Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Exit polls show 98% of voters in the Republican Illinois primary were white and 17% (sic) were under 40. The Republicans are in big trouble come November.

Illinois is a blue state because of Chicago. And that is where most of the population of the state is located. Chicago is overwhelming Democratic. Down state and rural Illinois tend to lean towards the Republicans. The breakdown you described pretty much fits make up of the rest of the state where the Republican voters are. They are older and white. The young people and the minorities are mainly in Chicago or the suburbs. So this poll doesn't surprise me at all.

Originally Posted by Odin

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Orwell put it much more succinctly:

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength


(then again, Orwell also bemoaned the logorrhea that in his time was coming to overwhelm written discourse.. succinct was kind of a big thing with him)

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Are you on the Left or are you part of The Left or are you The Left?

On the Left politically, inactive enough not to claim to be part of it.

Originally Posted by Odin

The ***hole yelling the "stop raping people" lies dropped dead a couple weeks ago. Karma's a b*tch.

What lies? The rapes and murders at occupy rallies is documented.

Originally Posted by antichrist

Odin, you might be one of the most bigoted people on this forum.

I think he is the most bigoted and hateful person on this forum.

He has no self awareness at all.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Exit polls show 98% of voters in the Republican Illinois primary were white and 17% (sic) were under 40. The Republicans are in big trouble come November.

... and imagine after 2012.

Was 2010 their last big hooray? They're going to try to make it 2012 but it’s based on the falsehood of blame and a constrained Obama. I don't think it likely but it is possible. The thing is, with what is to come, their winning the Presidency might actually accelerate their more general withering in the down-the-ballot elections. I see 2016 as where the pivot will become clear to most.

With all the gerrymandering since Reagan, it will take some time, to move down below the national Presidential level. Then comes their regionalization that will eventually make them a permanent minority in the House. But they will remain a force in the archaic Senate for far into the future; same with the SCOTUS. That may keep the Dems unified enough not to split with a more conservative element taking up some of the less crazed remaining in the GOP and making what is left there mostly irrelevant (except, again, in the Senate until the Dems can get over 60 or change the rules).

The change is inevitable though.

There is some chance that the GOP may change within (e.g., Michael Steele, Joe Scarborough have gotten more interesting since removing themselves from the election frays), but I doubt it. Also, there is some chance the expanding minorities, particularly Hispanics, might move in their direction on social issues, but the current GOP certainly isn’t working hard to open the door to that possibility and besides a lot of the social issues may become locked in (e.g. gay marriage) and not worth socially-conservative minorities trading off of their economic interest. For the latter, as time goes by, it will become much clearer how economically harmful what the GOP actualy offers the vast majority of voters (e.g. maybe even Kansas will finally "get it") and that will greatly hasten their demise from political power.

There is, however, the issue of possible violent reactions to being backed into a corner.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Orwell put it much more succinctly:

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength


(then again, Orwell also bemoaned the logorrhea that in his time was coming to overwhelm written discourse.. succinct was kind of a big thing with him)

Remember that Popper, who was of Jewish background, left his Native Austria to get away from the Nazis, and wrote that quote during WW2. In that context what he is saying makes perfect sense. You can't reason with people who prefer shooting you over being convinced by you.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

What lies? The rapes and murders at occupy rallies is documented.

With how many people were at Zuccotti Park for so long it would be miraculous if there were no incidences of violent crimes, it has nothing to do with Occupy itself and to claim so is fallacious.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Exit polls show 98% of voters in the Republican Illinois primary were white and 17% (sic) were under 40. The Republicans are in big trouble come November.

Illinois is one of the Bluest of states... "Under 40" means "born 1972 or later". About half of those should be Generation X, so if the GOP is having trouble with Generation X it will be in deep trouble in places other than Illinois. Republicans can't yet excite people outside the Base to find an alternative to president Obama. Time is running out for that.

Originally Posted by Odin

With how many people were at Zuccotti Park for so long it would be miraculous if there were no incidences of violent crimes, it has nothing to do with Occupy itself and to claim so is fallacious.

How many people were at Zuccotti Park? And they were not there that long. And compare to an average community of theat size. And compare to Tea Baggers. You are a cop out.

Originally Posted by Odin

Remember that Popper, who was of Jewish background, left his Native Austria to get away from the Nazis, and wrote that quote during WW2. In that context what he is saying makes perfect sense. You can't reason with people who prefer shooting you over being convinced by you.

You seem to be the only one here taliking about shootimng people.

Originally Posted by Odin

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

-Karl Popper

The American Right with it's hate radio qualifies at the moment.



Breitbart's death was certainly a tragedy for his family, but I cannot personally feel sorry for his death.

I do not even care that much for his family. Have they disowned him?

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

I do not even care that much for his family. Have they disowned him?

As for Odin being the most hateful and bigoted person on the board. I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by Odin

Remember that Popper, who was of Jewish background, left his Native Austria to get away from the Nazis, and wrote that quote during WW2. In that context what he is saying makes perfect sense. You can't reason with people who prefer shooting you over being convinced by you.

He's not talking about being unable to reason with people who shoot instead of reasoning. He's talking about shooting people who talk about (that is, engage in the primary mode we humans have of social reasoning) doing stuff he doesn't like.

No context on earth can make such a thing any less monstrous to propose.

Inspiring video!


http://youtu.be/l11ZLzIck_8

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

I do not even care that much for his family. Have they disowned him?

Well that was uncalled for. People can be decent parents even if they are douchebags in public.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

He's not talking about being unable to reason with people who shoot instead of reasoning. He's talking about shooting people who talk about (that is, engage in the primary mode we humans have of social reasoning) doing stuff he doesn't like.

No context on earth can make such a thing any less monstrous to propose.

Something like Germany banning Neo-Nazi groups and their associated symbols is shooting people?

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

Originally Posted by Justin '77

He's not talking about being unable to reason with people who shoot instead of reasoning. He's talking about shooting people who talk about (that is, engage in the primary mode we humans have of social reasoning) doing stuff he doesn't like.

No context on earth can make such a thing any less monstrous to propose.

No, Popper is arguing that there are times when taking violent action is the less violent alternative. That is very different from your take or Odin's. It's not a line I want to draw, but it's one that obviously exists. Would you hesitate to shoot a an enraged maniac with a nuclear weapon and way to detonate it, who was getting ready to do just that? Now, take the maniac away and replace him/her with a delusional 8 year old. Could you still save the world?

Originally Posted by Odin

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

-Karl Popper

The American Right with it's hate radio qualifies at the moment.



Breitbart's death was certainly a tragedy for his family, but I cannot personally feel sorry for his death.

It is good to put Popper in perspective.

Karl Popper (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

http://stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/entries/popper/

..."he was appalled by the failure of the democratic parties to stem the rising tide of fascism in his native Austria in the 1920s and 1930s, and the effective welcome extended to it by the Marxists. The latter acted on the ideological grounds that it constituted what they believed to be a necessary dialectical step towards the implosion of capitalism and the ultimate revolutionary victory of communism. This was one factor which led to the much feared Anschluss, the annexation of Austria by the German Reich, the anticipation of which forced Popper into permanent exile from his native country. The Poverty of Historicism (1944) and The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), his most impassioned and brilliant social works, are as a consequence a powerful defence of democratic liberalism as a social and political philosophy, and a devastating critique of the principal philosophical presuppositions underpinning all forms of totalitarianism."...

Then there is silliness. It seems some political advocates are trying to use spam mechanisms to silence opponents on Facebook. If one 'likes' a page, one can label any comment attached to the page as spam. To members of one party, any comment favoring the views of the other party seems to look like spam.

Facebook is looking into it, allegedly. Their spokesman thinks Facebook would be a better social service if the above is squashed.

From C-net: Democrat: Republicans got me banned on Facebook

Is this what people think intelligent discourse is made of?

Of course, there is no real evidence that Republicans did it. This was just an assumption on the part of the accused spammer.

Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Odin

Something like Germany banning Neo-Nazi groups and their associated symbols is shooting people?

"we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force"


Do you not get what that means? I mean, it's right there...

Yes, 'banning' via the gun-wielding organs of force-application is precisely 'shooting people'. Or hanging them or beating them to death or hacking them apart with machetes or just injecting poison into their veins or lungs. That's what force in a social context is -- the act or credible threat of turning a person into an object.

I'm in agreement with Justin on this one. My only hesitation is that I've never stood in those shoes; my feeling, though, is that while I can understand Popper's wrath and willingness to cross acceptable lines on this matter, much as I can understand the victim of a violent rape wanting to castrate all men, that doesn't make it right. I have never been entirely comfortable with Germany's banning of Nazis, either. It's not even a good justification to point to German history, since the Weimar Republic had provisions (notably the president's authority to give emergency powers to the chancellor, which is how the Nazi government -- originally republican -- was converted into a dictatorship) that was just asking for something bloody awful to happen, and the Bundesrepublik does not have those provisions. If a Nazi Party were to be resurgent in Germany, the most it could accomplish under current law would be to become the elected government under the Constitution, as Hitler did in the 1933 election, and could not become a totalitarian state as Nazi Germany was after the Reichstag fire. While even that would be a lamentable event, it would not be a catastrophe justifying totalitarian methods (which the outlawing of a political party constitutes) to stop it.

Rick Santorum has suggested that it might be better to stick with Obama than to elect "etch-a-sketch" Mitt Romney. He represents the worst of his generation: totally narcissistic and without any loyalty to anything but himself. It makes me sick that people like this can build up moral credit by claiming to be very religious.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Inspiring video!


http://youtu.be/l11ZLzIck_8

Democratic party propaganda.

Originally Posted by Odin

Well that was uncalled for. People can be decent parents even if they are douchebags in public.

Have they disowned the douchebag, Odin?