Thread: 'Frightening GOP Behaviour'... Where Does It Lead???

There WILL be consequences to the tactics employed by the GOP and their Corporatist partners to use lies and double speak to stoke ignorant hatred in the less educated ranks of their minions... Time will tell what it will be.

Originally Posted by James Zogby

Frightening GOP Behavior

Posted: March 22, 2010 06:09 PM

Before dashing off to celebrate a hard fought victory in achieving health care reform, it is important to reflect on a deeply disturbing aspect of the debate that I believe spells danger ahead.

A Republican talking point repeated ad nauseam during yesterday's debate pounded on the theme that they, and they alone, had the right to speak for "the will of the American people." This took different forms: "the American people have spoken," or "you (Democrats) are ignoring/imposing your views on the American people" or "the American people have sent a message," etc. All making the same point -- that the GOP speaks for the American people.

Of course, the American people have spoken, and in November 2008 elected a Democratic White House and Senate and House of Representatives. But, elections and the workings of our democracy including the idea that the losing party respect the outcome of elections appear to be alien concepts to today's GOP.

The idea that the minority party represents the "will of the people" (not some of the people, but "the people") is the seedling of a totalitarian mindset. In this mindset -- democracy doesn't matter, ideas are not to be discussed, and opposing views are not to respected. What matters is that they alone have truth, they alone are metaphysically connected to the "mind of the people" can interpret their will, and because they have truth and speak for the people, others represent a threat and must be silenced and stopped.

This was a major concern last summer as violent demonstrators disrupted "town meetings" -- with angry chanting mobs claiming to represent the "will of the people" arrayed against the elected Congresspeople and their constituents who had freely assembled to discuss issues. The mobs didn't come to discuss or even debate. They were mobilized to disrupt discussion and silence debate.

Listening to the rhetorical excesses of last summer's demonstrators, or those who mobilized to chant slurs at Democrats over the weekend, or to the radio and TV personalities who incite with hate and fear ("that we are losing our country"), or the GOP Congressional leadership who charge much the same and incite in similar ways -- I hear echoes of last century's history. The behavior fits a frightening pattern and ought to be of concern.

More Republican idiocy...

‘Scary’ Harris poll: 24% of Republicans think Obama ‘may be the Antichrist’

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010 -- 11:44 am

The Daily Beast's John Avlon writes, "On the heels of health care, a new Harris poll reveals Republican attitudes about Obama: Two-thirds think he's a socialist, 57 percent a Muslim—and 24 percent say 'he may be the Antichrist.'"

Avlon, author of the book Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America, offers the poll as proof that "Obama Derangement Syndrome—pathological hatred of the president posing as patriotism—has infected the Republican Party."

57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president" 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did" Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist." These numbers all come from a brand-new Louis Harris poll, inspired in part by my new book Wingnuts. It demonstrates the cost of the campaign of fear and hate that has been pumped up in the service of hyper-partisanship over the past 15 months. We are playing with dynamite by demonizing our president and dividing the United States in the process. What might be good for ratings is bad for the country.

The poll, which surveyed 2,230 people right at the height of the health-care reform debate, also clearly shows that education is a barrier to extremism. Respondents without a college education are vastly more likely to believe such claims, while Americans with college degrees or better are less easily duped. It's a reminder of what the 19th-century educator Horace Mann once too-loftily said: "Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge."

Alibi.com blogger Erin McCullough writes, "Are you a Republican who is mostly non-crazy? (Leaving the belief that most taxes are bad aside.) Then, hey: Um, tell your fellow party members to stop being so batshit."

The blogger adds,

It's hard for Democrats to want to make concessions with sane Republicans (Olympia Snowe, and, hold on ... I'll get back to you) when dingholes like Texas Rep. Neugebauer (the latest in what's becoming a trend of grown men who yell inappropriate things at work, which I can tell you from experience is not a luxury most of us have. His shout; "baby killer") stinking up the wings.

Anyway. Craziness. There were plenty of people spouting crazy theories about Bush Jr. during his presidency, but most of those people were sitting outside of Winnings coffee, not in Congress. Sigh.

The poll seems to reveal that many Republicans share beliefs with the radical Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas. The church run by Fred Phelps has been roundly criticized for picketing funerals of troops killed in the war on terror.

AOL News recently noted,

Members of the church, most of them relatives of founder Fred Phelps, have shown up at dozens of military memorial services in recent years, bearing signs with slogans like "God Hates the USA" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

The tiny sect holds that soldiers' deaths are God's way of punishing America for its tolerance of homosexuals. The church's Web site also refers to President Barack Obama as the "Antichrist Bloody Beast" and calls Israel a "savage hypocritical nation of filthy sinners."

I find it amusing that democrats consider themselves superior in education to republicans. Your constituents are largely made of minorities, traditionally less educated than the rest of america. Mean nasty republican corporate CEO's didn't get their jobs by affirmative action, they got an education.

^^^^^^^^ I'd like a large box of popcorn please with extra butter and some parmesan sprinkles please. Oh and an extra large cherry coke.

Originally Posted by cliffhucker

I find it amusing that democrats consider themselves superior in education to republicans. Your constituents are largely made of minorities, traditionally less educated than the rest of america. Mean nasty republican corporate CEO's didn't get their jobs by affirmative action, they got an education.

great thanks!

so I see you agree...

Originally Posted by cliffhucker

I find it amusing that democrats consider themselves superior in education to republicans. Your constituents are largely made of minorities, traditionally less educated than the rest of america. Mean nasty republican corporate CEO's didn't get their jobs by affirmative action, they got an education.

Heh, your ignorance seems to know no bounds today... +++++VIBES+++++

Those who voted Obama were 9% more likely to have a College degree than those who voted for McCain. The higher the level of education, the higher percentage who vote Democratic. In addition, the wealthiest in America also have tended to vote Democratic. Sorry to burst your bubble on all this.

Originally Posted by cliffhucker

I find it amusing that democrats consider themselves superior in education to republicans. Your constituents are largely made of minorities, traditionally less educated than the rest of america. Mean nasty republican corporate CEO's didn't get their jobs by affirmative action, they got an education.

I think there are a fair share of democratic CEOs... and a fair share of uneducated dumbass republicans (see Tea Party).

And for crying out loud, what is with the education in this country? This is elementary school stuff here. Do not use an apostrophe for the plural of a name. sheesh.

When it turns out that Obama is the Dictatorial, Ineligible, Muslim, Antichrist, won't YOU have egg on your face.

You are soooooo smart! I wish I could be as intelligent as you!

DBT, I assume that was a joke (which I did find funny) but which of those titles do you believe Obama is?

Smart like a fifth grader? I would hope so.

Originally Posted by Rip'nStick

I think there are a fair share of democratic CEOs... and a fair share of uneducated dumbass republicans (see Tea Party).

And for crying out loud, what is with the education in this country? This is elementary school stuff here. Do not use an apostrophe for the plural of a name. sheesh.

I'll stack the education level of the average Tea Partier against the average inner city Obamazombie any time bro. It's not even close. You watch too much TV.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

When it turns out that Obama is the Dictatorial, Ineligible, Muslim, Antichrist, won't YOU have egg on your face.

OH SNAP!!!

Here, I'll save you the trouble... not sure how strong yer photochoppin' skilz iz?

Originally Posted by mock vomit

Heh, your ignorance seems to know no bounds today... +++++VIBES+++++

Those who voted Obama were 9% more likely to have a College degree than those who voted for McCain. The higher the level of education, the higher percentage who vote Democratic. In addition, the wealthiest in America also have tended to vote Democratic. Sorry to burst your bubble on all this.

Another way to judge this is to compare the spelling, sentence structure, logic and coherency of the Obama-haters with the TGR/online norm.

When I see a post that is all CAPS and exclamation points, opinion without facts, and assertions without sources I can easily guess where the writer is on the political spectrum.

The saddest thing is that many of the Tea Party are exactly the uneducated trailer-dwellers who are most likely to end up needing government health care when bad luck hits them and they run through their meager assets. So their political activism runs exactly contrary to their self-interests.

The ironic counterpart is that places like Boulder, where the vast majority of the population has the education, assets, and family support to pay for their own health care are 90%+ health care reform and Obama supporters. The willingness of upper-income voters to vote to increase their own taxes by supporting Obama and repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich shows an altruism that gives me hope for the human race (unlike the selfish online diatribes, or the polls that have 24% of R's believing that Obama is the anti-christ {maybe Health Care Reform can pay for treating their psychosis}).

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/11/...ted-for-obama/

Among the demographic groups that helped Sen. Barack Obama cross the finish line last night were the affluent and wealthy–the very voters who could become the target of tax increases promised during Sen. Obama’s campaign.

Exit polls show Sen. Obama did best among two main wealth brackets–the bottom and the top. (The middle was split about evenly). According to the polls, Sen. Obama won 60% of the votes of those with family income of less than $50,000.

He also won 52% of the votes of those earning $200,000 or more. That compares with Sen. John McCain’s 46% showing for the same group. Sen. Obama’s showing among the affluent is about 15% better than Sen. Kerry’s did with wealthy voters four years ago.

(Sen. McCain won among voters in 3 of the 4 middle categories of income–or those earning $50,000 to $200,000).

That Sen. Obama did well among the well-heeled and well-educated is no surprise. Claims that Sen. Obama is an elitist popular with the elite have long been part of the GOP playbook.

But given Sen. Obama’s proposals–which are still just proposals–to raise tax rates on those earning $250,000 or more, it is striking that the affluent came out so strongly in Sen. Obama’s favor. An earlier wealth survey by the Harrison Group showed that voters with incomes of $250,000 or more were leaning strongly toward Sen. McCain, 48% to Sen. Obama’s 29%.

So what gives?

There are several explanations. First, the wealthy, like many voters, may have placed a higher emphasis on the state of the nation than the state of their wallets. Even though their taxes may be going up, their greater priority may be Sen. Obama’s promises to fix the economy, education, health care, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and overseas relations.

Another possibility is that the wealthy don’t believe Sen. Obama will go through with his tax increase–at least not right away. With the economy sliding fast into recession, some affluent voters may be betting that any tax increases will be delayed or watered down–and Sen. Obama did signal this possibility on the campaign trail. It is harder to vote against an increase in the capital-gains tax if you don’t expect any capital gains for the next year.

Finally (and perhaps least likely), the wealthy may be responding to Sen. Joe Biden’s argument that paying higher taxes is patriotic. Like Warren Buffett, some of the wealthy may feel it is time to raise their own taxes for the betterment of the country. There may be some voters–more likely those in Upper Richistan rather than those in the $200,000-plus group–who think a shared sacrifice among the rich is necessary to get the American wealth-creation machine moving again. (Among the Upper Richistani’s supporting Sen. Obama, tax policies ranked last in one earlier survey, with only 16% citing them as important. “Social issues” ranked first, with “policies dealing with wars” ranking second, at 67%, and Supreme Court nominations and health-care issues ranking next.)

Until the exit polls from Upper Richistan come in, however, we won’t know for sure.

Ahhhhh... this topic brings back memories of the good ole days;

Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency

Why is it that when Republicans had a monopoly on the educated and upper-classes they were called just greedy elitists but now that some of the educated and rich are now going to the Democrats they are called being the smart educated reasoned voice????

Originally Posted by Kevin Garnett

you dont think the democratic party has always been supported by rich educated white people? the most influential liberals in the country are rich educated white men.

Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency

When the fuck did I ever say that? I said the exact opposite. Next time skip the draft and go to college dumbass. The fact is for the majority of the last century the masses of rich and educated people were diehard Republicans and the masses of poor and uneducated people were diehard Democrats. Now it is more evenly distributed.

Originally Posted by long_since_drowned_in_lake_michigan

I'd call bullshit... the top percent or two, especially "old money", have been Democratic for many generations now. The lower part of the top tier has been overwhelmingly Republican, especially "new money", unless they had advanced degrees/educations... then the Dems have had the larger portion. The middle class and poor have been split, often by region or religion, etc. For example; a large percent of white poor have been Republican.

Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency

Come on, I know a bunch of you guys want to flame this guy. Why must I be the one? What about all you bleeding heart liberals here who have just always loved labeling the Republicans as the rich greedy ones? Where are you dumbfucks because I'm getting tired of arguing with this moron.

Originally Posted by long_since_drowned_in_lake_michigan

You're just tired of "losing"

Edit: I bet I end up on your "ignore list"... SWEET!

Originally Posted by long_since_drowned_in_lake_michigan

Hey Supreme... I know that Wikipedia is a soft source for an argument, and if you want I'll find further PROOF of my statement above... but for now I'll simply link, quote and highlight for your enjoyment.

(Sorry for the large bold red text, I had to make it VERY OBVIOUS since Supreme seems to enjoy quoting non-relevant portions of a post and continuing his/her argument)

Liberal Elite

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In the US, objections are raised to the term elite, based on the claim that the Republican Party contains a larger percentage of the American upper class (except the super-rich with net worths of over $10 million) than does the Democratic Party, and that Republican economic policies benefit the wealthy more than those of Democrats; thus it is the Republican Party that should be called elitist, similarly in the UK the hereditary peers who formerly sat in the unreformed House of Lords disproportionately belonged to the Conservative Party.

It does need to be noted, however, that a higher proportion of Democrats, rather than Republicans, in both the Senate and the House are multi-millionaires. Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and for senator John Edwards are just a few examples.

However, there do exist regions of the United States that are characterized by both material affluence as well as political liberalism, such as the aforementioned U.S. Northeast and the San Francisco Bay Area. Additionally, in the U.S. Congress, Democratic representatives have an average personal wealth greater than the Republicans[citation needed]. A 2004 article in The Economist, claimed that in the 2004 U.S. presidential election, people worth $1m-10m supported George W. Bush by a 63-37% margin, whereas those worth more than $10m favoured John Kerry 59-41%.

Among members of the country's intellectual elite, most of whom are members of the professional class not upper class,[1] liberalism remains the most prominent ideology. The vast majority of professors, 72% identified as liberal in 2005. At Ivy League Universities 87% of professors identify as liberal.[2] Additionally those with graduate degrees were more likely to vote Democratic in the 1996,[3] 2000,[4] 2004[5] and 2006 elections[6] than any other educational demographic.

Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency

Losing???? Name one thread/arguement you've won. You either lose outright or you leave when you realize that you're not going to win. Ignore list? Don't flatter yourself, you're not that important. And I don't need a list to ignore anyone. I ignore half the stupid shit on this board and no one is on my list.

Originally Posted by rideit

He pretty much just schooled you in his last post.

Originally Posted by Kevin Garnett

you do look like a misinformed small minded individual lacking critical thinking skills, yse.

but then, drowned was proving one of my earlier points, so i already knew what you looked like.

the future of the conservatard party is layed out here: irrelevance.

[ame="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/35994250#35994250"]Countdown with Keith Olbermann Countdown with Keith Olbermann[/ame]

Originally Posted by Rip'nStick

DBT, I assume that was a joke (which I did find funny) but which of those titles do you believe Obama is?

1.I think he's probably eligible.

2.Without question, he's a Marxist. Wether he achieves dictatorship in his time is doubtful but he'll do it if he can. Either way, he fully intends to lay the groundwork for a state controlled America. (Cloward and Piven Strategy)

3. He will also help expand the groundwork for a future "one world government" that is what the bible says the Antichrist is all about. Antichrist, no. Helping fulfill biblical destiny. Yes.

4. I don't think he's a muslim. I think he's an atheist who, being a racist antisemite, one world, wealth redistributor, has a soft spot for the muslim world.

Yes, I'm totally serious.

Gotta love how unbelievably overconfident all the TGR librosheep are right now (this of course is excluding the OP).

If you guys are so highly edjemukated I assume you know how to read. You should pick up The Art Of War and give it a go.

Mock - why isn't there any quote by me in that post? Really feeling neglected here, bud!

Originally Posted by Jer

...Mock - why isn't there any quote by me in that post? Really feeling neglected here, bud!

Hmmm... I don't know why you didn't comment in that part of that thread? Perhaps the hat in yer ass wasn't politicized yet?

UNLESS... YSE WAS JER AND JER WAS YSE???

It is really a pathetic statement about our educational system that someone can get through it and be still be liberal. Any system with any interest in the concept of individual freedom would dismiss it out of hand. Obviously, higher education is more of an indoctrination in the fantasy know as liberalism than k-12, although they are bad enough.

Education and wisdom are now disconected.

Originally Posted by mock vomit

UNLESS... YSE WAS JER AND JER WAS YSE???

That's a bit of a stretch. It would be far more plausable if you were really me.


....man, now I'm really confusified!

whoa, that explains the "If I were you" musings...

it is all coming together now!

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

It is really a pathetic statement about our educational system that someone can get through it and be still be liberal. Any system with any interest in the concept of individual freedom would dismiss it out of hand. Obviously, higher education is more of an indoctrination in the fantasy know as liberalism than k-12, although they are bad enough.

Education and wisdom are now disconected.

They've always been disconnected. Education is what schools try to do, wisdom is what you learn through life. I would find it more pathetic if students came through our educational system and were force fed information that is predominantly on either far end of the spectrum.

The Add Health study shows that the mean IQ of adolescents who identify themselves as "very liberal" is 106, compared with a mean IQ of 95 for those calling themselves "very conservative." The Add Health study is huge — more than 20,000 kids — and this difference is highly statistically significant.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...#ixzz0j2atKrmk