This is very off-base. Most of the people who support Obama do so out of a belief, correct or not, that his Presidency will be of personal financial benefit to them. Government spending, pro-union policies, welfare, affirmative action, aggressive enforcement of certain classes of business regulation and civil rights legislation, opposition and repeal of tort-reform, socialized medicine, “free” childcare, etc. — all of these have very tangible beneficiaries. We might well argue that the some of these beneficiaries will pay a greater cost in the long-run than they will get in short term gains, but that’s quite a more subtle argument.
Of the people who don’t have an immediate economic benefit in front of them — private sector-employed or -retired white men and their dependents, basically — some attach real tangible benefit to the non-economic aspects of Obama’s platform. Whether they dislike the expansion of domestic security apparatus under Bush, desperately crave the esteem of foreigners which Bush didn’t care so much about, simply feel alienated or threatened by the Southerner / Evangelical / fraternity vibe of the Bush administration, etc., you wouldn’t use the word “gullible” to talk about it.
Well said. Liberalism (socialism) is for mommies, would be mommies and them that still need their mommies.
I think liberals tend to believe first that people are fundamentally good...they reject the Judeo-Christian concept of original sin (and absolutely reject the concept of total depravity, save for their belief that conservatives are depraved). Since they believe that people are all good, they project huge amounts of trust into relationships and toward those they hold in esteem: liberal leaders.
Secondly, liberals have long ago denied the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God, especially the God of the Bible Who has high moral expectations. Liberals are almost absolutely amoral, a trait shared, to some degree, by libertarians (who tend to be non-gullible, haters of big government, with very tight wallets).
But liberals, though they reject God, still long for some entity that is all powerful, all knowing and all present. Thus they assign God's attributes to government, expecting that miracles can be achieved with biblical grandeur and scope from the state. And with incredible gullibility they trust the liberals they want to be elected to produce godless miracles.
They expect the government to heal the sick (through socialized medicine), to raise the dead (by curing all disease and rolling back aging), to feed the hungry (while perfecting ethanol), to stop crime (by shooting guns out of criminal's hands), and to eliminate war (with "surgical strikes" that never cause collateral damage). They want to reduce the influence of the church while growing the size of government, believing liberal politicians possess messianic qualities. And they absolutely have blind faith in the liberals they nominate for president.
Gullible liberals worship the religion of state.
Yet with all their chants and slogans, I cannot for the life of me understand how they can be against any death penalty for terrorists, murderers and child rapists while allowing any woman to kill her unborn baby on a whim.
Then again, I've been a Conservative Republican since Barry Goldwater. Before that my family had been Conservative Democrats going back over 100 years, so there was very little insanity in my DNA.
After Michelle is through with you, you will wished that you would have left his aloha alone.
Those who are unable to think, operating on their feelings, will always be easily fooled, and will believe whatever they want to believe, rather than the conclusion that logic would have provided.
Liberalism is for those that believe in the free lunch.
Conservatism is for those that know that the free lunch does not exist.
So liberals are gullible because - well if they weren’t gullible, they wouldn’t be liberals. Duh.