Originally Posted by antichrist

There are two separate variables here which I don't trust ppl are recognizing.

One is these people's political opinions, with which I could not disagree more.

Two is their poverty (and a particularly southern poverty at that), which is distressing in our country.

I often fear that MUCH ANTIPATHY for these characters arises actually from point 2, but gets rationalized as pt 1.

Not too terribly different from driving downtown and locking all your doors because "those ppl are scary" even though "I'm not a racist but..."

Poverty is an equal-opportunity proposition these days. It is no longer the clear result of existing racism. Black, Latino, and First People in poverty are not in poverty because someone imposes racist policies today. Residue of the past? Perhaps. Lowered expectations on educational achievement? Some white subcultures fit that, too.

The South still has much more poverty than does the North, and it has cultural differences that reflect themselves in a political heritage. It has always been a haven for low wages and poor working conditions. Economic life seems often to follow the dictum "Never let the better be the enemy of the tolerable". I once saw the South described as the place where everyone loves Jesus but gets Him wrong, where everyone hates Marx but fails to recognize how well he describes the economic and political order, and that the unexamined life so normal in the South is a perfect playground for Freudian analysis especially for a people who have no clue.

Originally Posted by Weave

Another poll shows Obama's weakness as the incumbent. According to the (CBS/New York Times) poll Obama has a 41% approval. One thing to note on this poll, it, like the ABC poll usually oversamples Democrats so you may as well knock off another 5%. In the poll he is in a statistical dead heat with Romney and barely leading Santorum, yep Santorum....

Outlier. What James Randi says of counter-intuitive statements on paranormal activities applies to unlikely phenomena in polling: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

This of course is just more evidence that despite the Democrat Media Complex's meme that the Republican nomination fight shows how weak they are. Despite the fighting the two top candiates are essentially tied with Obama who has a VERY low approval rating.
The meme actually should be how weak Obama, the incumbent is....he has reached Bush 1/Carter territory.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/us...l.html?_r=2&hp

Jimmy Carter was a singularly-ineffective President. He had practically no legislative achievements of lasting and non-symbolic value. After nearly four years of his Presidency he had to run on fresh promises, and voters rightly asked "What took so long?" In 1980 he practically ran as a challenger to himself and lost when he had a horrible time with stagflation and American hostages stranded in Iran. President Obama has a huge list of legislative accomplishments from the first half of his term and has presided over the partial (but far from complete) recovery from the worst economic meltdown in 80 years.

Bush I would be applicable if the President had achieved everything that he wanted to achieve through sheer luck and had no idea of what to do next. Do you see that? He has largely restored the effective Bush I - Clinton practices on military and foreign policies. You may hate the results of the Obama Presidency, but he has been effective. People like winners, which may explain why they tolerated such people as Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens in baseball. That's not to say that the President is a cheater or a louse.

Well, Weave, here is a new poll by a news organization that would seem, in view of its title, to appeal to conservative-leaning people:

Traditional telephone survey with live interviewers conducted – March 4, 2012 to March 11,
2012. Sample Size -- 807 Registered Voters, Margin of Error – +/-3.3 percentage points.

Investor’s Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor/TIPP Poll

Democrat Barack Obama or .................................................. ....................46%
Republican Mitt Romney or .................................................. ....................41%

Democrat Barack Obama or .................................................. ....................47%
Republican Rick Santorum {or} .................................................. ..............38%

Democrat Barack Obama or .................................................. ....................49%
Republican Ron Paul {or}.............................................. ...........................36%

Democrat Barack Obama or .................................................. ....................51%
Republican Newt Gingrich {or} .................................................. ..............34%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/doc...D_CSM_0312.pdf

There's not much wiggle room for either Romney or Santorum, and neither Gingrich nor Paul has much of a chance. Romney would have to pick up 70% of the undecided to tie in the absence of right-leaning alternatives as Third Party or Independent candidates. Santorum would have to pick up 73% of the undecided. Paul would have to win 93% of the undecided -- without those either failing to vote or going to Right alternatives (Libertarian, Constitution, maybe Reform) Party candidates. Gingrich goes beyond "well done" to burned beyond recognition.

To contradict this you would have to assume that people not yet registered to vote who indeed vote will vote heavily R. In view of what almost everyone says about Millennial voters who will be the bulk of new voters, such is not to be expected. Millennial voting habits are well documented, and they do not lean to the Right as they did among new Generation X voters in the 1980 Presidential election.

I read yesterday that Obama has a 25-point lead among women voters. The GOP really screwed themselves with the contraception BS and Limbaugh's big mouth.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

The anti-Southern rhetoric will backfire.

Best...

Huh? That depends upon the concept that "Southern" means "White".

Who are you trying to convince?

Appears that you answered that question…

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Poverty is an equal-opportunity proposition these days. It is no longer the clear result of existing racism. Black, Latino, and First People in poverty are not in poverty because someone imposes racist policies today. Residue of the past? Perhaps. Lowered expectations on educational achievement? Some white subcultures fit that, too.

The South still has much more poverty than does the North, and it has cultural differences that reflect themselves in a political heritage. It has always been a haven for low wages and poor working conditions. Economic life seems often to follow the dictum "Never let the better be the enemy of the tolerable". I once saw the South described as the place where everyone loves Jesus but gets Him wrong, where everyone hates Marx but fails to recognize how well he describes the economic and political order, and that the unexamined life so normal in the South is a perfect playground for Freudian analysis especially for a people who have no clue.

As for the rather skimpy analysis on racism, you left one very important variable out--wealth accumulation.

Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks, Hispanics

The median wealth of white households is 20 times that of black households and 18 times that of Hispanic households, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of newly available government data from 2009. These lopsided wealth ratios are the largest since the government began publishing such data a quarter century ago ...

Best...

It's surreal.

Rush Limbaugh'

Originally Posted by playwrite

One can also say that once the general gets going and the GOP nominee has to actually lay out what he would do, and look fairly stupid doing it (e.g. “drill, baby, drill” just isn't going to cut it when there are 4x more drilling rigs up and running under Obama than Bush).

These clowns have been monopolizing the media with their internal war and getting a free pass on attacking Obama. None of them are capable of going toe-to-toe with the guy. He'll make them look as stupid as they are, and remind people (who do generally suffer financial amnesia) that these are the clowns that nearly took our nation down just four years earlier.

Americans may often exhibit fairly ignorant if not borderline stupid behavior, but I have faith that they're not that stupid to give you guys the car keys again.

Very well stated, and I share the faith. And of course I have other sources of confidence

The key question though is whether people will be so stupid as to return the tea party congress. I have no sources of confidence on that so far.

Originally Posted by antichrist

There are two separate variables here which I don't trust ppl are recognizing.

One is these people's political opinions, with which I could not disagree more.

Two is their poverty (and a particularly southern poverty at that), which is distressing in our country.

I often fear that MUCH ANTIPATHY for these characters arises actually from point 2, but gets rationalized as pt 1.

Not too terribly different from driving downtown and locking all your doors because "those ppl are scary" even though "I'm not a racist but..."

Indeed, there is something extremely instructive about a studio full of affluent left wingers jeering and ridiculing people who are poor.

And of course, the idea that the people in that video are representative of the average Mississippian is ridiculous. Ms. Pelosi served up a nice piece of entertainment tailor made for the audience. Or "Two Minutes' Hate" if you prefer.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Indeed, there is something extremely instructive about a studio full of affluent left wingers jeering and ridiculing people who are poor.

And of course, the idea that the people in that video are representative of the average Mississippian is ridiculous. Ms. Pelosi served up a nice piece of entertainment tailor made for the audience. Or "Two Minutes' Hate" if you prefer.

White males in MS vote 90% Republican, but voted Democratic before LBJ. Why do you suppose that is?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Indeed, there is something extremely instructive about a studio full of affluent left wingers jeering and ridiculing people who are poor.

People who believe that President Obama is a Muslim are ludicrously ill-informed.

People who deny the mainstream scientific norm of evolution are fools.

Now do you see liberals taking trips to Alabama or Mississippi to ridicule people who have accepted so much disinformation and pseudoscience? Blues joints and beaches, maybe.

And of course, the idea that the people in that video are representative of the average Mississippian is ridiculous. Ms. Pelosi served up a nice piece of entertainment tailor made for the audience. Or "Two Minutes' Hate" if you prefer.

Democrats in Alabama and Mississippi probably think differently -- because in those states most of the Democrats are black.

By the way -- what entertainment is not "tailor-made" for an audience?

It could as easily be "Two Minutes Ridicule" or even "Two Minutes Pity". Hate? That might be directed at the people who grab big money for treating people badly, or at people who badly provide the disinformation as fact.

I bet that 90% blacks in the US vote Democrat, but voted Republican before LBJ. I bet that 90% of white single mom's in the US vote Democrat too. Why do you suppose that is? Here's a clue: What are you going to give us white boys to vote Democrat? We want free education, free daycare, an open limit credit card or two, an interest free mortgage or a free house , free food, free clothes, free healthcare, free college, free cars or trucks and free money to spend on fun.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I bet that 90% blacks in the US vote Democrat, but voted Republican before LBJ. I bet that 90% of white single mom's in the US vote Democrat too. Why do you suppose that is? Here's a clue: What are you going to give us white boys to vote Democrat? We want free education, free daycare, an open limit credit card or two, an interest free mortgage or a free house , free food, free clothes, free healthcare, free college, free cars or trucks and free money to spend on fun.

You are mistaken. Blacks in the US began voting Democratic under FDR. Eisenhower did somewhat better among them but Kennedy carried them by a large majority. That was because of the New Deal, and because of JFK's phone call to help get MLK out of jail in the fall of 1960.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

White males in MS vote 90% Republican, but voted Democratic before LBJ. Why do you suppose that is?

False narrative. A "big lie" hammered by the left to explain their failures. The South did not go Republican until the 1990s.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

You are mistaken. Blacks in the US began voting Democratic under FDR. Eisenhower did somewhat better among them but Kennedy carried them by a large majority. That was because of the New Deal, and because of JFK's phone call to help get MLK out of jail in the fall of 1960.

The point "you scratch our backs we'll scratch yours" remains the same.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Indeed, there is something extremely instructive about a studio full of affluent left wingers jeering and ridiculing people who are poor.

People who believe that President Obama is a Muslim are ludicrously ill-informed. People who deny the mainstream scientific norm of evolution are fools. Now do you see liberals taking trips to Alabama or Mississippi to ridicule people who have accepted so much disinformation and pseudoscience? Blues joints and beaches, maybe.

You still don't get it. In the video the man said the president should be American, not Muslim. This is culture, one of America's oldest. And mocking it does not help your cause. That you cannot find any other non-emotional, non-name-calling reaction to this culture delegitimizes any claim to superior rationalism. Best...

.... .... ....

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

People who believe that President Obama is a Muslim are ludicrously ill-informed.

Most people associate the name Hussein with Muslim.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

People who deny the mainstream scientific norm of evolution are fools.

Science has not proved that we have evolved from apes. Fools teach/preach things as if it is when it actually really isn't yet. I'm not so sure that it would be in the liberals best interest for society to return to nature rules.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

By the way -- what entertainment is not "tailor-made" for an audience?

It could as easily be "Two Minutes Ridicule" or even "Two Minutes Pity". Hate? That might be directed at the people who grab big money for treating people badly, or at people who badly provide the disinformation as fact.

Agreed. I thought that Rush's comments were "tailor-made" for his audience as well. I didn't see what the big deal was about involving his comments. Conservatives think liberal gals are sluts. Conservative guys think liberal gals are sluts. It's just the way that it is man.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

You still don't get it. In the video the man said the president should be American, not Muslim. This is culture, one of America's oldest. And mocking it does not help your cause. That you cannot find any other non-emotional, non-name-calling reaction to this culture delegitimizes any claim to superior rationalism. Best...

Pissing white folks off with all their stupid anti-white/racial/anti-religious comments doesn't help their causes either.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Most people associate the name Hussein with Muslim.

"Most People?" Are you serious? Are you trying to rationalize why someone would think Obama is Muslim with this? Seriously?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Science has not proved that we have evolved from apes. Fools teach/preach things as if it is when it actually really isn't yet. I'm not so sure that it would be in the liberals best interest for society to return to nature rules.

Oh dear. Are you really saying these things? Of course we didn't evolve from apes. "Science" never said so. We evolved from more primitive organisms for certain. Can you even consider the weight of DNA studies and what they mean?

And as to "nature's rules," how can we escape them? We have been, we are, and we will always be part of "nature." There is no choice about that. Homo Sapien may be a bizarre manifestation of nature, but it is certainly part of nature. What else could we be a part of?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Agreed. I thought that Rush's comments were "tailor-made" for his audience as well. I didn't see what the big deal was about involving his comments. Conservatives think liberal gals are sluts. Conservative guys think liberal gals are sluts. It's just the way that it is man.

"Liberal gals are sluts??" What in the world is going on in your mind? "Conservative guys??" Where in the world do you get this stuff?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I bet that 90% blacks in the US vote Democrat, but voted Republican before LBJ.

You would be correct on that one (with David's correction in mind).

I bet that 90% of white single mom's in the US vote Democrat too.

You are exaggerating by quite a bit there.

Why do you suppose that is? Here's a clue: What are you going to give us white boys to vote Democrat? We want free education, free daycare, an open limit credit card or two, an interest free mortgage or a free house , free food, free clothes, free healthcare, free college, free cars or trucks and free money to spend on fun.

Democrats offer some of that already, and you don't vote for them. So why would you vote for them if they provided all of it?

You refer to "white boys," I referred to MS white boys. There's a vast difference in the voting records there. That's the point; don't obfuscate it. White boys elsewhere vote at least 40-45% Democratic.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

False narrative. A "big lie" hammered by the left to explain their failures. The South did not go Republican until the 1990s.

That's interesting, since the "left" has not had any power to "fail" at anything since then.

Check out Goldwater's majority in MS in 1964. Then look at how many southern states voted for Nixon-Agnew in 1968. The point is clear. The sixties was the turning point. The only Democrats who carried southern states were GA native Jimmy Carter in 1976, and a few border and home states that Arkansas native Bill Clinton and Tennessee native veep candidate Al Gore won in 1992/96. Nowadays, white males vote 90% Republican in MS, and almost that much in other southern states. That is not true in other parts of the country. The only "failure" is the Democrats' refusal to return to racist policies or to pander too much to the trickle-down economics you guys are hooked on, which is an appealing philosophy among those who think the disadvantaged (such as blacks frequently are, due to their historical circumstances) should not get any government help or any enforcement of fair play rules.

Originally Posted by TnT

Where in the world do you get this stuff?

Exile must have been in exile for quite a while.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Most people associate the name Hussein with Muslim.

Like General Omar Bradley?

I know some Muslims. They are not bad people. I can assure you that if you had to choose between Dearborn and Detroit, you would prefer Dearborn... where, because of Muslim voters able to shape the behavior of local officials, the police bust drunks, pushers, prostitutes, and druggies at the city limit of Detroit. Many Christians and Jews happen to like it that way. On one side of the city limit are liquor stores and sexually-oriented businesses; prostitutes ply their trade. On the other side are family-friendly kebab houses.

Science has not proved that we have evolved from apes. Fools teach/preach things as if it is when it actually really isn't yet. I'm not so sure that it would be in the liberals best interest for society to return to nature rules.

We have not evolved from apes. We are apes. The chimpanzee is the living creature most similar to humans. From the neck down we are very typical apes. That may offend your sensibilities because you find it distressing that we humans can be compared to any 'lesser' creature. You may have heard that it is bad science to speak of absolute proof in science, and that is true. I recall a physics text that said that the power in the equation of the inverse square law for gravitation and electrical charge are both 2 within one billionth.

The evidence for evolution overpowers everything. The classification of living things presaged evolution as fact. Darwin had a structure of natural selection and genetics provides a mechanism -- and biochemistry explains the molecular reality (DNA) behind genetics.

Yes, a chimpanzee is a very nasty creature -- but much of the animal world wishes that we would be gone -- and, yes, take our horrific collaborators (dogs) with us. The dog itself exemplifies unnatural selection through selective breeding.

Scientific texts have little value as ethical guides; the Bible has no value as a scientific text.

Agreed. I thought that Rush's comments were "tailor-made" for his audience as well. I didn't see what the big deal was about involving his comments. Conservatives think liberal gals are sluts. Conservative guys think liberal gals are sluts. It's just the way that it is man.

Rash Libel went way too far. I fully understand that a male-chauvinist (whoops -- comparing Rush Limbaugh to a pig for anything other than his profile is inapt) can have pornographic fantasies about women who put career advancement above getting married and consigning themselves to the kitchen, having babies, and leaving their esthetic expression to hymns in church. Do you think that the 'sex tape' stuff went too far? Not only is it anti-feminist but also unfriendly to 'family values". Limbaugh said something that should have gotten him sanction from the FCC; it is far worse than the "wardrobe malfunction" of Janet Jackson.

By the way -- I think that the content of radio discourse needs go from R to G. That does not mean "Republican" to "Green"; that means from inappropriate for children to suitable to general audiences. That is a norm in a 4T and a tide worth riding.

Oh, by the way -- Mike Huckabee, I understand, gets to compete with Limbaugh. I may disagree with Huckabee, but I can certainly be glad that the pornographic fantasy is fading out.

Originally Posted by TnT

"Most People?" Are you serious? Are you trying to rationalize why someone would think Obama is Muslim with this? Seriously?

I didn't have to try very hard to rationalize why someone would think that Barack Hussein Obama is Muslim. Now, Omar Nelson Bradley is Muslim would be a much tougher sell.

Originally Posted by TnT

Oh dear. Are you really saying these things? Of course we didn't evolve from apes. "Science" never said so. We evolved from more primitive organisms for certain. Can you even consider the weight of DNA studies and what they mean?

I believe that my furthest ancester was a caveman. But, evolution as it was taught to me was a theory that man had evolved from an ape. DNA studies have already confirmed that my furthest ancester wasn't a Neandrathral or an ape. BTW, I also believe that there was a higher power or god that was involved in human evolution.

Originally Posted by TnT

And as to "nature's rules," how can we escape them? We have been, we are, and we will always be part of "nature." There is no choice about that. Homo Sapien may be a bizarre manifestation of nature, but it is certainly part of nature. What else could we be a part of?

I accept this and tend to live by this. The Eric's of the world continue to ignore this or continue to hope and try to change this.

Originally Posted by TnT

"Liberal gals are sluts??" What in the world is going on in your mind? "Conservative guys??" Where in the world do you get this stuff?

Would a conservative have said that if he thought or believed that the conservatives would object? Would Bill Maher say the things he has said if he thought or believed that the liberals would object? What's so hard to figure out or understand about this kind of stuff?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You refer to "white boys," I referred to MS white boys. There's a vast difference in the voting records there. That's the point; don't obfuscate it. White boys elsewhere vote at least 40-45% Democratic.

You referred to the MS white boys and I reffered to the nations black folks and the nations single white mom's.