Posts tagged republicans

Posted 1 year ago

Conservatives support this.

blueninth:

I am making this post in response to that image that some conservative bloggers reblogged about its okay to be white or something like that. To all the liberals out there that are saying that conservatives are racist and etc let me say this. That post does not support conservative beliefs. There are plenty of other races, gays, feminist ,and even Jewish people that are conservatives. Because someone reblog a photo that shows that they are proud of their race does not mean they are racist. I personally can’t say i’m too happy with that photo myself because yes it can send some missed communications of itself to others. But I urge you to know that photo is not in no way a conservative view. Here are some of the points conservatives support and no not all conservatives are all strictly conservative so don’t be surprised if you don’t see some points down

We support

  • Our rights in the constitution
  • that every individual have a responsibility for their own actions
  • cutting taxes
  • family values 
  • that our rights should not be infringed by the government

We are not

  • racist
  • homophobic 
  • anti science
  • or rich well for a lot of us
  • only white

If any one say otherwise they aren’t conservative. 

Signal boost to get the truth out about that post.

Posted 1 year ago

I Want My Country Back: Five myths liberlas have created for themselves

conservativesarehot:

1) Liberals love science: As Ann Coulter says, ”Liberals use the word science exactly as they use the word constitutional. Both words are nothing more or less than a general statement of liberal approval, having nothing to do with either science or the Constitution.” The liberal commitment to science consists entirely of talking about how important science is when they believe they can use it to further the liberal agenda. On the other hand, when science shows that adult stem cells actually work better than embryonic stem cells, millions in Africa have died because liberals needlessly insisted on banning DDT or the evidence shows AIDS is never going to take off in Western, non-drug using heterosexuals, liberals have about as much interest in science as they do in supporting the troops.

2) Liberals care about education: If you define “education” as doing as much as humanly possible to toss plums to the teachers’ unions who help fund and elect Democrats, liberals love education. Alternately, if you define education as the rest of us do, making sure our kids learn as much as possible and are prepared for the working world, liberals don’t care about education at all. They fight merit pay, oppose firing bad teachers and try to kill even effective school choice programs. Any time there’s a divergence between what’s best for the teachers’ unions and what’s best for the kids, the kids ALWAYS lose with liberals.

3) Liberals are tolerant: In a very real sense, liberals don’t understand tolerance. To them, tolerance is promoting whatever position they happen to hold while excluding all competing views. So, if a conservative speaker shows up on a college campus, liberals try to shout him down. Liberals have tried to censor conservative talk show hosts with an Orwellian “Fairness Act.” They work tirelessly to try to silence Fox News, which is the one center right network up against ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC. They block professors for their conservative views, blacklist conservative actors and lock conservatives out of almost every major newspaper in America. That’s not open-minded; it’s a level of dogmatic intolerance that could rival the most radical cult.

4) Liberals don’t moralize: Liberals believe in allowing children to have abortions over the protests of their parents, they want to force churches to perform gay weddings that violate their Christian beliefs and they demand that the Catholic Church provide abortion and birth control over its strenuous moral objections, but then they turn around and deny that they’re moralizing. Getting beyond that, they couch their arguments about tax rates, government programs and economics in distinctly moral terms. After all, what is the term “fair share” if not an appeal to morals? If liberals are going to continue to pretend that they don’t moralize, at least they should admit that they’re morally inferior to conservatives.

5) Liberals love the poor: For both philosophical and practical reasons, conservatives believe in helping the poor escape poverty. We agree wholeheartedly with Ben Franklin’s words of wisdom,
“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”On the other hand, liberals “love” the poor like a cat loves mice. The cat gets fat off the mice and liberals get elected off of sadistically keeping as many Americans mired in poverty as they can. Then, they can give the poor just enough money to get by on while railing against those mean old conservatives who’re claiming the destitute can have better lives when any “compassionate” person would realize food stamps and welfare are the best most of these people can ever do. That’s not love; that’s a gang of pushers trying to hook as many customers as possible.

Posted 1 year ago
the99strikesback:

Part of the our current problem of partisan politics lies in the fact that we continue to use words like liberal and conservative when, in truth, they no longer mean what they once did. The two terms that I currently use, because they much more accurately describe what’s going on, are not liberals and conservatives, but progressives and regressives. Those who, like the principles on which this nation was founded, believe in moving forward vs those who, let’s face it, want to turn the clock back. They want to turn the clock back to a day when Blacks weren’t so uppity, women weren’t  so independent, gays knew their place (in the closet) and stayed there, kids were seen but not heard (and harshly disciplined if not), and the environment was what it once was and should always be … a combination sewer/dumpster/vending machine.

So by your own definition the conservatives are the progressives and the liberals are the regressives? Thanks for clearing that up.

Is it possible to be a conservative progressive? One whose fundamental stance is forward looking yet who recognizes the beauty and necessity of much in our past? Yes, but conservatism as a word has been hijacked by regressives. A true conservative is much like a gardener who carefully prunes away that which is harmful while taking great care to CONSERVE that which is good, true, and worthy of the future. And there is so much that should be conserved. A progressive must always look to the garden of our future; that it should be sustainable and speak to the needs of future generations for all of us. 
Both ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ have become dirty words because they are outdated and no longer mean what they did in the early 20th century when they first came to wide use. But progressive and regressive is spot on in terms of where politics is today. Do you want to move forward or go back? This is the true ‘culture war’ everyone talks about. 
image: sodahead.com

You are also correct that the words don’t mean what they once did. Liberal originally referred to what is now the Libertarian movement until the turn of the century progressives got into trouble for supporting fascist Italy in WW2 and had to do a name change. So they stole the word Liberal and changed the meaning just as the left does with many terms, like when you try to redefine political terms to fit your own badly misinformed views.
Political Conservatism is and always has been about small government, economic freedom, and protecting religious liberty. Conservatives supported the women’s suffrage movement, the civil rights acts of the 60s, and give more to charity than the close minded bigoted left. The left have always been the main impediment to progress in this country and continue to be so to this day with their punitive tax policies and pro big government stances.

the99strikesback:

Part of the our current problem of partisan politics lies in the fact that we continue to use words like liberal and conservative when, in truth, they no longer mean what they once did. The two terms that I currently use, because they much more accurately describe what’s going on, are not liberals and conservatives, but progressives and regressives. Those who, like the principles on which this nation was founded, believe in moving forward vs those who, let’s face it, want to turn the clock back. They want to turn the clock back to a day when Blacks weren’t so uppity, women weren’t  so independent, gays knew their place (in the closet) and stayed there, kids were seen but not heard (and harshly disciplined if not), and the environment was what it once was and should always be … a combination sewer/dumpster/vending machine.

So by your own definition the conservatives are the progressives and the liberals are the regressives? Thanks for clearing that up.

Is it possible to be a conservative progressive? One whose fundamental stance is forward looking yet who recognizes the beauty and necessity of much in our past? Yes, but conservatism as a word has been hijacked by regressives. A true conservative is much like a gardener who carefully prunes away that which is harmful while taking great care to CONSERVE that which is good, true, and worthy of the future. And there is so much that should be conserved. A progressive must always look to the garden of our future; that it should be sustainable and speak to the needs of future generations for all of us. 

Both ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ have become dirty words because they are outdated and no longer mean what they did in the early 20th century when they first came to wide use. But progressive and regressive is spot on in terms of where politics is today. Do you want to move forward or go back? This is the true ‘culture war’ everyone talks about. 

image: sodahead.com

You are also correct that the words don’t mean what they once did. Liberal originally referred to what is now the Libertarian movement until the turn of the century progressives got into trouble for supporting fascist Italy in WW2 and had to do a name change. So they stole the word Liberal and changed the meaning just as the left does with many terms, like when you try to redefine political terms to fit your own badly misinformed views.

Political Conservatism is and always has been about small government, economic freedom, and protecting religious liberty. Conservatives supported the women’s suffrage movement, the civil rights acts of the 60s, and give more to charity than the close minded bigoted left. The left have always been the main impediment to progress in this country and continue to be so to this day with their punitive tax policies and pro big government stances.

Posted 1 year ago

Fact

tea-scones-andpolitics:

Taxes were higher under Ronald Reagan than under president Obama.

That depends on when you look at the income tax rates. My guess is that you are cherry picking the rates that Reagan had towards the beginning of his presidency which would have been 70% (which he inherited from Carter) compared to 35% under Obama. However by the time Reagan left office the income tax rate was 28% which is lower than Obama’s tax rate. So at best you’re being ignorant, at worst you’re being dishonest.

Posted 1 year ago

Poor Richard's News: Transparency: Obama to hold his official inauguration behind closed doors...again

poorrichardsnews:

image

This is supposedly the most transparent administration ever, but Obama and co. are far from it. Even something as simple as the official inauguration is being held behind closed doors, closed to the press, for the second time.

from Politico:

The White House Correspondents Association is…

Posted 1 year ago

Controversy Gangnam Style

In this slow political season a mini-controversy has erupted centering around recent South Korean pop phenomenon PSY, the dude behind the Gangnam Style song. (found here)

Apparently it has come out that PSY took part in two protests against the US and at the later in 2004 PSY read part of a controversial rap song. (Details via Hotair.com):

[I]n 2004, a Korean missionary was captured in Iraq by Islamists who demanded that South Korea not send troops to aid America in the war in Iraq. Seoul refused to negotiate and the missionary was beheaded. The result: massive protests throughout Korea against both Muslim extremism and the U.S. military for indirectly bringing this fate upon a Korean missionary.

As part of the protests, PSY and several other popular Korean musicians put on a live performance of a Korean rock band’s song “Dear American.” When PSY’s turn came, he rapped:

Kill those fucking Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives
Kill those fucking Yankees who ordered them to torture
Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers
Kill them all slowly and painfully

This info has of course enraged many Americans particularly those on the right. PSY has since apologized:

“As a proud South Korean who was educated in the United States and lived there for a very significant part of my life, I understand the sacrifices American servicemen and women have made to protect freedom and democracy in my country and around the world.”

“The song in question – from eight years ago – was part of a deeply emotional reaction to the war in Iraq and the killing of two Korean schoolgirls that was part of the overall antiwar sentiment shared by others around the world at that time. While I’m grateful for the freedom to express one’s self I’ve learned there are limits to what language is appropriate and I’m deeply sorry for how these lyrics could be interpreted. I will forever be sorry for any pain I have caused anyone by those words.”

“I have been honored to perform in front of American soldiers in recent months – including an appearance on the Jay Leno show specifically for them – and I hope they and all Americans can accept my apology. While it’s important we express our opinions, I deeply regret the inflammatory and inappropriate language I used to do so. In my music I try to give people a release, a reason to smile. I have learned that though music, our universal language we can all come together as a culture of humanity and I hope that you will accept my apology.”

Now it is true, PSY has performed for the troops in recent months and hasn’t used any language like the words in the rap song. The real question is was it indeed a heat of the moment thing or is PSY just smiling for the cameras so that he can make money off of Americans? I’m kinda leaning towards the 1st option. PSY hasn’t shown a persistent pattern of anti-Americanism in fact other than the lyrics he read there has been no other instance of anti-american rants. Now if there were a pattern of him doing this over multiple years then it would be another story.

Now I know some of the conservatives here may balk at me sorta defending PSY, but lemme throw another name out there for you: Ice-T. The rapper turned actor recently came out with an anti-gun control rant that was cheered by conservatives, conservatives who apparently forgot that Ice-T wrote a song about killing cops.

My point is that you have to look at an entire body of work and not judge someone by one moment in time. I know if I were judged by some of the horrible things I’ve done in the past most people wouldn’t care for me much, but I’ve changed I’m not that person anymore. I think that everyone deserves a second chance, and South Korean pop stars are no different. So until more evidence comes out against PSY, I’ll still kick it Gangnam Style.

Posted 1 year ago

Philosophy of Conservatism: Morality & Taxes: A look into the moral prospects of taxation.

youthinkimtryingtobenicehowcute:

nerdy-conservative:

Taxation without representation was one of the reasons why the colonists rose up against British rule. Today we dispute at what rate taxes should be put at. Liberals/Progressives advocate raising taxes on the wealthy, while Conservatives on the other end advocate lowering taxes across the board. I…

You neglect mentioning that progressive policies have a much more sinister motive.

Your neighbor who votes Democratic may believe that, but the people who are actually in charge? The politicians? No way. They know the truth. If the War on Poverty worked so well why is it still being waged… Duh, it doesn’t work. It’s not supposed to. You don’t think Obama knows this? You don’t think, say, Nancy Pelosi doesn’t know this? I’d hazard a guess that LBJ and FDR knew it too… New Deal, Great Society were major power grabs for the Democrats. What else did these programs accomplish? It’s all about power, not helping people. 

Bingo, give the lady a prize. Why do you think LBJ opposed and even filibustered the civil rights act until he became president? He didn’t have a change of heart, he just realized he could take credit for it and he even said as much. The so called war on poverty is designed to keep a permanent underclass that continually votes democratic. The Democrats never gave up slavery, they just swapped physical slavery for economic slavery.

(Source: the-nebraska-territory)

Posted 1 year ago
blissfullyunwed:

Despite the partisan nature of the graphic heading this entry, I’m not here to throw a grown-up temper tantrum about how my party is always right and your party is always wrong – although, to be fair, I may have been guilty of that crime a time or… yeah. But not today, because, today, I’m here to wax profound on the subject of political rhetoric.
Whichever party you support, you almost certainly understand that Liberal and Conservative political public figures alike utilize their own very distinct brand of narrative as a filter for the information they disseminate to the public. Accusations of Right Wing loud-mouthery aside, the above graphic is actually a quite accurate representation of one of the most compelling indicators of the stark differences between America’s Democratic and Republican parties: their varient rhetorical practices.   
Because my job as a graphic artist often causes my love for the English language to go unrequired, I derive a bordering-on-inappropriate amount of pleasure from analyzing the way that subtle but incredibly meaningful linguistic cues that usually go unnoticed and unexamined can either unify or polarize groups of people, more often than not without their knowledge. Under a microscope, the carefully-crafted rhetoric of both the Democratic and the Republican parties reveals the strings that are meant to be pulled to gain the support of audiences. This rhetoric also tells us, if we are willing to see, the parties’ greatly-varied priorities.   
In both parties, there are certain words that are used more widely and frequently than others. For example, Conservatives employ words like “tradition,” “family values,” and “sanctity” to appeal to their target audience. It’s not enough to simply identify the technical meanings of words like these; in order to suss out what they reveal about their users, you have to figure out what meaning has been assigned to them by their speakers. Those meanings, the ones that you can’t find in a dictionary, serve the purpose of disrobing the true beliefs and intentions of their speakers. Broadening the scope to the way in which important words are used on both sides of the aisle reveals fundamental differences between both factions of our two-party system. 
One such loaded adjective is the word “progressive.” In right-wing punditry, its connotation is generally negative, used by speakers to draw the attention of their listeners toward threats toward conservativism. Conversely, in its liberal incarnation, “progressive” is used positively and less ambiguously, generally to describe social improvement through adaptation. 
With their use of the word “progressive,” both parties stray from its everyday, dictionary-approved definition, adding their own connotations in order to get their message across. For example, although progression is associated with forward movement, which is generally viewed positively, “The progression of the disease has not slowed.” Still sounds pretty grim. Be that as it may, though, there is no avoiding the fact that the Conservative use of “progressive,” as the signifier of traditional abandonment and moral decay, wanders significantly from the real-life meaning of the word than its slightly-adjusted Liberal counterpart. 
These differences in rhetoric do not exist in a vacuum. Although speech can certainly influence thought (we wouldn’t be takling about political rhetoric right now it it couldn’t), it nearly always works the other way around: as a reflection of the views of the speaker, or, in the case of uniform use of the word by a group, the commonly-held views of that group.
That Liberal public political figures skewed the meaning of the word “progressive” to fit their party’s agenda is a sign that both parties do hold a certain bias. But what we’ve seen here has implications reaching far beyond Republicans playing significantly faster and looser with the English language than their Democratic counterparts. This eschewment of a word that has nearly turned it to its opposite is a huge a red flag, marking the trend in Conservativism toward complete abandonment of reliance on facts to guide ideas and decisions.
That Right Wing leadership is inclined to blatantly deny reality should not even be a matter of dispute anymore. Pushing abstinence-only sex ed, attempting to bar women from obtaining birth control and safe, legal abortions, Paul Ryan’s untruth-riddled vice presidential nomination acceptance speech - hell, the Romney/Ryan lie-a-minute presidential campaign in its entirety, the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the fact that global warming is fucking real - how do Republican party members not see that they’re being duped? 
Here’s why I chose that graphic: Republican politicians are able to shove lie after lie down the throats of their constituency without so much as a peep of resistance, because they do not appeal to their supporters’ logical minds.
Think about it: family values, the Founding Fathers, patriotism, freedom - these vague and highly manipulable terms are used to evoke emotion, not rational consideration. Once you call upon your listeners’ sense of obligation to God, country and family, and then tell them that the other guys (you know, those mean, mean scientist and fact-checkers) do not support those values, you’ve won. You’ve won because, now, no matter how sensible a suggestion may be, if your supporters have been conditioned to view the suggester as a morally-inept threat to their families, their religious beliefs and their country, they won’t listen.
Think I’m wrong about this? If you do, you probably also won’t believe that, among viewers of major news networks, the patrons of any given network were no more likely to be misinformed about current events than the patrons of the next. That is, with the exception of Fox News. Regular Fox News viewers were more likely to hold incorrect opinions than viewers of any other channel, including MSNBC, whose viewers weren’t more likely to harbor incorrect opinions than anyone else. Except Fox viewers, of course. Why did I bother saying this? 
So, next time you’re tempted to throw your hands up and say, “Fuck it. Both parties are biased and disingenuous.” Remember this: although corruption touches all areas of politics, there is only one side that will not adapt with America as it grows and changes and faces new threats and challenges. Remember also, while you’re at it, that the party with the ability to evolve to meet the needs of Americans is not the party to whom “evolution” is a dirty word. See? Rhetoric can tell you a lot. 
Image Source: Liberals Are Cool, via Liberal Mama. 

O lookee, another troll in the conservative tag. Let’s take this apart shall we?:

One such loaded adjective is the word “progressive.” In right-wing punditry, its connotation is generally negative, used by speakers to draw the attention of their listeners toward threats toward conservativism. Conversely, in its liberal incarnation, “progressive” is used positively and less ambiguously, generally to describe social improvement through adaptation.
With their use of the word “progressive,” both parties stray from its everyday, dictionary-approved definition, adding their own connotations in order to get their message across. For example, although progression is associated with forward movement, which is generally viewed positively, “The progression of the disease has not slowed.” Still sounds pretty grim. Be that as it may, though, there is no avoiding the fact that the Conservative use of “progressive,” as the signifier of traditional abandonment and moral decay, wanders significantly from the real-life meaning of the word than its slightly-adjusted Liberal counterpart.

This is the only part I find genuinely intriguing in this post. It is also largely correct in that terms like progressive has different connotations depending on the political leanings of the user. However the OP failed to mention that the term progressive was originated in the early 1900s when the turn of the century progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson started nationalizing the country for the sake of “progress”. The left was forced to abandon the term when the progressives became politically linked to fascist Italy and they co-opted the term Liberal which used to mean Libertarian and still does in much of the world. It is only recently that the left has returned to the term progressive which in a political atmosphere means tending towards large government.

Think about it: family values, the Founding Fathers, patriotism, freedom - these vague and highly manipulable terms are used to evoke emotion, not rational consideration. Once you call upon your listeners’ sense of obligation to God, country and family, and then tell them that the other guys (you know, those mean, mean scientist and fact-checkers) do not support those values, you’ve won. You’ve won because, now, no matter how sensible a suggestion may be, if your supporters have been conditioned to view the suggester as a morally-inept threat to their families, their religious beliefs and their country, they won’t listen.

Think about it: mother earth, pollution, do it for the children, Universal Health Care - these vague and highly manipulable terms are used to evoke emotion, not rational consideration.

Think I’m wrong about this? If you do, you probably also won’t believe that, among viewers of major news networks, the patrons of any given network were no more likely to be misinformed about current events than the patrons of the next. That is, with the exception of Fox News. Regular Fox News viewers were more likely to hold incorrect opinions than viewers of any other channel, including MSNBC, whose viewers weren’t more likely to harbor incorrect opinions than anyone else. Except Fox viewers, of course. Why did I bother saying this? 

Yeah no, just no. This 2 year old survey has already been roundly debunked by politifact of all people: Link

So, next time you’re tempted to throw your hands up and say, “Fuck it. Both parties are biased and disingenuous.” Remember this: although corruption touches all areas of politics, there is only one side that will not adapt with America as it grows and changes and faces new threats and challenges.

Yup and sadly it is the party currently in the White House. The Democrats have been recycling the same policies since Wilson. I think it’s time to find solutions that work and don’t just devastate the economy.

Remember also, while you’re at it, that the party with the ability to evolve to meet the needs of Americans is not the party to whom “evolution” is a dirty word.

Once again you are confusing social conservatism with political conservatism, they aren’t the same. I hate to tell you this, but there are a lot of social conservatives in the Democrat party and quite a few socially liberal conservatives, like me. Not to mention most churches have no problem with the concept of evolution. This is a point of view projected onto the right by the left.

See? Rhetoric can tell you a lot. 

Yes it can.

blissfullyunwed:

Despite the partisan nature of the graphic heading this entry, I’m not here to throw a grown-up temper tantrum about how my party is always right and your party is always wrong – although, to be fair, I may have been guilty of that crime a time or… yeah. But not today, because, today, I’m here to wax profound on the subject of political rhetoric.

Whichever party you support, you almost certainly understand that Liberal and Conservative political public figures alike utilize their own very distinct brand of narrative as a filter for the information they disseminate to the public. Accusations of Right Wing loud-mouthery aside, the above graphic is actually a quite accurate representation of one of the most compelling indicators of the stark differences between America’s Democratic and Republican parties: their varient rhetorical practices.   

Because my job as a graphic artist often causes my love for the English language to go unrequired, I derive a bordering-on-inappropriate amount of pleasure from analyzing the way that subtle but incredibly meaningful linguistic cues that usually go unnoticed and unexamined can either unify or polarize groups of people, more often than not without their knowledge. Under a microscope, the carefully-crafted rhetoric of both the Democratic and the Republican parties reveals the strings that are meant to be pulled to gain the support of audiences. This rhetoric also tells us, if we are willing to see, the parties’ greatly-varied priorities.   

In both parties, there are certain words that are used more widely and frequently than others. For example, Conservatives employ words like “tradition,” “family values,” and “sanctity” to appeal to their target audience. It’s not enough to simply identify the technical meanings of words like these; in order to suss out what they reveal about their users, you have to figure out what meaning has been assigned to them by their speakers. Those meanings, the ones that you can’t find in a dictionary, serve the purpose of disrobing the true beliefs and intentions of their speakers. Broadening the scope to the way in which important words are used on both sides of the aisle reveals fundamental differences between both factions of our two-party system.

One such loaded adjective is the word “progressive.” In right-wing punditry, its connotation is generally negative, used by speakers to draw the attention of their listeners toward threats toward conservativism. Conversely, in its liberal incarnation, “progressive” is used positively and less ambiguously, generally to describe social improvement through adaptation.

With their use of the word “progressive,” both parties stray from its everyday, dictionary-approved definition, adding their own connotations in order to get their message across. For example, although progression is associated with forward movement, which is generally viewed positively, “The progression of the disease has not slowed.” Still sounds pretty grim. Be that as it may, though, there is no avoiding the fact that the Conservative use of “progressive,” as the signifier of traditional abandonment and moral decay, wanders significantly from the real-life meaning of the word than its slightly-adjusted Liberal counterpart.

These differences in rhetoric do not exist in a vacuum. Although speech can certainly influence thought (we wouldn’t be takling about political rhetoric right now it it couldn’t), it nearly always works the other way around: as a reflection of the views of the speaker, or, in the case of uniform use of the word by a group, the commonly-held views of that group.

That Liberal public political figures skewed the meaning of the word “progressive” to fit their party’s agenda is a sign that both parties do hold a certain bias. But what we’ve seen here has implications reaching far beyond Republicans playing significantly faster and looser with the English language than their Democratic counterparts. This eschewment of a word that has nearly turned it to its opposite is a huge a red flag, marking the trend in Conservativism toward complete abandonment of reliance on facts to guide ideas and decisions.

That Right Wing leadership is inclined to blatantly deny reality should not even be a matter of dispute anymore. Pushing abstinence-only sex ed, attempting to bar women from obtaining birth control and safe, legal abortions, Paul Ryan’s untruth-riddled vice presidential nomination acceptance speech - hell, the Romney/Ryan lie-a-minute presidential campaign in its entirety, the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the fact that global warming is fucking real - how do Republican party members not see that they’re being duped? 

Here’s why I chose that graphic: Republican politicians are able to shove lie after lie down the throats of their constituency without so much as a peep of resistance, because they do not appeal to their supporters’ logical minds.

Think about it: family values, the Founding Fathers, patriotism, freedom - these vague and highly manipulable terms are used to evoke emotion, not rational consideration. Once you call upon your listeners’ sense of obligation to God, country and family, and then tell them that the other guys (you know, those mean, mean scientist and fact-checkers) do not support those values, you’ve won. You’ve won because, now, no matter how sensible a suggestion may be, if your supporters have been conditioned to view the suggester as a morally-inept threat to their families, their religious beliefs and their country, they won’t listen.

Think I’m wrong about this? If you do, you probably also won’t believe that, among viewers of major news networks, the patrons of any given network were no more likely to be misinformed about current events than the patrons of the next. That is, with the exception of Fox News. Regular Fox News viewers were more likely to hold incorrect opinions than viewers of any other channel, including MSNBC, whose viewers weren’t more likely to harbor incorrect opinions than anyone else. Except Fox viewers, of course. Why did I bother saying this? 

So, next time you’re tempted to throw your hands up and say, “Fuck it. Both parties are biased and disingenuous.” Remember this: although corruption touches all areas of politics, there is only one side that will not adapt with America as it grows and changes and faces new threats and challenges. Remember also, while you’re at it, that the party with the ability to evolve to meet the needs of Americans is not the party to whom “evolution” is a dirty word. See? Rhetoric can tell you a lot. 

Image Source: Liberals Are Cool, via Liberal Mama.

O lookee, another troll in the conservative tag. Let’s take this apart shall we?:

One such loaded adjective is the word “progressive.” In right-wing punditry, its connotation is generally negative, used by speakers to draw the attention of their listeners toward threats toward conservativism. Conversely, in its liberal incarnation, “progressive” is used positively and less ambiguously, generally to describe social improvement through adaptation.

With their use of the word “progressive,” both parties stray from its everyday, dictionary-approved definition, adding their own connotations in order to get their message across. For example, although progression is associated with forward movement, which is generally viewed positively, “The progression of the disease has not slowed.” Still sounds pretty grim. Be that as it may, though, there is no avoiding the fact that the Conservative use of “progressive,” as the signifier of traditional abandonment and moral decay, wanders significantly from the real-life meaning of the word than its slightly-adjusted Liberal counterpart.

This is the only part I find genuinely intriguing in this post. It is also largely correct in that terms like progressive has different connotations depending on the political leanings of the user. However the OP failed to mention that the term progressive was originated in the early 1900s when the turn of the century progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson started nationalizing the country for the sake of “progress”. The left was forced to abandon the term when the progressives became politically linked to fascist Italy and they co-opted the term Liberal which used to mean Libertarian and still does in much of the world. It is only recently that the left has returned to the term progressive which in a political atmosphere means tending towards large government.

Think about it: family values, the Founding Fathers, patriotism, freedom - these vague and highly manipulable terms are used to evoke emotion, not rational consideration. Once you call upon your listeners’ sense of obligation to God, country and family, and then tell them that the other guys (you know, those mean, mean scientist and fact-checkers) do not support those values, you’ve won. You’ve won because, now, no matter how sensible a suggestion may be, if your supporters have been conditioned to view the suggester as a morally-inept threat to their families, their religious beliefs and their country, they won’t listen.

Think about it: mother earth, pollution, do it for the children, Universal Health Care - these vague and highly manipulable terms are used to evoke emotion, not rational consideration.

Think I’m wrong about this? If you do, you probably also won’t believe that, among viewers of major news networks, the patrons of any given network were no more likely to be misinformed about current events than the patrons of the next. That is, with the exception of Fox News. Regular Fox News viewers were more likely to hold incorrect opinions than viewers of any other channel, including MSNBC, whose viewers weren’t more likely to harbor incorrect opinions than anyone else. Except Fox viewers, of course. Why did I bother saying this? 

Yeah no, just no. This 2 year old survey has already been roundly debunked by politifact of all people: Link

So, next time you’re tempted to throw your hands up and say, “Fuck it. Both parties are biased and disingenuous.” Remember this: although corruption touches all areas of politics, there is only one side that will not adapt with America as it grows and changes and faces new threats and challenges.

Yup and sadly it is the party currently in the White House. The Democrats have been recycling the same policies since Wilson. I think it’s time to find solutions that work and don’t just devastate the economy.

Remember also, while you’re at it, that the party with the ability to evolve to meet the needs of Americans is not the party to whom “evolution” is a dirty word.

Once again you are confusing social conservatism with political conservatism, they aren’t the same. I hate to tell you this, but there are a lot of social conservatives in the Democrat party and quite a few socially liberal conservatives, like me. Not to mention most churches have no problem with the concept of evolution. This is a point of view projected onto the right by the left.

See? Rhetoric can tell you a lot. 

Yes it can.

Posted 1 year ago

After 30 years, The New York Times has admitted that Reaganomics worked.

stuff-that-irks-me:

image

The inadvertent revelation comes in a November 29th article by Binyamin Appelbaum chronicling the steadily falling tax burden Americans have experienced since the 1980s.

AEI columnist James Pethokoukis notes that the heart of The Times’ article is that in 2010 Americans “paid far less in total taxes — federal, state and local — than they would have paid 30 years ago.”

Pethokoukis points out that some tax hike advocates think this means that America’s tax burden is too low and time has come for a hike. But Pethokoukis disagrees.

Maybe I’m crazy, but I think the reduction in the tax burden — starting with the Reagan tax cuts — has been a huge competitive advantage for the U.S. We should keep that edge. Check out these numbers. In 1981, France’s per capita GDP was 81% of U.S. per capita GDP, Germany’s 83%, Italy’s 81%, Britain’s 69%.

In 2010, France’s per capita GDP was 73% of U.S. per capita GDP (down 8 points), Germany’s 81% (down 2 points), Italy’s 68% (down 12 points), and Britain’s 76% (up 7 points).

Pethokoukis reminds readers that Europe was closing the gap with U.S. wealth by 1980, but after Reagan’s tax cuts that trend stagnated and in other cases even began to reverse.

There are many great points made in the Pethokoukis piece and you need to go read them, but his last one is the funniest—or saddest, depending on your point of view.

4. Another bit: “Economists agree that taxes on business are passed on to investors, reducing profits, and to workers, reducing wages. Upper-income households bear the brunt of these taxes, and corporate tax collections have fallen sharply.” That is right. Taxes matter.

Funny, the NYT never mentioned this widely known economic fact when Mitt Romney was attacked for saying “Corporations are people.”

It seems there are a lot of things the Gray Lady never mentions.

Posted 1 year ago

Runawayfrom: it is obvious that tax rates on the rich need to be raised, the Bush...

runawayfrom:

it is obvious that tax rates on the rich need to be raised, the Bush administration’s tax cuts added more to the deficit than either of the wars during the last decade

but I don’t really think ‘raised’ is the correct term

the democrats simply want to return their tax rates to the levels that…

Except tax cuts don’t create deficits, overspending does. Here’s an article that annihilates your argument: 

http://lionsdenmedia.hubpages.com/hub/Why-Not-Return-to-the-Clinton-Era-Tax-Rates-When-the-Economy-was-Great