Posted on 08/05/2003 11:03:20 AM PDT by Timesink
Ha ha! That was a great post, MoJo!
Sounds like her honest attempt to describe democrats later in the same essay.
As McCarthy said of Marshall, "If he were merely stupid, probability dictates that at least some of his decisions would be beneficial to his country." (Treason, Ann Coulter)
In this case, stupidity is insufficient to explain the skulduggery of democrats.
If it's the one I am thinking about, I figured out it was a hoax pretty quickly. They had W with an IQ of 91 and Bill Clinton with an IQ of 182. Now what are the odds that Bill Clinton's IQ would be EXACTLY twice W's IQ?
Here's something interesting to ponder. There was an episode of Seinfeld where Jerry insists that he spend twice as much on Elaine's birthday as George does. They both get her cash. Guess how much each party gets her? That's right...George gets her 91 dollars, Jerry gets her 182 dollars.
I noticed this after the hoax had been exposed. I kind of felt like the Chaz Palmienteri character at the end of "The Usual Suspects".
I notice the same problems online. In practically any online community you may visit that does not exist for an overtly political purpose, the political makeup of the community will almost invariably turn out to be the same sort of kneejerk default as at those pseudotrendy cocktail parties: "Democrats good, Republicans BAD! Oog, unga bunga!"
I have never been able to figure out why this is. Every time I ask, I generally get a response along the lines of "Well, Republicans actually work for a living and don't have time to play around online," which is an excuse that doesn't really cut it unless the community in question is made up mostly of college students or something. If anyone has a clue where the hell the conservatives are, I'd like to know. (And please don't say, "They're all on FR." I'm asking a serious question.)
He was so disappointed I waited until he left before pointing out the irony of calling someone stupid and using a hoax to back it up.
Most of the online communities I frequent are oriented around automobiles, and I find that older or project car people tend to be overwhelmingly conservative/republican. Corvette people tend to be all over the place with conservatives, libertarians, and liberals.
I've spent a lot less time in other online communities, but generally find the more numerous and quieter, more serious and knowledgeable types to be conservative/republican. There are always some liberals, and they tend to be fewer and more "noisy" about their beliefs. Some are quite knowledgeable concerning the subject at hand, but they seem less so because of their knee-jerk pronouncements.
In general, you can use the test of time.If you play back half-year-old, year-old, and two-year-old journalism you would expect to hear things that sound dated. The question is, how much of the dated-ness would reflect a Republican tint, and how much a Democratic slant? IMHO to ask the question is to answer it. Not because journalists are Democrats, but because (distinction but not a difference)
Democrats have no principle other than to go along and get along with journalists.And journalists are anticonservative because that's the way to attract attention (and, therefore, to get paid by advertisers). They don't call it anticonservatism, of course--but that's the obvious implication of the rules of journalism (including pretense of objectivity).
How else can you explain their support for biligual education (meaning, teaching spanish kids in spanish) as being better for the children? Any honest person will know that someone with complete non-accented english is far more likely to succede in this country, and that immersion at the earlist possible age is the only way to accomplish that. Math can wait a few months.
How can you explain their support for obviously unconstitutional issues like most gun control laws? Even liberal harvard professors have written conclusive articles that support the 2nd amendment (forget author; Title is "The embarassing 2nd amendment"). The lie here is in insisting that the 2nd amendment only applies to the National Guard.
"I never had sex with that woman" (self explanitory). Bill Clinton's lies would take up volumes alone.
How can the environmentalists insist in Arizona that leaving forests alone is the best policy, when that results in forests destroyed for generations and hundreds of burned homes? It was a lie, and they've recently changed their policy from "hands off the forest" to accusing Geo. Bush of not thining the forest fast enough. They still don't acknowledge that harvesting trees in national forests by loggers that pay the government money is the same as paying people to do the same thing, but they just destroy the trees and don't sell them.
I don't have time to make the complete case. But the left is entirely supported by lies alone. The character of the right is that demonstrable facts are acknowledged, and the right gives up unsupportable arguments.
The character of the left is that it doesn't have to--because it has the PR tailwind behind it.The whole idea of "public relations" is that we-the-people can be gulled into accepting anything.
This may not sound like a serious answer, but I've noticed that left-leaning boards pretty much shout down/ban anyone who disagrees with them. It's like that here as well sometimes if you post a libertarian POV. FR has definitely become a more shrill place since 9/11/2001.
Have you seen some of the contentious threads around here lately on the subject of IT outsourcing? You'll never see anything remotely similar on DU or any other hard-left sites. There are members here that are open avowed liberals, and we have a plethora of libertarians who have serious disagreements with certain Republican policies.
Oh, I agree with you totally. The level of political discussion on those "apolitical" boards is always of the lowest common denominator, and generally consists of "Bush is Hitler"-level commentary, with the same groups of haters on each board gang-rushing anyone who dares to utter a conservative opinion.
I would love to see a survey which breaks down Democrats versus Republicans by IQ, or even by education level. I just have this gut feeling that Democrats really are stupid, at least those who work and pay taxes, and (apparently) walk around with "kick me" signs taped to their backs. (The Democrat base, the parasites, know exactly what they are doing when they vote Democrat.)
The author makes a valid and interesting point in saying that the left is insulated. However, the members of the Democrat Party do indeed self-select for stupidity, venality, and arrogance. The Democrat Party and the Republican Party are ideologically based upon very different principles, and to equate them as equal but different is to reject the ideas of objective morality and absolute truth (nihilism).
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.