What's up with all the right-wingers on this site? — Page 3

Tiptup said:

"The attentive audience for political, international and financial news tends to be better educated and middle-aged. Whites and blacks express comparable levels of interest (32% for whites, 35% for blacks), but Hispanics are less apt to follow hard news closely (23%). Republicans pay somewhat more attention (at 38%) than do Democrats or independents (30% each)."

By "The attentive audience", they mean simply those who are tuned to international and financial news, not those who are "looking at issues in detail or arguing them well" as you previously stated.  In other words they are saying only that 38% of Republicans follow the hard news, while 30% of Democrats follow the hard news.  You need to be edjucated like nobody's business.  You have made the mistake of mentally joining one of the two "teams".  Turn of your fucking talk radio and think for yourself. Don't you realize that you sound identical to a "liberal" retard who is railing on about the heartless, unenlightened, unedjucated, conservative lemmings.  Both teams are for retards who are to lazy to think for themselves.  Stop being such a fag.  

ferris209 said:

Damn C3PX, that was probably the oddest post I've ever seen from you.

LOL, and we all know I have typed up some pretty odd stuff in my day... Hopefully my point didn't get lost in all the nonsense.

As for what you said about Colmes, yeah, I like the guy. He seems smart, and honorably brave consider the his role on Fox News' Hannity and Colmes. I just don't trust him as a liberal, being in the pay of the Fox News and all. And how much would it suck to have your job simply be to lose arguments to Hannity all day. For that I can't take him too seriously.

Rob said:

You just need a stern talking to... Finally take a good look at America's real history instead of the feeling you get when you look at the flag... I can just here you thinking "But it's the best country in the world!"

Stern talking to has never worked. Especially not this time (not sure how to tell you this ol' buddy, but you suck as a stern talker).

The America's real history doesn't really bother me either.
And about the feeling I get when I look at the flag, I'd consider myself a bit of a patriot, but the feeling I get when I look at the flag isn't so much pride as it is something to hold onto (its complicated, don't feel like explaining at the moment).
I haven't said the pledge of alligance to our star spangled banner since I was in the 5th grade, since then anytime I have been in a pledging situation I have left my hands at my side and remained silent while those around me put there hands on their hearts and spoke those words (again, its a bit complicated). Yet, I would die in a second for my country and the freedom of its people.
As for "best country in the world!", yes for me it is the best country in the world. But I do not consider it to be a universal truth, and it is something that took me a very long time to figure out. I have lived in other countries, and in each one for a time I decided they were much better than America for many silly little reasons, I grabbed onto their customs and culture and began to consider them home. Eventually I realized I would always be a fish out of water in these other places. When I first returned to the US, I didn't like it at all and could't wait to pack up and leave again. After time I realized that no matter how long I lived overseas, I would always just be an American pretending to be something different. Now everytime I go abroad, sooner or later I really begin missing my country. So, for me, America is the best country in the world, but for most people it is just another place on a map.

On a final note, this line cracked me up. "You need to be edjucated like nobody's business."

Hey don't blame me for my constant typos, I didn't put the keys so ridiculously close together.  Be honest, do you still believe in the flying man in the sky?

Rob said:

By "The attentive audience", they mean simply those who are tuned to international and financial news, not those who are "looking at issues in detail or arguing them well" as you previously stated. In other words they are saying only that 38% of Republicans follow the hard news, while 30% of Democrats follow the hard news.

 

I believe that better arguing and a knowledge of details follows the watching of more "hard" news since it gives more ammunition and/or opportunites for them. It also helps explain why, again anecdotally, I see conservatives willing to engage in thoughtful debate more often than not.

Rob said:

You have made the mistake of mentally joining one of the two "teams". Turn of your fucking talk radio and think for yourself. Don't you realize that you sound identical to a "liberal" retard who is railing on about the heartless, unenlightened, unedjucated, conservative lemmings.

Ahh, see? Now, here's the interesting part. I never said coservatives were automatically right, or automatically using correct logic just because they focus on the details of issues a bit more. In fact, I believe people tend to reassure themselves too much when they expose themselves to additional information. Also, a lot of what they learn while getting the news is general groupthink (ideas and arguments that might not be true but fit a group's sensibilities). I'm not claiming that's a good thing.

I'm just trying to explain life as I see it.

C3PX said:

I have wanted for years to be an athiest, but have seen too much science cannot explain.

For instance?

Mielr said:

Which is why Rush Limbaugh gets paid 400 million dollars a year now.

 

Sorry, but that's 400 million for 8 years.  Still a lot of money, but only half what they're giving Howard Stern.

Taolar said:

Mielr said:

Which is why Rush Limbaugh gets paid 400 million dollars a year now.

 

 

Sorry, but that's 400 million for 8 years.  Still a lot of money, but only half what they're giving Howard Stern.

 

What are they giving Jack and Rod?

Rob said:

 

To recap, your a shit eating cave man and a childish retard if you believe in flying men in the sky, the radio is making you dumber by the minute, and America sucks just like all of the other countries on this planet (because people are filthy stupid animals)

You get to live with that much disdain constantly in life as a liberal....where do you sign up hahaha

Janskeet said:

Rob said:

Hey don't blame me for my constant typos, I didn't put the keys so ridiculously close together. Be honest, do you still believe in the flying man in the sky?

Rob, it's nice to finally find a demo to back me up, but for god sakes man, learn how to spell before you tell someone they need to be "edjucated". I thought you were joking when you did that. You should've pretended you were, it would've made you look wittier. I got exhausted trying to defend myself against these conservatives.

Wow!  That "edjucated" thing wasn't a joke?  LOL.

BTW Janskeet, if you need other people to backup your opinions, you have bigger problems.  You should be trying to convince others why your opinions are better than theirs, rather than simply looking for validation from others.

Janskeet said:

I thought you were joking when you did that. You should've pretended you were, it would've made you look wittier. I got exhausted trying to defend myself against these conservatives.

He wasn't joking, he spelled it that way multiple times. I didn't really mean to pick on him about it, I just thought it was funny in the context. I make more than my fair share of spelling mistakes on these forums. The fact he misspelled that doesn't make him any less intelligent in my eyes, we all make spelling mistakes sometimes. You certianly don't need to rub it in and make it worse. And I really don't see how lying about it wouldn't have made him seem wittier, just would have made him seem like he was obviously lying to cover up his mistake.

As far as trying to defend yourself against conservative? Why? Are we attacking you in a way you need defense? You are the one who started this thread in order to state that you thought the people on this site where smart, but that you must have been mistaken because there are so many conservative here. In other words you pretty much said, smart is not compatible with conservative.

Perhaps you should stop considering people of different political views than yourself as unintelligent.

If you decide to engage in political discussion with one of us idiot conservatives, you ought not need help to defend yourself with your superior liberal intellect.

The only way to really have political discussion is with an open mind. As I was trying to say in one of my other posts, I'd really like you (or somebody) to convince me to change my political view points (which I often do when I hear a good argument), I am open minded and willing to change, if I see a reason to (which as far as the liberal side goes, I rarely see arguments that standup beyond a single narrow point of view, Global Warming being a part of a classic example of this).

I had to LOL when he started this thread in response to something i wrote.

Because I am a registered Independent, not a Republican and I don't watch Fox News.

My opinions are my own.

They come from life experience and my faith.

I happen to come from the most liberal state in the union   Massachusetts. 

Where the legislature illegally pushed through Gay marriage without it even coming to a vote.

skyjedi2005 said:

My opinions are my own.

 

They come from life experience and my faith.

 

Tee hee.

hahahaha janskeet,

You are wasting your time(I have found its very hard to argue with some people on here so I just in general don't anymore). Most of the people here probably don't know me, but I have been around since the start(2003) of the site despite it saying i joined last year(hey my 5 site birthday was only july 24th yay. Anyway back to my point. I am Canadian so all I have is an external POV to the American system. As someone from a different country I personally think America would be better off with a democrat like Obama in power in the next term.

As for my presonally veiws. I find that more often then not I line up better with democrates then republicans, but thats not to say that there isnt stuff thats republican which i really agree with as well. For example right now I think the offshore oil drilling should go through(america needs to stop being so relient onthe middle east), however substancial money should be put into alternate energy, and also the 36 Nuclear power plants is a great idea. Most people dont know that newest generations of NPP, are almost completely waste free, the french are the best with those. Now if you look at it that way, I am more inline with john macCain then obama.

I think the reason why so many democrats get frustrated with republicans is because the politicans are so, shall we say, tainted. From what I have seen, and keep in mind I do not put MacCain in either of these catagories,  but i either see SUPER rich old families like the bushes, OR i see completely intolerable neo-christians with veiws that are so far right that they might as well have gone around the world are a starting to be left(that was a joke), Mike hucabee comes to mind here a man that talked about love, kindness and charity but that pulled medicare from a teenage girl cause she got raped became pregnant and wanted an abortion. Now the same goes with people on the left but i see a greater upside and less extremes in the democrat ranks.

Another point i wanted to talk about was this, I noticed someone say that when taxes are low charity donations go up. I always thought that it was the same in the US as in canada but i guess it isnt. Here in canada when you fill your taxes out, you get certain deductions from the money you pay. Just to make it easy ill give an example. If i make 100 000, I am in the highest tax bracket, so i pay 50% tax. So my bill to the gov is 50 000. Now say during the year i made 5000 worth of donations. Most if not all of the 5000 is deducted from my taxes, so i only pay 45 000. Is that not how it works down south?

Rob said:

Jay said:

It never ceases to amaze me how much people will bitch and complain about something that costs them nothing to use and in which their participation is entirely optional.

 

Don't let these bitches get you down Jay.  Most of them are just here to twist pickles.  You're far to sexy to trouble yourself with these fags.

awesome rob, you never can not give me a smile on here.

Tiptup said:

Rob said:

The fact that you would even entertain such laughable stereotypes makes you sound like a real dunce. And a big queer.

The stereotype may be laughable, but that doesn't mean that it can't be true:

http://people-press.org/report/215/news-audiences-increasingly-politicized

This is from the fourth page:

"The attentive audience for political, international and financial news tends to be better educated and middle-aged. Whites and blacks express comparable levels of interest (32% for whites, 35% for blacks), but Hispanics are less apt to follow hard news closely (23%). Republicans pay somewhat more attention (at 38%) than do Democrats or independents (30% each)."

I don't how they calculate that last bit, but PEW is a pretty respected source. Perhaps you can tell me how they're wrong.

Anecdotally speaking, my experiences have backed up these studies and so i've never felt the need to look at them closely. (That's probably not something I should do, but . . . eh.) If I want to know which side is arguing hard data, events, and logic, I look to the republican and conservative side. If I want to see who is repeating mindless chants and phrases at rallies, dinging chimes over dead soldiers, or simply expressing raw emotion or general nastiness, I look to socialists. If that makes me a dunce and a queer, then perhaps I need to be educated. In the meantime I don't think my perception is wrong.

I like how both of them are under the majority. So the majority of people on either side have no idea waht the hell is going on, and thats very dangerous.

shimy said:

Mike hucabee comes to mind here a man that talked about love, kindness and charity but that pulled medicare from a teenage girl cause she got raped became pregnant and wanted an abortion.

There's a little more to it then that.  The State constitution, at the time, was in conflict with Federal law.  Huckabee chose to side with State law.

Another point i wanted to talk about was this, I noticed someone say that when taxes are low charity donations go up. I always thought that it was the same in the US as in canada but i guess it isnt. Here in canada when you fill your taxes out, you get certain deductions from the money you pay. Just to make it easy ill give an example. If i make 100 000, I am in the highest tax bracket, so i pay 50% tax. So my bill to the gov is 50 000. Now say during the year i made 5000 worth of donations. Most if not all of the 5000 is deducted from my taxes, so i only pay 45 000. Is that not how it works down south?

 

That was me that stated that.  The problem is that there's usually a cap to how much of donations can be deducted.  With lower taxes, people generally give more because they don't have to worry about the cap and they don't have to worry about getting hit with a huge tax bill at the end of the year.  It's also a proven fact that tax receipts go up with lower taxes in place (thank you JFK and Reagan).  Of course, it helps to cut spending at the same time.

state constitution vs federal law, how is there a conflict there?

shimy said:

state constitution vs federal law, how is there a conflict there?

Here's the relevant article http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E5DF113EF933A2575BC0A960958260

And here's the relevant portion:

The constitutional provision, Amendment 68, was approved by voters in 1989. At the time, its ban on public money for abortions except when a mother's life was endangered was in harmony with Federal law.

But in 1993, Congress extended abortion benefits to poor women who were victims of rape or incest.

In addition, there are those people who don't think tax money, which is essentially what Medicaid is, should be used for abortions period.  People like me don't really like it when our tax dollars are used to kill an unborn child.

It all comes down to States rights vs Federal rights.  Once again, the Federal govt needs to get its hands out of where it doesn't belong.

lordjedi said:

shimy said:

state constitution vs federal law, how is there a conflict there?

Here's the relevant article http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E5DF113EF933A2575BC0A960958260

And here's the relevant portion:

The constitutional provision, Amendment 68, was approved by voters in 1989. At the time, its ban on public money for abortions except when a mother's life was endangered was in harmony with Federal law.

But in 1993, Congress extended abortion benefits to poor women who were victims of rape or incest.

In addition, there are those people who don't think tax money, which is essentially what Medicaid is, should be used for abortions period.  People like me don't really like it when our tax dollars are used to kill an unborn child.

It all comes down to States rights vs Federal rights.  Once again, the Federal govt needs to get its hands out of where it doesn't belong.

so you condon his actions there and feel that this girlsmoney should have been taken after being raped by her step father and being extemely young. You're part of the UNITED states, not a union of states. I would think that any federal law would override a state law. That being said, I would tend to agree with you if it was all abortions, however, its rape, incest, and mothers life, I think those are justified. Thats just my opinion though.

My comment might be a little ignorant I know there are certain matters that are part of a states jurisdiction and other that are federal. I just have very strong feelings for this cause on the fundemental level its such a moral outrage. This girl was already going to have problems as it was, making her carried a baby for 9 months, afterwards it just seems like you would effectively be distroying her life(mentally), for the life of an unborn child, which it could be argued would fall under the original decree.

shimy said:

so you condon his actions there and feel that this girlsmoney should have been taken after being raped by her step father and being extemely young. You're part of the UNITED states, not a union of states. I would think that any federal law would override a state law. That being said, I would tend to agree with you if it was all abortions, however, its rape, incest, and mothers life, I think those are justified. Thats just my opinion though.

Yes, I condone his actions.  I also don't believe, and I've stated this here plenty of times, that someone else's medical needs, who I've never met, are my problem.  The UNITED states doesn't mean we all take care of each other as you seem to suggest.  It is in fact meant to be a UNION of states, hence the "State of the UNION address".

Here's the first sentence to the US Constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I added the emphasis.  Now, find in the Constitution where it says the Federal government has the jurisdiction to provide healthcare.  You won't find it because it isn't there.  What does that mean?  It means that it's suppose to go to the states to decide.  That was the original intent of the Constitution.  The Federal government is only there for national security and a few other things.  They were never intended to do the kind of things they're doing now.

My comment might be a little ignorant I know there are certain matters that are part of a states jurisdiction and other that are federal. I just have very strong feelings for this cause on the fundemental level its such a moral outrage. This girl was already going to have problems as it was, making her carried a baby for 9 months, afterwards it just seems like you would effectively be distroying her life(mentally), for the life of an unborn child, which it could be argued would fall under the original decree.

And I would argue that that is not a good reason to take the life of an unborn child.  What, exactly, did the child do to deserve death?  It's not the child's fault it was conceived via incest.  Bring the child to term and put it up for adoption.  There are plenty of people in this country that would love to adopt a child.

Jay said:

lordjedi said:

Yes, I condone his actions. I also don't believe, and I've stated this here plenty of times, that someone else's medical needs, who I've never met, are my problem.

I guess it's a good thing there are plenty of health care practitioners who feel the opposite, otherwise we'd all be fucked.

And there's plenty of health care practitioners that agree with me too.  Unfortunately, they're required by law to take care of someone that comes into the ER, whether they have insurance or not.  No wonder medical costs in this country are skyrocketing.

Life is good until it's not. Let's hope you're always fortunate enough to have access to money and good medical care, and that if you ever don't, it's somebody entirely unlike you who decides whether you get treatment or the finger.

My father recently died of a brain tumor.  We don't have a lot of money.  We're not rich people, so you can shove that statement up your ass.  He got good medical care because he had good insurance and a doctor that cared.  We didn't use medicare or medicaid or anything else.  Just Kaiser (pretty sure it's Kaiser).  The survival rate for his type of brain tumor at his age (71) is less than 1%.  They operated anyway.  Twice in 6 weeks.  They were about to start radiation when the doctor determined it would be pointless (he had cancer all over his brain).  He had 1 week left to live just before radiation was started.  He lasted just under 2 weeks.

My sister died of a similar brain tumor 3 years ago.  By the time all her treatments were over, they had given her 3 months to live.  She managed to live over 2 years before passing.

Neither one of them ever got upset with the service they received.  Sometimes we have to fight for what's due, but that's not a big deal when you have family that's willing to help out.

That woman's family is the ones that need to be taking care of her now.  Not the State.  It is not the State's job.

I've been through plenty of shit in my life to know that things can go bad in the blink of an eye.  Never once have I ever wished the government would be there to help me out.  On the contrary, I want the government out now more than ever.  It seems that the more they get involved, the more they screw things up.  Look at any government service from the DMV to the IRS and tell me if you want your healthcare turning into that.  I know I don't.

Funny how people complain about where their tax money goes unless it's a $500,000 Tomahawk missile screaming towards an Iraqi office building.

So when was the last time a Tomahawk missile hit an Iraqi office building?  2003?  It's been 5 years, give it a rest.  Unlike some of the people around here, I have no problem with one less dictator in the world.

That's $500,000 in Bush dollars, so about €3 at the current exchange rate.

Haha, that's so funny.  The dollar may still be low, but it's at a 5 month high against the euro.  The way things are going, if the European Central Bank doesn't do something, the economy in Europe is going to end up worse than in the US.

And oil is at a 3 month low (and keeps dropping).  I expect it to fall below $110 per barrel either today or tomorrow.

Maybe you should stick to tweaking the forums instead of poking your nose into things you don't know much about (like what some of us have been through).

Jay said:

lordjedi said:

He got good medical care because he had good insurance and a doctor that cared.

Exactly. That's not a universal constant.

I'm sorry about your grandfather. His situation has no bearing on this discussion, however. He got the care he needed.

It was my father, not my grandfather.  My grandfather died of old age and possibly alzheimer's.

My father's situation has full bearing on this discussion.  The point is that her family needs to provide her with care if she doesn't have insurance.  From the sound of it, she probably doesn't.  Since it was her stepfather, her family needs to have that bastard arrested and jailed for life.  Throw away the key because that guy is just a prick.  He essentially picked on a defenseless person that probably had no idea what was going on.  Lock him up and throw away the key.  Then let the child come to term and at least have a chance at a life.  Just because he's a fucking asshole doesn't mean we should penalize the child.

My father could have just as easily been denied care knowing the survival rate.  At that point, we would have had to fight it, just like he had to fight our insurance 18 years ago to get HGH treatments for me (pituitory gland stopped functiong for some reason).  They put me through a battery of tests and then tried to deny coverage.  Unfortunately for them, their policy said we were covered and my dad wasn't going to back down.

So yes, sometimes insurance companies try to screw people.  That's exactly why people need to be aware of what's covered and then get ready for a fight.  It seems to work that way with everything these days.  From medical coverage to extended warranty's, everyone's trying to deny any coverage that's been paid for once it gets expensive.  Well, wake up and start fighting back!

 

lordjedi said:

Neither one of them ever got upset with the service they received. Sometimes we have to fight for what's due, but that's not a big deal when you have family that's willing to help out.

That woman's family is the ones that need to be taking care of her now. Not the State. It is not the State's job.

You assume her family is in a position to do so. Seeing as it was her stepfather that did it, it's quite likely her family is unwilling or unable.

I don't think it's the "State's" job. It's our job. How do we act in such cases? Through the State.

Or not at all, because we're a bunch of monkeys.

The State acts with the People's permission through the Constitution and the ballot box.  It looks like the People of Huckabee's State were quite satisfied with the job he did.  The State is not an autonomous machine that gets to do what it wants.

If her family is unwilling to help, then maybe they need a reality check too.  My God, family is the single most important thing you have while you're here.  The least you can do is help each other out when the time comes.

Stop trying to socialize medicine because you think it's some great panacea that's going to fix everything.  Look at the countries that have socialized medicine to see all the problems that brings.

 

So when was the last time a Tomahawk missile hit an Iraqi office building?  2003?  It's been 5 years, give it a rest.

And the budget deficit it's caused will be with us for quite some time to come. Think forward, not backward.

Says you.  Other economists think we can get it under control in the next 4-10 years, depending on who gets elected.

 

Maybe you should stick to tweaking the forums instead of poking your nose into things you don't know much about (like what some of us have been through).

Talk to me again when you've been molested and impregnated by your stepfather.

We've all been through shit. Wake up.

Have you been molested by your stepfather?  Didn't think so.  If you want to help them, then by all means, send them some money.  Until then, stop trying to get the State to take my money in order to make someone else feel better.

I've just about had it with liberals all over the place.  You have no problem taking everyone elses money in order to fix society's ills.  Wake up and realize that some of us know how to use that money better then the bureaucratic mess that is Washington, DC.  I donate plenty of money and I have no problem helping people out when they're in need.  But this woman and her family are just faceless statistics that everyone wants us to feel sorry for.  Maybe they should take up a collection in her community to get the services she was trying to get.  People can be awefully generous when you explain the situation and what you need it for.  And once again, you don't need the State to do it.