Posted on 11/18/2008 6:26:44 PM PST by GVnana
When you were required to be a property owner to vote, you had a more informed and “at stake” electorate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Greek kakistos, worst, superlative of kakos, bad; see caco- + -cracy.]
Alas, however, McCain also could not turn out the base even by selecting Sarah (who was crucified in the press for obvious reasons but which still resulted in a lot of GOP voters doubting her capabilities). For example, Obama got 40,000 less votes than John Kerry in 2004 in Ohio but won by 200,000 votes. McCain got 300,000 less votes than Bush did in 2004 in Ohio. This race was so winnable that it hurts
Yep,I can’t afford that.
Very indicative of who’s a “fascist”, isn’t it?
A conservative bumper sticker will get your car vandalized probably 10 times to 1 over a lib sticker.
>>If one is too lazy to apply their own intelligence, how does that make them NOT stupid?
>
>It makes them ignorant. Stupid is unable to learn. Ignorant is able to learn but having not learned.
>Thus, those who refuse to learn may well be able to, they just won’t. That leaves them uninformed
>and, hence, ignorant, yes?
I disagree. You see their unwillingness to learn means that they are unable to learn (very rarely does one learn against one’s will, but that is not saying one cannot learn from bad experiences); so, by their own choice to embrace unwillingness to learn and laziness, they have made themselves unable to learn: hence stupid.
Now, it is possible to be both intelligent and ignorant. For example, I’m a CS major, I enjoy listening to music, but I could not tell you what alto, contralto and all the rest are (except bass, that’s the low one), which makes me ignorant on the technicalities of music.
I won’t put it on my bumper but I believe it. No thought control, yet.)
bttt
Wish he would have done a similar poll for McCain voters. Or did he and I missed it?
I don’t give the 0bama voters the benefit of the doubt for being ignorant,
because even if they are ignorant, it is wilful ignorance.
Sad, I had no problem at all answer all the questions correctly on that poll. I did not however vote for Obama.
Go to http://www.howobamagotelected.com
and watch the FNC H&C video interview.
The author tells Alan that he’d wager double the ($13k) cost of the survey with Alan over whether McCain voters were as ignorant.
>I don’t give the 0bama voters the benefit of the doubt for being ignorant,
>because even if they are ignorant, it is willful ignorance.
That’s my point exactly; their ignorance is certainly a subset of stupid.
Stupid doesn’t have mal intent.
Wilful ignorance DOES. These people intentionally ignored all the evidence against him in order to feel good about electing a black man.
>Stupid doesn’t have mal intent.
I disagree... stupid certainly CAN have malicious intent; though they’re usually well-versed enough in self-deception that they fully believe themselves to be more than perfectly right.
You are strectching the meaning of the words to make them fit, IMHO. Not sure what the purpose is, so I’m not going to pursue the matter further. After all, I’m not Mr. English-Usage-Authority. What I use words for is what I have read them used for. If I use them otherwise, I tend to make it clear that I am doing so. I find the word ‘ignorant’ to properly classify the intentionally ignorant and to distinguish them from the ‘stupid’, who don’t know better and possibly can’t be taught to know better. The latter I might well try to help avoid catastrophe. The former I will let dangle on the rope they have gone and fetched for themselves.
In any case, those who are being wilfully blind about all this are not going to be somehow preserved from the effects. They might even be hurt far more than you and I. After all, you and I are quite aware of what can happen and that bad social, economic and political effects are highly likely to happen, given the present course and declared intentions. So, we’ll come out damaged but generally okay. They might well get run over. Not pretty. Not what anyone deserves, but justice sometimes means that those who refuse to look both ways crossing streets get put in hospital. If the case is sufficiently pitiful, perhaps they might merit a visit to commisserate.
>Not what anyone deserves, but justice sometimes means that those who refuse to look both ways crossing streets get put in hospital. If the case is sufficiently pitiful, perhaps they might merit a visit to commisserate.
Really? I would say that Justice is what everyone deserves; and yet no-one wants. It is Justice that will demand accountability for every idle word and every deed when God judges all of mankind.
It is Justice that we, evil and debased humanity, should be destroyed.
It is Mercy and Grace, and frankly God’s Love, that He allows us many, many “second-chances”... and THE way to escape damnation by way of Jesus.
Well, I can’t disagree with that. But then, I don’t expect God to interfere with a nation intent on destroying itself and making a very noisy and obnoxious point about dissing Him in the process. If He let Israel be ground under by no fewer than four major ancient empires, He’s not going to cavil at letting America grind itself up.
And I think that would be rough but appropriate Justice. I just know that I am set as a Watchman who is called to point these things out, just as you have, and to assert in no uncertain terms what is forever true and what is just a mundane, destructive and hopefully passing fancy.
The ignorant will have to fend for themselves, apres le Deluge they themselves will have caused.
Ignorance....what politicians and tyrants depend on. It’s worked for centuries. Stunning to find out we are more stupid than our 18th century ancestors.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.