darrell Issa is a douchebag!!!http://youtu.be/tEZpKP_Cvs8
VG,While I agree with you that the part you under d is out of , I agree with the that follows where he asserts that Obama has no heritage in common with most American blacks other than skin color. Obama is not the decendant of slaves and he did not grow up in the inner city in a typical U.S. city.Doublique,
I have been on these blogs for a while now and I have serious disagreements with many of those on here. I do occasionally use a term like Fleabagger or Obamabot, but for the most part, directly insulting and denegrating another SDC member is generally frowned upon here. Some of it does go on and is generally over looked, but to debut in the blogs with such vicious attacks will not likely gain you many points. I just had dinner with an SDC member with whom I have many political differences, and we had a very respectful and enjoyable evening. Just keep in mind that being liberal loons does not make people monsters.
There is so much wrong about what you wrote.
While factual true many people believed (falsely) that Iraq had WMD. Only a select few believed:
o Iraq received “52 metric tons of yellow cake uranium from Niger”
o Iraq had “nuclear capabilities” or a “mushroom cloud was imminent”
o Iraq was responsible for 9/11
o Iraq was working with Al Queada
o It was worth a war costing thousands of America lives and billions of dollars
o That it was a 100% certainty
o That we shouldn’t get some independent confirmation
Not “Everyone” believed Iraq was an imminent threat
o Remember Hans Blix?
o Remember how few NATO allies joined the coalition?
o Remember how pissed Colin Powell was that he was used?
o Remember Ambassador Joe Wilson?
o Remember CIA George Tenet?
o Remember the UN?
You saying “that grieving families is not the issue” is wrong. The lies wouldn’t matter (as much) if they didn’t serve as justification for attacking the wrong country resulting in killing more Americans than the 9/11 terrorists.
This blog is supposed to be why some conservatives believe crazy things, now that you have used Fox’s talking points, I am sure you are out of “facts”, and now of three things will happen:
1. You will attack us: call us names, question our intelligence, call us etc.
2. Attack our sources as “liberal” (code for accurate)
3. Dismiss our facts, “you can believe what you” state your beliefs/opinion as support for your position, or simply repeat your position, or provide more inaccurate or incomplete facts
I hope you agree that would be unproductive. Perhaps you could provide a perspective as to why you believe Fox News (as an example) and dismiss other sources as being liberal/ inaccurate? How did you come to the conclusion that many (not all) other sources are unreliable?
Boca: A video showing that many people believed Bush's lies doesnt make the lies any less egregious and certainily is of no use to all the families still grieving.
Well Boca, nice of you to chime in and I didn't mean to confuse you with the facts of history. Besides, when looking at your wife, I forget what it is I'm talking about anyway!
However, if you look at that video again ( I know it would be displeasing to you), you will notice that the Dems. believed in the wmd and that Saddam had to go, long before Bush became President. How about that? Kind of makes it hard to stick with that doesn't it? Not defending Bush, but pointing out history right from the source. It does kind of suck when some bodies own misleading accusations come back to bite them, even though it's what they want to believe.
So let me get this straight, if the Democrats said Saddam had wmd, it was great intuitive planning we could believe. When Bush and most of the world believed it, it was a lie and forget the Democrats beleived it too?
I can appreciate you grieving over families, however, that wasn't the issue. It was the issue of lies. Those lies, as you put it, came out of the mouths of the never wrong Democrats, who don't give out bad information? I for one, felt there was nothing wrong in the wmd belief. Both parties believed in the wmd, as Saddam had everyone, including his own generals, convinced he had them and would use them. However, isn't it peculiar that both said it, but when Saddams lie wasn't true, one side calls the other a liar and people believe it and repeat it? Sort of like conveniently forgetting or incapable of understanding facts, just to make a point. Isn't that zombie like?
How about those gas prices? I for one am so happy we are told it's a wonderful thing now. Just shows the great energy policy we have. However, if it was Bush's fault, as made clear by the Democrats, shouldn't Bush get the credit for the high prices now? Like food stamps and high unemployment, wouldn't high gas prices be good for the economy too? Thanks to Bush? Ok, now I confused myself.I do beleive that we developed language because of our deep inner need to complain.Hope you all have a great Saturday.
"Without 'Frop I would go mad with ambition. I would beat my wife and kids. I believe in Salvation through 'Frop. If I 'Frop, it is so that others may live." J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Another blog gave what I think might be a better example of the difference of perception between conservatives and liberals.
Here are the two links….
The forbes article was a bit more objective, in the sense that they put out the information in a way for the reader to decide personal ethics, as opposed to the Daily Show which, well, it's the Daily Show :)
"Many times comedy/satire falls short of the whole story just to keep it funny. At the same time, bias op/ed commentators fall short for their own reasons too."
Did you feel the same way about the last set of links you put up in this blog?
Did you feel that Jon Stewart left something out of the story? or embellished something he found negative more than you felt necessary? The way I perceived the Daily Show segment as opposed to the Forbes article was that Forbes didn't make a moral judgment... Forbes basically said Romney dealt with it like a Type A or B manager.My next question would be, by your own standards of ethics/morality do you feel that what Bain did to Dade was righteous? Or do you accept it as business as usual? CheersBill…. "Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them"Dalai Lama
Did you feel that Jon Stewart left something out of the story? or embellished something he found negative more than you felt necessary? The way I perceived the Daily Show segment as opposed to the Forbes article was that Forbes didn't make a moral judgment... Forbes basically said Romney dealt with it like a Type A or B manager.My next question would be, by your own standards of ethics/morality do you feel that what Bain did to Dade was righteous? Or do you accept it as business as usual?
"Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them"
Sens! Thanks for bringing some humor to the debate, youre imagination is amazing! Didn’t know you had it in ya! We laughed out loud at nearly every one. thx
Stonemane, Thank you for your post. Your link is a perfect example of what we are talking about. We think you might be kidding that this blogger’s article is why you or any other person concluded that Obama is a Socialist.
Perhaps we missed your sarcasm, but we think this article (full of half-truths, lies, innuendo, and utter nonsense) is why you think Barack is a Socialist. Example 1: The Socialist Party USA calls for the “unconditional disarmament” by the United States. Obama has promised to dramatically reduce defense spending.
Unconditional disarmament and reducing defense spending 1.6% are not remotely related.
by VG2000 on February 1, 2012
"I think I get it now
the opposite of dumbass is smartass"Give this man a cigar :)CheersBill....
How many people here have telekenetic powers? Raise my hand
"So perhaps you can help SAV and the rest of the world, Is female ejaculation real or not?"In the past I have ejaculated and generated a female.. However there is no documentation to prove an occurance of females just being ejaculated.... Hope that clears it up for you...CheersBill....
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
"if the conservatives of the country are "dumbasses" with some part of that logic pointing to the source, and justification, of information, what would be a suitable source of information that would not be that of a "dumbass"?"I've been right here all along.... a simple Q and A session will fix everything..... Just try not to be too uncomfortable with the truth.... (I suppose everyone can say the same thing though)CheersBill....
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." John Keats
paddoc you’re right morning Joe and Chris Matthews, to name a few, have similar reporting styles as fox. Is it your belief or contention that they are just as influential? Do you hear, for example, someone start a conversation with “did hear what Joe or Chris said today?” as often as “did hear what Rush or Sean said today?”
We have received a number of emails regarding this subject and have been given plenty of suggestions on how to better phase the question.
Differences of opinion are fine, and expected, no one can expect everyone in a democracy to agree. We support everyone’s right to their opinion and the freedom to express it. We don’t think a democracy where everyone thinks the same would be a utopia. Moreover, we are not trying to discuss/debate/prove whether Barack is a Muslim, Terrorist, Racist, Kenyan, Socialist, Communist, Marxist, Maoist, or any other “ist”, or whether he is good or bad for the country. We understand we will not have unanimity on this or anything political and this is not the purpose of this blog.
Our question is why do so many (not all) republicans seemingly believe much of what is presented as fact by conservative sources (e.g., fox news?) even if facts to support their position are not provided? Why do fox viewers (as an example) stand for incomplete, seemingly one-sided analysis of issues? Or to put it another way, why do these intelligent, critical thinking people leave their healthy skepticism of media at the door, when reading, listening to, or watching right wing media (especially some of the more radical right wing - e.g., Beck, Insanity, Savage)? Why does Fox News (as an example) get a pass from (most) Republicans? Why dont they make the same demands of Fox as they do of other sources?
http://www3.norc.org/GSS+Website/ (In case anyone wants some fodder for another blog....)
"If you think you have it tough, read history books."
"And why, as more facts provided, the less likely the person will consider even rethinking their beliefs, or be open to the possibility that Rush or Beck or a blogger could have given them inaccurate or incomplete information."When pressed about said information Texan said:
"OK. So I did overlook part of the link. If you will notice, I never actually claimed that he never attended Columbia but that there are certain troubling questions about his time there. I am not going to make any specific allegations about his time at Columbia, but it would be nice to have some answers."This would appear to be the phenomenon that Bocababe was referring to in some/many, not all, conservatives.... Obama should provide his, birth certificate, college transcripts and tax records.. (yawn) And as of late...that motherfucker needs to be taken down...by any means necessary... and with extreme prejudice (we want our country back)Barbie said:
"Data points to there being a higher percentage of mensans in the lifestyle. Is that suprising?" I can't speak for anyone else but it would be pretty surprising to me... I know of only two Mensans(?) in the lifestyle.. One of them is the guy who actually coined the term "The Lifestyle," Dr Robert McGinley.. I would be quite fascinated to see your data that points to the higher percentage...CheersBill....
"I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, natural, wholesome things that money can buy." Steve Martin
"The main reason that I no longer attend Mensa meetings is that I found the other members uninteresting."I've heard that myself about Mensa members, that they were uninteresting and what not.. How many meetings did you attend before you came to this realization? Many people might be surpised about the people who are in the lifestyle and are/were involved with Mensa... Any insight you could offer would be greatly appreciated.CheersBill....
"That marvelous filet mignon I had for dinner, was it still a filet mignon as it finished its journey the next day?"Weseek
Good grief lolI guess I blame the overall global economic situation than so called "liberal politics". These country’s economic bases and joblessness is more susceptible to economic downturns. Moreover just as more people are unemployed in the US and thus on food stamps or other governmental assistance when the economy goes south, tax revenues simultaneously dec , exacerbating deficits.
The countries you mentioned, due to over reliance on cyclical, recession sensitive industries (like tourism), inferior diversification, less innovation, weak adoption of technology, poor coordination of public policy and private industry (e.g., encourage investment in selected industries via targeted tax breaks like the Koreans or Japanese), less valuable national resources, limited understanding of the competitive advantage of nations, poor upper level education, lower educated workforce, etc. I doubt you would seriously believe that their perceived liberal politics is the cause of all of this??
For example, Sweden, Norway, Finland are far more “liberal” or more “socialist” to be more accurate, but their economies are thriving! I know what you’re thinking, damn there is that fact thing again! Facts are your friend! ;))
Seriously, I am simply trying to understand why the source of the information trumps (I know bad word lol) reason, logic and fact based information.
Original Email:Oh good grief. Just take a look at what liberal politics and dependence on government is doing to countries like Greece and Portugal and Italy, and Ireland. Try to tell me how states like California and Illinois and New York aren’t headed in the same direction. And Obama wants to take this country down the same road. by BANDBEA on January 29, 2012
"Although Barack Obama may not have been particularly social or memorable during his years at Columbia, it isn't true that "no one ever came forward from Obama's past saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc." Those who have attested to having daily personal experience with him during his time at that school include:
Likewise, other external evidence documents Barack Obama's presence at Columbia from 1981-83, including:
"Before we try to explain something, we should be sure it actually happened."Ray Hyman
Texan, It seems we have a different definition of facts or evidence? You sent a link from a politician/blogger that said he never saw Barack. What is that evidence of? That he didn’t attend? That he never introduced himself to Wayne? That Wayne's memory is bad? That Wayne has a political agenda? Back to original question, why are you or others so quick to believe this stuff or even pass it on? If there was something "mysterious" about his Columbian attendance and/or Wayne's poor memory or Obama's poor attendance at Wayne Root's social gatherings (perhaps), why are so ready to accept this "hearsay"? If there was something “suspicious” wouldn’t hundreds of real journalists (from across the globe) be fighting over each other to “break” the story or want to become famous / rich for publishing real information with facts that would damage Barack’s reputation?
Texan, I appreciate your viewpoints, but you are missing my question (perhaps I not communicating well). I am not as interested in your opinion of Barack or Liberals or Marxists or Socialists, as I am more interested in how you or other conservatives came to believe these things, given the lack of facts or evidence from muliple sources? To put it another way, why do you trust a blogger or internet gossiper more than respected journalists or newspapers that typically have independent fact checkers and don't normally just report their opinion?
Do you believe that all the newspapers or news sources around the world (not just in the US) are colluding to hide this or other damaging information about Barack? If yes, how did you or others come to this highly improbable and nearly impossible conclusion? I can understand not trusting a few but to have no trust in thousands of reporters around the world seems unwarranted, to say the least.I think trying to argue opinion of what Barack is or isnt won't be productive and likely won't sway anyone, but I trying to understand why or how your or other conservative's opinions have been determined (seemingly) without facts or evidence from an independent source or sources? Why reject all information, data, facts is the source has been labeled liberal, but accept most everything/anything if provided by that is perceived to be a fellow conservative?
"I love nerds. Comic-Con junkies are the tastemakers of tomorrow. Isn't that funny? The tables have turned."
Texan said:"I tried twice to post the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto, but I could not get the entire thing to post. Some parts are somewhat benign and others are quite egregious, but most of it has at some time been promoted by liberals including Obama. And some of it has been implemented at least partially in this country."How much effort do you think it would require for a "liberal" to post a gigantic list of negative conservative ideals and actions?? If you're trying to justify your allegiance to conservatism you are going to lose any semblence of credibility by constantly comparing anything left of center as communism or socialism. Same concept applies for liberals who think that anything right of center is fascism....Do you think Eisenhower was a liberal? or that he had an agenda to circumvent the Constitution? By current conservative logic he would be considered the anti-christ and his term as President would have been the most bleak period in all of American history (90% tax rate for the top 1%) Ike was a REPUBLICAN, plain and simple... If as a value, conservatism was tied to being a republican, then it was just a value, not the party itself. Alot of people feel (myself included) that the Neo Conservative movement has hijacked the Republican party and it's proponents are the loudest people in the room and.... It's destroying the party itself. If you really want an opportunity to bring more Republican values to the forefront (which I wouldn't mind) I think a person would be better off supporting some more moderate voices in their party. Unfortunately those guys are getting fewer and further in between because.... The neo con's are running the show... (Catch-22)CheersBill....
"One of the great attractions of patriotism - it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat. Bully and cheat, what's more, with a feeling that we are profoundly virtuous."
In our current environment, a true conservative is fearful of change. So they lie. It is the easiest way out of reality. The area of least resistance is to believe the lies presented by their political heros. If one is honest, those heroes are flawed, hypocritical, and just basically trash. Newt, for example. He gets kicked out of the Federal governnment, yet today, many imitation conservatives are stupid enough to buy his shit.I mean what? And tonight in Florida, Herman Cain, a disgraced FORMER presidential candidate supports Newt, and Newt the Amoeba* is OK with this? Conservatives are OK with this? The party of family values, is not. It is one thing to be POTUS, and get caught getting a BJ from an assistant, but to get caught cheating in two marriages BEFORE you run for POTUS, is just plainly fucked up. We have no problem suggesting that to be a swinger AND a hypocrital GÖP, is just sick.So Bocababe, there is no a logical, moral, intellectual explanation for anyone that thinks anyone named Newt, Mitt should be POTUS, or for that matter anyone that thinks a woman should not be president. Hypocrites, all of them.Please, if you do not agree, none of the stupid political shit that normally appears on this site without any substance. In November you will see you are in myopic moronic minority. Please reply with facts, not just your ridiculous unsupported opinions.* Newt is the name we gave to amoebas in our science class in college 20 years ago.