Posted on 11/03/2005 2:53:40 PM PST by smoothsailing
He didn't come within 60,000 votes.
Well, close in a state that might not share the same breakdown that the BG poll found.
Fact is, a presidential election isn't one election; it's 50 separate elections on the same day.
Now 60% of Americans are conservative, but note that this is for the whole country. There are more than 60% conservatives in some states (Alabama, the Dakotas, Oklahoma, etc) and a lot less than 60% in others (Mass, RI, VT, HI, etc). The BG poll numbers can still be reconcilled, especially if the number of conservatives in Ohio were less than 60 percent (say 50.5%).
As far as relying on exit polls from last year, well, they had Kerry winning, so the data from them is a little more than suspect.
Ping
To the average citizen, yes, it is. It extols compassion, "vision," and love of man for his fellow man. It empowers the weak and downtrodden at the expense of the greedy and powerful. It makes up for all the "flaws" in God's creation.
It's based on a tissue of lies.
Which is why the THEORY -- the image Liberals sell -- is so much more than the REALITY -- the end product people get. It's also why millions die at the hands of so-called compassionate socialists. As citizens realize with horror the absolute paucity of the promises they've been given, their rebellion must be contained at a cost in blood. Socialism is the ultimate Procrustean "solution."
Take ... the "labor theory of value ..."
Marx would disagree with your assessment. He would regard labor itself as ultimate fulfillment, especially if its benefits were directed toward the collective. Contrast that with the labor theory of capital, in which your labors go primarily to benefit some capitalist overlord.
For what it's worth, my characterization was intended to be a tongue-in-cheek oversimplification -- an aphorism, not an analysis.
Marx would only "disagree" because Marx lied about everything. Marx well knew that if anyone understood what he was peddling, no one would buy it. That's why he concocted this network of jargon, "classes," "exploitation," "reinvested dead substance," "proletariat," and so on. Marx was not nearly as smart as many people give him credit for being.
Your description of Marx could well extend to the ideology of his disciples. They too are jargon-wielding, self-impressed liars who aren't nearly as smart as people credit them with being.
I agree, but Thomas Sowell has an excellent book, "Marxism," where he debunks Marx from a Marxist point of view. It's an odd book.
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.