Via Senator Dean Heller’s (R-NV) election victory – from the Las Vegas Sun:
…They meticulously gathered the names of all newly registered independents—who were registering at a faster clip than either Democrats or Republicans for much of the season.
Then, they relentlessly called and visited those voters at their doorsteps—particularly in Washoe County.
Heller’s campaign also put a significant amount of the candidate’s time toward the effort. Twice a week, Heller sat on a conference call with hundreds of independent voters.
“Dean does not screen questions,” Abrams said. “Twice a week, for an hour and a half, independents got to hear from him directly about how he did not vote to end Medicare and they could ask him anything they wanted.”…
If you are in a State where Democrats outnumber Republicans – and they outnumber Republicans here in Nevada by more than 100,000 voters, as we are increasingly “Californicated” (idiots who flee the People’s Democratic Republic of California and then start voting in Nevada for the same insanity which killed California) – then you either have to massively increase GOP registration or go out and get Independents in a big way. Heller went and did that – winning Independents by 20 points which allowed him to scrape to a 12,000 vote victory (out of a million votes cast).
Around the country there has been a general fall-off of Democrat voter registration, a slight rise in GOP voter registration and a skyrocketing Independent registration. Independents are clearly key to winning – State by State and nationally in most areas. Heller took the time to carefully court the Independent vote and wound up winning in a State that Obama carried by nearly 6 points (which, for a bit of good news, is only half his 2008 margin).
Heller’s campaign concentrated heavily on themes designed to appeal to Independents – I remember the barrage of ads which asserted Heller’s willingness to work across the aisle to solve problems, a key desire for Independents who appear to be Independent precisely because they’re sick of the partisan games of government. The lesson for us to take away is that Democrats won in 2012 by deliberately emphasizing partisanship – they relentlessly worked on racial, gender and class animosities in order to turnout their base in as large a number as possible. It worked – but it won’t work if the GOP can simply bring more voters to the polls because we have a message which appeals to a broader sector of the American population.
Democrats figure they’ve got is sewn – that they’ve got a model which ensures them victory again and again and again. They do – if we keep playing the game as we have. If we change the rules, we’ll catch them flat-footed. Heller points the way. Let’s Roll.
Don’t you think Heller might have won because of Berkley’s problems?
“Berkley was under a formal House ethics investigation into whether she used her office as a congresswoman to benefit her husband’s medical practice—a deadweight on her campaign that she was never able to escape.”
If Obama can survive a completely failed first term, then Berkley’s ethical troubles (which are entirely run-of-the-mill for Democrat politicians) shouldn’t have been any trouble…and wouldn’t have been if Heller hadn’t run it the way he did.
I’m not saying that Heller isn’t a good politician. From what I’ve read he’s light years ahead of Sharon Angle. And he didn’t make any stupid statements like Murdock or Akin. That said, I doubt he could have beaten someone without Berkley’s ethical troubles. At least not in Nevada.
“From what I’ve read he’s light years ahead of Sharon Angle.”
But wouldn’t just about anybody be light years ahead of Sharron Angle? She was a full-blown calamity.
I’m sorry, did you think Sharron Angle was a good candidate, or even a competent one, Amazona?
Let’s wait and see if he votes for the current stooge who holds the gop leadership in the Senate. If he does, do you mind if I “roll” my own way?
Don’t be too harsh on Heller if he votes for the current leadership – he’s a good guy; a staunch fiscal conservative with solid social conservative credentials. But its a 51/49 State which leans blue…gotta tread the mine field with care.
“gotta tread the mine field with care.”
If Heller votes for business as usual what use is he? He might as step on that mine and get it over with.
Keep us honest, my friend; just go on keeping us honest.
I, for one, is tired of determining the way “to victory” because I see a revolution within my lifetime. Tell the God’s honest truth, explain the position and those that oppose will fall by the wayside. Maybe not before Obama turns this country into a Cloward–Piven shithole like so many Democratic cities but I for one believe that “too big to fail” applies to the entire country and just not localities. Drive us off the fiscal cliff so the “poor” once again have to pay taxes. Enjoy.
I have prepared and am welcoming Casper’s expected downfall even though he does not see it.
“I have prepared and am welcoming Casper’s expected downfall even though he does not see it.”
The vast majority do not. The vast majority do not wish to see it. They will be like those on Long Island screaming at the government they just voted for to “do something”.
I doubt there will be any taxation at all once the survivors start rebuilding.
a great read
How Conservatives Can Win in Blue-State America: Lessons from South Africa’s Opposition
That is pretty much what we have to duplicate here – and I’m impressed that Ryan, apparently, wanted to bring the fight in to the Democrat strong holds. My view is that anything we can chip away in the liberal, urban enclaves just makes our task easier in the suburbs and countryside, as well as vastly complicating the Democrats’ efforts – especially as once we reach a critical mass of support in the urban areas (say, 35% support) it will become next to impossible for them to use voter fraud any longer…there will be too many Republicans watching.
We may be at a point where the Dems can buy a majority of voters with free stuff and/or fool a majority of voters into thinking that that’s a good thing, but no amount of free stuff can extinguish the yearning for freedom that is an inherent part of the human spirit. Although tyranny has been the norm throughout most of the history of civilization, I can’t, offhand, think of any time in history when collectivist thinking scored a permanent win over the yearning for freedom. So, should we push the collectivist pendulum too far to the left, I agree with DB that we’ll fight another revolution. And I have no doubt which side will win.
Mass voter fraud, illegals, emptying of nursing homes and people “voting” for them the donk party/CPUSA has it down pat.
Without a revolution/reset we are doomed.
If worse does come to worst then we’ll have utter collapse…and then everyone will have no choice but to side with us. I’m hopeful that we can cobble something together to help us limp along until 2016…but with Japan’s GDP coming in -3.5% I think the global recession is very much here…and that is going to spread fast and once full blown recession returns to the United States then not only will our revenues drop and our expenses rise but there won’t be any out there capable of buying our debt in sufficient quantities.
As an aside – a trenchant remark made on the future of the Democrats: they won in 2008 and 2012 by building up a successful Cult of Personality about Obama…but the central object of their Cult won’t be on the ballot in 2016 while the results of the Personality’s failures will be there for them to carry around…
There’s an excellent article on my home page this morning that goes a long way toward explaining exactly where we are as a country — long, but definitely worth reading. This clip is illustrative:
One of my favorite parts of any discussion between disagreeing parties, political or otherwise, is when one person says, “I never looked at it that way before.” The only way you get to that point is to discuss ideas. Personal attacks, ridicule and snark will never get you there. Progressives used to realize this, as evidenced by the great Eleanor Roosevelt quote: “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; and small minds discuss people.” But today Progressives know that discussing ideas would be their death knell, because their ideas have never worked. In fact, not only have they never worked, they have always, when allowed to “progress” to their ultimate goal, resulted in misery, suffering, starvation and mass murder.
Spook, I am stuck on the idea that if we could engage each other in discourse on nothing BUT ideology, we would find ourselves much closer together than we realize. Political ideology, that is.
We are not even that far apart on most issues of social ideologies, as most people want pretty much the same things and disagree on the best way to make them happen.
It is my belief that if Candidate R were to, in a debate, ask Candidate D about his pure political ideology—-that is, does he support a Constitutional model of government in which most of the power and authority is reserved for the states and local government and individuals, or the Leftist model in which the federal government has unrestrained power and scope—-Candidate D would be pinned down to only two responses.
One would be that he is in favor of the Constitutional model, in which case the debate could easily move on to the next stage, which would be which agendas should the states, counties, towns or people take on, and how should they be structured, because we would have removed the biggest hurdle in the way of getting things done.
The other would be that Candidate D really DOES believe that power and authority should not rest with the states, but that it should be part of a large and powerful Central Authority. In this case, he would either admit this, allowing the debate to move to a true political debate on the merits of each system, or he would realize the political risks of admitting it and try to shift the discussion into areas where it can more easily be derailed and converted to emotional squabbling about emotion-driven “issues”.
I contend that as long as Republicans, and even many conservatives, allow ourselves to be herded like sheep into the territory where the Left can control the dialogue—-that is, that of emotion-driven “issues” instead of actual political discourse and decision-making—we will always be giving them the advantage, and they will always use it further divide the people of this nation into warring camps.
I contend that true leadership on the Right will be a focused determination to force political discourse into actual political boundaries, and to clarify the dissent.
as long as we have a HUGE dependent class living on the plantation and OPM we will never agree.
They will DEMAND more of OUR money and we will be painted as evil greedy cheap bastards for political gains.
One day they will come to TAKE what they are told we stole from them and we will have to defend our hard earned property with deadly force.
The problem you have with this amazona is that the majority of people vote for issues not for abstract models. And this is where the republicans have a problem. They’ve lost too many groups.
Scientists and engineers – why would they vote for the party which wants to turn science into something that its not?
Gay people who want to marry someday – why would they vote for the party which opposes their basic rights?
Those who care about education – why would they vote for a party which opposes critical thinking in schools (check the texas republican platform)?
Those that oppose executions – why would they vote for a party which seems to celebrate executions? (ok, thats not true, but its the impression you get when you see things such as perrys ovation)
So no, you will not change the debate away from issues because its issues that people care about.
As a redhead, I tend to be offended when another makes such utterly stupid comments that it might reflect on us as a group. Please, if you are going to insist on posting lies and wrong-headed silliness, do so under a different description.
You start off by flirting with a fact. Yes, most people do vote on issues. And you are, unfortunately, partly right in thinking that political systems are “abstract models” if by that you mean that people don’t really understand them very well if at all.
But from that point on, you descend into classic Lefty spouting of so many of the lies spread by your kind that you sound like a little RRL pamphlet called “Leftist Propaganda, or How To Smear The Right”.
“….why would they vote for the party which wants to turn science into something that its not?”
More to the point, why would you and the rest of your kind be so insistent on grinding out the lie that the Right DOES want “to turn science into something it is not”?
Once again we are faced with the conundrum—is this writer really so stupid he believes the nonsense he writes, or is he just another Leftist hack piling up the lies? Not that it matters—a lie is a lie no matter why it is said.
No, you Lefties have tried to stake out “science” as your own private territory, but to do so you have had to turn accepted scientific principles on their heads, claim up is down and in is out, and then surround your inventions with lies.
“….why would they vote for the party which opposes their basic rights?”
More to the point, why would YOUR party be so dependent on the lie that anyone wants to deprive gay people of the same legal rights to have unions formalized and protected? Could it be because the truth would not advance your cause? In fact the only issue here is not the much-vaunted but false claim of RIGHTS but of the childish demand to be able to use one single WORD. Of course you guys don’t want to admit that all this shrill hysteria is about something as small as a short WORD, so you blow it all up into something it is not, get all righteous about it, and of course surround this invention with lies.
“….why would they vote for a party which opposes critical thinking in schools …”
See the pattern here? You claim the Right is for something but it turns out this is not the case, that the real fact is that the Left has invented some claim (what we call ‘lying’) . In fact, it is the Right which has pushed for equality in schools, which means among many other things teaching both sides of political issues and welcoming speakers who represent non-Leftist ideas.
The Right could easily ask “Why would anyone vote for a party which opposes free speech and instead organizes efforts to silence opposing points of view, including boycotts of speakers, interfering with people trying to attend speeches, intimidating people who try to attend, organizing disruption of speeches, physically storming the stage when different points of view are being presented, and even becoming violent to halt this effort at free speech?”
To hear a Lefty, a spokesman for the political movement which is responsible for shutting down critical thinking in favor of indoctrination, whimper about some invented Right wing determination to “oppose critical thinking” is hysterical. Critical thinking is the ally of the Right and the biggest threat there IS to the Left. This is one reason—this and the general quality of public education—– the Right promotes school vouchers, so parents can direct how their tax dollars will be spent, and send their children to schools where critical thinking IS taught and encouraged——-and why the Left fights it so stridently.
“Those that oppose executions – why would they vote for a party which seems to celebrate executions? (ok, thats not true, but its the impression you get when you see things such as perrys ovation)”
This makes no sense at all, unless you are admitting that the killing of unborn children is in fact the execution of innocents. If this is your point, it is remarkably stupid, as you would appear to be saying the innocent deserve the same fate as the guilty. Or some such. It is far too muddled to sort out.
But I see that even when posting a sentence that makes no sense, you try to insert a form of attack, to try to paint the Right as bloodthirsty people who actually “CELEBRATE” executions.
There is legitimate debate on executing people who have committed heinous crime. Personally, I find it to be a quite reasonable approach to dealing with people who have proved to lack basic humanity, by their own actions, and who cannot ever be allowed to interact with people on any level because of the danger they pose.
I believe you are the first Lefty I have seen admit that the killing of unborn children is also execution. But it is clear that these human beings have committed no crime, and deserve no punishment. So yes, it is quite consistent, and I argue quite moral, to oppose the execution of innocents while accepting execution for adults whose own actions have been heinous, despicable, acts against humanity.
“So no, you will not change the debate away from issues because its issues that people care about.”
Which is a way of saying that you believe people are so inherently silly and shallow they are not capable of making decisions based upon anything but feelings, whether or not those feelings are based upon fact or lies, even when presented with the reality that a vote for an issue is really a vote for a political system and therefore goes far beyond the single issue at hand.
This is a very cynical and dismissive attitude toward people, and as we have seen it represents the way “the people” are seen by Leftist minders, as this is how they are treated. Leftist minders invent little pens of “issues” and then herd people into them, using fear and lies and lots and lots of noise, treating them like cattle instead of as individuals. It has been pretty effective, but only because there has not been enough of an effort to show the alternative, which is to be independent, thoughtful and fact-oriented.
Oh, you on the Left will always have your cattle. Our job is to sort out those who don’t want to be livestock penned and fed by the Left to serve them.
“So no, you will not change the debate away from issues because its issues that people care about.”
But perhaps this “get people to forget about issues and instead vote based purely on ethereal theoreticals” idea will be the one that finally forces the non-extremist Republicans to break from the extremists–and break free of the bubble. That would be a most welcome development.
truthie, that doesn’t even make any sense. Sometimes I do waste a few moments trying to sort through the garble of Leftist posts when you guys do try to venture into the alien world of thought and find yourselves so poorly equipped to navigate there. And usually I find nothing but some mess like this:
“…“get people to forget about issues and instead vote based purely on ethereal theoreticals” idea …” ???
Oh, I see. You, being so caught up in the shallow and superficial Identity Politics concept fed to you so successfully by your minders, actually view objective understanding of political philosophy as an “ethereal theoretical”.
In other words, you don’t understand it, so you dismiss it with a sneer, and scurry back to your comfort zone, which is mumbling about those damned extremist right wingers.
Well, fortunately for the world at large, just because you don’t understand things does not mean they don’t exist. It only means you don’t understand them. So you just cuddle up with your biases and bigotries, and leave the thinking to people better equipped to handle the job.
And by the way, the leaders of the movement you support and defend, even by default by merely attacking its opposition, DO understand their political system, and DO know it is a reality which affects every single person in every single nation where it is allowed power, just as Constitutional Conservatives DO understand their own political philosophy and what IT represents.
But you know what? If dismissing actual IDEAS as mere “ethereal theoreticals” makes you feel better about your inability to cope with them, you just go right ahead and cling to that little fantasy
It makes sense, Amazona, you just have to think instead of whine and fall back on non-sequitur personal attacks. I understand what want said perfectly fine: You think people should forget about issues that are important to them, forget about trying to address real-world problems, and instead vote based on abstract generalities. It’s a ridiculous notion forwarded by somebody who is clearly still very discombobulated by the election, and I hope that it’s ridiculous notions like that one that finally convince conservatives that they need to leave their bubble lest they end up spouting similarly ridiculous notions.
when allowed to “progress” to their ultimate goal, resulted in misery, suffering, starvation and mass murder.
this is what marxist liberalism produce……
Odd? Romney Got ZERO Votes In 59 Precincts in Philly, 9 in Ohio
Bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha
Busted: Jesse Jackson Jr Faces Jail Time And Resignation in Plea Deal
A little OT, but the Dems appear to be confident that they’ve painted the House Republicans into a corner on the fiscal cliff. What would happen if John Boehner would come out and say, “we agree with the sentiment expressed by the President in his interview with the Des Moines Register 2 weeks before the election:
Boehner could go on to say something like: we’re glad that the President finally realizes the importance of deficit reduction, and we reluctantly agree that allowing the Bush Tax cuts to expire and allowing sequestration to take place offers the best, short-term method of achieving a significant reduction in the deficit.” And when the country goes back into recession, as most economists predict will happen, the Republicans can act shocked that agreeing with the President could possibly have such a disastrous result.
The Benghazi investigation and the Petraus affair weren’t the only things that would have had a negative impact on Obama’s re-election chances that were delayed until after the election.
al ubama’s PURGE has begun.
Head of AFRICOM Fired for Wanting to Assist Personnel in Benghazi
By GerardDirect Staff – October 28, 2012
neocon01 November 12, 2012 at 1:27 pm #
Firing Generals and Admirals over Benghazi
The TV news has mentioned this, but let it drop.
Obama fired General Carter Ham, head of Africom. Then he fired Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette from his command of the powerful Carrier Strike Group Three (CSG-3) currently located in the Middle East . General Ham was fired right in the middle of the Benghazi attack, and Admiral Gaoutte was fired shortly afterwards. Service rumor has it that both officers were re leaved of command because they were sending re inforcements to Benghazi against Obama’s orders to let the consulate be overwhelmed
Fight Or Flight (The Stupid Party Bargains With Obama)
American Rattlesnake ^ | November 12, 2012 | Gerard Perry
Last week’s election results undoubtedly left many readers deeply disappointed, if not disaffected, including those of you who couldn’t bring yourselves to cast your ballot for Mitt Romney for any number of well documented reasons. The prospect of a president unencumbered by electoral consequences, whose administration has already shown itself to be flagrantly indifferent to-if not contemptuous of-the rule of law and quaint Constitutional notions like the separation of powers, seems daunting to ordinary, patriotic citizens.
What’s more, the same malleable, anemic species of Republican which has represented GOP voters for the past two years, and whose leadership has led not only to political defeat but unprecedented encroachments upon personal autonomy, has been returned to Congress. Not to stand up for the principles of the men and women who elected them, but with the intent of compromising with the President and cementing his agenda into law, including the completion through congressional action of the vast amnesty Barack Obama has begun to implement through executive action.
Make no mistake, President Obama will attempt to fulfill his promise to repay the support he received from Latino voters this election cycle. The implementation of DACA and promulgation of administrative amnesty over the past two years was merely the down payment of a much larger loan floated by the Democratic Party’s most prized constituency. Repaid, of course, with citizenship for the 11-20 million illegal aliens currently living in this country.
(Excerpt) Read more at american-rattlesnake.org …
North Carolina voters roll shows that the Tar Heel State has 2,214 voters that are 110-years-old. Most of these voters are democrats and most seem to live in four democrat-controlled counties. Some of these aged voters have already voted absentee.
Welcome to the USA; Third world nation
Ethel C. Fenig
It’s official – the United States of America has become a third world nation.
Tens of thousands on the East Coast are still without electricity, are coping with a fuel shortage that could last for weeks and are lacking access to basic necessities such as food, health care and shelter; FEMA, the government agency in charge of providing these necessities closes down when a slight storm is forecast while New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg refuses to allow the National Guard to patrol the crime ridden streets despite the pleas of local officials because he believes only the police should have guns; the overwhelmed Red Cross is unable to help much.
But never fear, foreign help is on the way.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/11/welcome_to_the_usa_third_world_nation.html#ixzz2C2YmkXXJ
The GOP party of Food Stamps:
And on queue, Velma regurgitates the dumbed down mindless drone talking points…..
….. No surprise there.
Velma, your pResident has ruined the economy, stalled its recovery and severely limited its growth.
The so called red states are suffering from his failure! Most of these states rely on manufacturing for their survival. Thanks to DEMOCRATS who opened the door to outsourcing (think Bill Clinton and his Far East Trade Agreements) and their continued high corporate tax rates and now high employment costs thanks to federally mandated benefits, jobs have moved over seas.
obAMATEUR deal making with GE and the auto unions have outsourced even more jobs. But mindless drones like you refuse to see the facts before your eyes. You are programmed “it’s the GOP’s fault” and no facts will get in your way of fantasy.
Food Stamps have sky rocketed under this pResident. It is a shame that you are too ignorant to see it nor are you willing to xfind out the truth.
Really, really pathetic.
Kind of OT here but I want to Thank GMB for the help and I decided to go with xxx.AE.
Nice thing is the first use was to “sign” the NC petition to “Peacefully grant the State of North Carolina to withdraw from the United States and create its own NEW government” Since everything I will receive from the whitehouse.gov site will truly be Elektronissches Abfälle–it is quite fitting.
Texas’ petition has reached the required 25,000 signatures – now, per the White House website, there is supposed to be an official response. I won’t hold my breath…
We will separate without, or despite intervention of the government at some point or another. The fear is genuine…freedoms are in peril.
Wow, a sensible post from the right. Instead of gnashing teeth and blaming defeat on imaginary voter fraud, someone actually does something constructive. Congratulations. However, I do take issue with your assertion that Democrats won “by deliberately emphasizing partisanship.” Many Republicans made themselves look foolish in the eyes of independents all by themselves; they didn’t need any help. Can you really blame the Democrats for pointing out the ridiculous statements and positions of some of them?
You are also correct that Democrats shouldn’t assume they’ve found the formula for indefinite dominance. It wasn’t that long ago that the Republicans were claiming the exact same thing.
Meanwhile, do we think Cluster will ever come back, or will he go the way of bitter Kimberly? You remember Kimberly, don’t you? She was the McCain campaign worker who became so embittered by his defeat that after a handful of post-election rants, finally left for good.
Thank you for proving that you are completely incapable of posting anything that is not just bone-deep snotty.
I learned it from you, Little Amy. You’re in a class of your own.
watty: “I learned it from you, Little Amy. You’re in a class of your own.”
If anything watty, you have shown us you are incapable of learning anything. You have demonstrated time and again that you are nothing more than a mindless little drone who regurgitates the party line regardless of the evidence brought before you in rebuttle.
As you have shown above, it is you with the little rants of weasel words and bitterness. When cornered with facts, like the weasel, you attack, insult and evade.
Ama’s posts are of substance and facts. Yours are far from it.
Oh, come on. The only reason you come here is to be nasty, the only reason you have ever come here is to be nasty, all you ever do is attack and insult.
And when you get called on it, you snivel that (whimper whimper) it just isn’t you faauuuulllllllttttttt!!!! whine whine, somebody else TAUGHT you how to be that way.
You were probably born this nasty, as long as we have known you you have always been this nasty, you searched this blog and started to barge into it with the purpose of showing you how nasty you are, and now you are incapable of standing up on your hind legs and at least pretending to be a man and owning that nastiness that IS you.
What a piece of work…….
Looks like American businesses are hunkering down. Gonna be a long 4 years.
I love watching things play out, and here today I am watching the shift of some RRL mouthpieces from denying their foundation in Identity Politics to defending it. The idea now seems to be to mock the very idea of voting for a political system, coupled with insistence that it is an impossible goal anyway, people being the silly cattle they are and too addicted to the superficial to even make the effort grasp the meaning of political dogma.
They are not very coherent, but the theme I have seen this morning from the redhead and truthie is that people are not going to make the shift from voting on feelings to voting on ideas and they shouldn’t anyway because ideas are just “ethereal theoreticals” with no import whatsoever, just vague floaty things that don’t have anything to do with anything, nothing to see there, folks, just concentrate on how you FEEL about things and how mean the Right is and don’t be distracted by those insignificant thought thingies, ideas are overvalued anyway, just get in the way of reacting to all the good stuff your minders feed you, look how yummy, this is really tasty because it lets you laugh at people for being against science, mmmmmmmmm.
The idea now seems to be to mock the very idea of voting for a political system, coupled with insistence that it is an impossible goal anyway, people being the silly cattle they are and too addicted to the superficial to even make the effort grasp the meaning of political dogma.
Describes Obama’s base to a T.
Obama Considering John Kerry For Defense Secretary…
so the INELIGIBLE Marxist, muslim,POS picks a COWARD, TRAITOR, DD, FAKE band aid POS for defense secretary?
gotta love it….whats next? Bwany Fwank as senate chaplain?…….
how far this once great country has fallen……
Well, if we can have a tax cheat as Secretary of the Treasury why NOT a dishonorably discharged military coward who perjured himself in sworn testimony before Congress, sliming the military, as SecDef?
Look at the brilliance of the plan—-a despised, corrupt, incompetent Commander in Chief and Kerry as SecDef will result in a massive cut to our defenses without a single Dem having to take a single vote, as people will be too demoralized to be willing to serve in the Armed Forces.
Where exactly did I mention voting based on feelings? I said ideas. a concept which seems quite alien to you. You also seem to be too lazy to actually look at my examples.
As far as critical thinking goes, this is directly from the Texas republican platform: Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZlDF9VCbrg – that sounds like an ovation to me (and most people) for executing people. And no, I did not say abortions are the killing of babies. In fact there isn’t a single reference to abortion in my post. Although abortion is another issue that people vote on. I did admit that its not true that republicans celebrate executions, I also said it appears that way when you have scenes like this.
Republicans openly embrace creationism and other nonsense that attempts to redefine science. Here’s a hint, when you can use the word theory correctly (a previous thread shows that you aren’t aware of its definition) then you can speak about it.
Please, don’t lie while making posts. As you might now see (and would have if you had of googled my examples) there is not a single lie there.
Gay people who want to marry someday – why would they vote for the party which opposes their basic rights?
the basic right to ****marriage***** is there for the talking,
SODOMY with a horse, mule, dog, goldfish or another man isnt….so there is a lie, a BIG LIE.
O’Reilly Lambastes Obama & ‘Secular Progressives’ Who Are ‘Bent on Destroying Traditional America’ in Epic Fox Segment
“I believe the American people can be persuaded that the far left is a dangerous outlet…”
You might want to look up the word sodomy before using it.
Red, I don’t have an unlimited amount of time or patience to deal with your silliness, but I’ll give you a couple of minutes.
Where exactly did you mention voting on feelings? Why, that is the very essence of Leftist issue-based voting decisions. Feeling that people are mean, feeling that things are unfair, feeling that someone somewhere for some reason ought to pay for lifestyle decisions, etc. You said “…“So no, you will not change the debate away from issues because its issues that people care about.” ”
“Care” = “feel”.
Your rant on the Texas platform is an astounding display of ignorance. You can cut and paste it, but you clearly have no idea what it means. Of course, you Lefties are all about identity, and that includes names, so if someone names his theory “critical thinking” then shazaam, of course, it could not be anything BUT critical thinking.
For a master sneerer focusing on claims that other people are too lazy to look things up, etc., you sure blundered into this one, Red. Your own link clearly states that the Texas statement objects not to actual critical thinking, but to “…critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification …”
In other words, indoctrination. If you manage to finish preening over your snide comment on someone being too lazy to look things up, you might look into this Outcome Based Education scam.
You claim there was an ovation for execution. Whose? Or are you just offended by approval of a judicial system and penal system which actually punish extreme examples of inhumanity with a single final penalty? If you want to argue against capital punishment then argue against capital punishment. It looks like what you really want to do is find something to hold against conservatives and you thought that a clip of Texans applauding the decision to retain capital punishment in their state could be used as indictment of the morality of an entire political movement—–which, by the way, is about the best way to govern the nation and not about how Texas treats its most violent felons.
I said right up front that your comment ““Those that oppose executions – why would they vote for a party which seems to celebrate executions? ” didn’t make sense, and I guessed that you were clumsily referring to the execution of millions of humans every year, which IS opposed by so many who also believe in capital punishment for some criminals.
If you don’t want people to have to guess at what your incoherent ramblings mean, then be coherent——but don’t have a hissy fit if someone guesses wrong.
Republicans believe that the Constitution is the best way to govern the nation. Some who are Republicans also believe that the alternate theory of Intelligent Design should be taught, and that the Big Bang type of spontaneous random occurrence of life should not be the only theory taught. Many who vote Dem also believe in Intelligent Design. It is a belief unrelated to that of how best to govern the nation. Please try to learn the difference.
No lies in your post? Well, there is the lie that Republicans are “… a party which wants to turn science into something that its not..” As I pointed out, it is not just a lie, it is a stupid lie.
Then there is the lie that Republicans are a party which “…opposes basic rights…..” for gay people, when this is simply not true. There is no right to redefine a word.
There is the lie that Republicans are “…a party which opposes critical thinking in schools …” which falls into that “not just a lie but a stupid lie” category, and it is really two lies rolled into one. “REPUBLICANS” as a party are not represented by some Republicans in any one state, and the Texas Republicans do not oppose “critical thinking in schools” but oppose a program which claims to represent the TEACHING of “critical thinking” but which is merely a renamed/disguised effort to promote a political agenda which includes Outcome Based Education and behavior modification. Sorry you can’t see the difference. Evidently YOU have never been exposed to critical thinking.
You lie when you claim that Republican are “….for a party which seems to celebrate executions…” Again, not just dishonest but dumb. As a party, Republicans support small government. Within that party in one state a small number of people were enthusiastic about the state decision on capital punishment.
There you go—four lies in one short post. And each was addressed, and you simply ignored the facts with which they were rebutted and fell back into your comfort zone of snuggling up to the vicious fantasies you have about “the Right” that seem to be so important to you.
Definition of THEORY (Merriam: emphasis mine)
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
: abstract thought : speculation
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action —–her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn.
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena —–the wave theory of light.
a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject —–theory of equations.
Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how divine or metaphysical matters are thought to work. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings.
One modern group of meanings emphasizes the speculative and generalizing nature of theory. For example in the arts and philosophy, the term “theoretical” may be used to describe ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily measurable. And by extension of the philosophical meaning, “theoria” is also a word still used in theological contexts. As already in Aristotle’s definitions, theory is very often contrasted to “practice” (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a Greek term for “doing”, which is opposed to theory because pure theory involves no doing apart from itself. A classical example of the distinction between theoretical and practical uses the discipline of medicine: medical theory involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.
In modern science, the term “theory” refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support (“verify”) or empirically contradict (“falsify”) it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word “theory” that imply that something is unproven or speculative. Scientific theories are also distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.
Now, before you get all giddy about the scientific description explained by only one of many sources of definitions of the word “theory” remember that evolution is a well developed theory, supported by a great deal of empirical evidence, BACK TO A POINT. Beyond that point, it is speculation.
The Big Lie is that “conservatives” deny all aspects of evolution, in any era. The only issue here is what happened to initiate life. One is that because some form of what can very liberally be called “life” can be fleetingly created in a laboratory, this automatically means that all life began this way, and that this amazingly simple life form then developed into so many wildly complex and completely different species, with unique characteristics and DNA. This is speculation. A theory, in the less than rigid scientific sense.
And the theory that there was, at some point, an Intelligent Design that laid out the templates for the many different life forms is also a theory, also speculation.
The only thing we can point to as being supported by actual evidence is the evolution of these life forms after a stage of creation, whatever that stage might have been.
The belief system that stridently denies the existence of any Higher Power stridently claims not only that there is no such thing as Intelligent Design but that refusing to consider it is a badge of superior intelligence.
It appears, from the evidence we have seen so far, that this claim to this badge of superiority is the only one available to these people, which is why it is so important to them.
You’re falling for a liberal argument there. There is no right to marry. Marriage requires the consent of at least two people and thus cannot be a human right because human rights accrue to individuals, not to groups.
Marriage is a privilege and its purpose is the creation of families to rear the next generation – as such, it is legitimately the subject of societal regulation as to who may marry whom. And, so, whether or not two men or two women shall marry is not a question of human rights, but a question of whether or not we, the people feel it would benefit the purpose of marriage (having children and raising the next generation) if we allowed it. If it does not benefit the purpose of marriage then there is no reason to allow it – and if there is even the slightest concern that it might weaken the purpose of marriage, then it must be adamantly opposed.
Please note there is no reference in the above to God or to the revealed word of God. This is an entirely secular opposition to same-sex marriage. There is no equally valid secular argument which can be made in favor of same-sex marriage (“’cause I wanna” just doesn’t cut the ice). Being in favor of gay marriage is, at best, just an unthinking “feeling” which no man or woman fit to hold the responsibilities of a true citizen should hold…being opposed to gay marriage is the rational point of view.
In the image of God He created them, male and female He created them.
And so, a man shall leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife.
What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
Marriage is a Divine institution. Not a man-made one.
You’re falling for a liberal argument there. There is no right to marry. Marriage requires the consent of at least two people (one man, one woman) and thus cannot be a human right because human rights accrue to individuals, not to groups.
Sodomy – n. Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, esp. anal intercourse or bestiality.-Sodomite n., sodomize’ v.
Sodomy is derived from the word Sodom – is a city located in ancient Palestine, South of the Dead Sea. It was destroyed along with Gomorrah because of their wickedness and depravity. Chief among them the act of homosexuality. Two angels had came to Lot’s house, and every man in the surrounding city came to Lot’s house to want to have homosexual sex with the two angels that appeared to be men. Lot offered his daughter, but they would not take his daughter. So Lot shut the door, and the homosexuals, or sodomites rammed in the door, and the two angels struck them with blindness.
Since you did not specifically mention this bastion of Liberal thinking–I will not attain it to you but towards Liberals in general.
At http://townhall.com/ — read the articles. Might be too difficult for Casper because you have to scroll down a bit.
–28 Percent of the Black Race Wiped Out by Abortion
–Reminder: Planned Parenthood Founded by a Racist Weeding Out “Unfit” Blacks
–1400 Abortions of Black Babies Every Day
Hope you are proud of your Democratic “cornerstone / keystone” (slightly bigger than an issue). Hope this is not too critical for critical thinking and all.
simple,like Jer says….
Sodomy – n. Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, esp. ****anal intercourse***** or bestiality.-Sodomite n., sodomize’ v.
and THAT ….AINT “marriage”
Hope you are proud of your Democratic “cornerstone / keystone”
Ooh they ARE