Liberal!
There are several interesting findings in “Republicans Like Golf, Democrats Prefer Cartoons, TV Research Suggests” — a recent blog in the New York Times that studied “(TV) programs by how they performed with registered voters of either party (as well as independents) compared to a base of all registered voters” and basically proved that we’re just as polarized with pop culture as we are with politics.
For instance:
1. Democrats skewed heavily towards the NBC sitcoms (“30 Rock,” “Parks and Recreation,” etc) and “adult” cartoons — basically, the types of satirical/metafictional comedies that require the viewer to “work” a little more. You could also say that multi-layered dramatic series such as “Mad Men” and “The Wire” — both of which are also favored by Democrats — do the same thing.
2. Republicans, on the other hand, overwhelmingly preferred competitive reality shows such as “The Biggest Loser,†“Survivor,†“American Idol,†and “The Amazing Race” — programs that provide a cathartic release (you invest in a character, and someone wins at the in) but don’t require as much effort from the viewers.
3. There were no surprises when it came to how we view sports, as the Republicans (predictably) skewed heavily towards college sports (football and basketball), golf, and NASCAR, while liberal sports fans seem to be smitten with the NBA, which “… accounted for no fewer than five of the top 20 cable shows on the Democratic list.”
(There was no mention of the NFL, which leads me to believe it’s one of the only things that liberals and conservatives adore equally. Well, that and Beyonce.)
At first glance, some of these findings seem like they could be attributed to geographical differences more than anything else. Take the NBA, for instance. Basketball is a city game with deep roots in highly populated urban areas. Since liberals tend to migrate to and populate cities with large populations, it makes sense that they’d (generally) enjoy NBA basketball more than Republicans, who tend to be more rural. (You can also make the racial argument here — basically, out of all the major sports/professional sports leagues, the NBA is the one where Black players are the most prominent and wield the most power, so it makes sense that conservatives wouldn’t be big fans — but I’ll save that for my upcoming NBA preview.)
Also, most of the satirical/metafictional comedies have protagonists who are obviously liberal — with shows that either take place in large cities or deal with the protagonist being a fish out of water — and it’s easy to see how liberals/people living in large cities would relate to them.
Yet, even after controlling for geography, it’s hard to ignore that in this study, the “liberal-loved” shows tend to be much “smarter” than the programs conservatives enjoy, a fact that reinforces the stereotype that (generally speaking) liberals are typically smarter than conservatives.
Now, before I continue, I have to admit that I’m not particularly objective. While I wouldn’t call myself a liberal — on the Santorum (0) to Steinem (100) scale, I probably rate around 65 — I do believe that liberals are (generally) smarter people than conservatives. Better people? Maybe not. But, definitely smarter.
With that being said, I don’t think the breakdown in preferred viewership is due to intelligence as much as its due to the fact that liberals seem to “value” intelligence more than conservatives. And, in this sense, “value” means “are more likely to do things that “prove” how smart they are.”
Along with gravitating towards shows that you have actually watch to follow and have to be “smart” to truly get, this also includes frequent incorporation of snark and sarcasm in your daily lexicon — devices that imply you’re smarter than the person it’s directed towards — and being more attracted to the types of occupations (law, academia, publishing, etc) where you get daily opportunities to show off your brain. Perhaps the emphasis placed on “smartness” — it’s really a liberal’s most valuable currency — causes many to overcompensate; self-consciously choosing to partake in “smarter” activities to make themselves seem smarter.
You know, the best way to describe my feelings about how liberals and conservatives view intelligence differently would be that if given the choice between being the most successful (success in this sense = financial success) person in the room or the smartest person in the room, while it seems like most conservatives would choose the former, I’m just as certain that the majority of liberals would probably choose the latter. Yet, as smart as we (and yes, I’m including myself) claim to be, when you think about it, that seems like a very stupid decision.
 —Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)
***If you haven’t already, check out “A Tale of Two Tapes” — my latest at Ebony.com.***
***Make sure you tune in to The Blaq Out Show tonight on BLIS! Panama Jackson and the crew are talking about finances from 8-10pm. Tune into www.blis.fm/theblaqoutshow or http://blisonline.streamon.fm and let the good times roll!***
I can definitely see how liberals are smarter and conservatives are more likely to produce the retarded cowboy type…As I witnessed in the debate tonight..Obama came in with the uppercut heard across the internet and the retarded cowboy romney couldn’t recovery from that hit. Obama12!
LOL and I thought I was the only one who was thinking of the uppercut during the debate…
+1 on the uppercut. He rotated with the pivot leg and landed it right from the start….BOOM!
“Obama came in with the uppercut heard across the internet and the retarded cowboy romney couldn’t recovery from that hit. Obama12!”
it’s interesting reading the responses to the debate this morning, and how every is always split down party lines. at one point, you have to ask are people really seeing things this differently or are they being disingenuous?
Democrats live in reality. When Obama bombed last time in the debates because he was damned near asleep… his most vocal critics were liberals. I think Chris Matthews cried and beat his chest and rended his hair over it.
No matter how stupid, ineffective, or wrong their candidate is– conservatives will fall in line. Remember “Mission Accomplished”? If their guys loses, the rules were unfair… the questions were bad… the other guy was a bully… the moderator is a partisan hack…. whine… whine… whine…
I think Democrats live in reality is a bit of an overstatement. Democrats are no more immune to partisanship, especially in viewing debates, than Republicans are.
There are very few Democrats claiming that Obama misstated his statements on what happened in Libya, though he did.
Liberals complain 1000x more about ‘our guy’ than conservatives do about theirs.
It’s almost farcical how hard we are on our own representatives. They can almost never live up to the progressive ideals the base holds.
On the other hand, you see everyday Republicans double down on blatantly false statements that have been fact checked. It takes a very high level of insanity to get them to distance themselves from another conservative.
“Obama misstated his statements on what happened in Libya, though he did.”
So, you’re saying he didn’t call the attack “terrorism?” I kept watching MSNBC last night and they did show that announcement from the Rose Garden and he did, in fact, refer to it as an act of terror. Whether he specifically said “terrorism” or “act of terror” it is still the same unless you want to debate semantics.
BTW, along with watching the debate, several friends and I were FBing comments and I kept up with your tweets too. It was quite the entertaining night!
Panama, you need to do your research:
Here is a m’fn link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaYnMqAUn1I
Fact.
This one is a bit shorter and straight to the clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W9Tuz3ZM2s
Thanks.
I agree 100%! @SweetSass Obama was too cool for school with that first debate. However with last nights performance, he rolled in there guns a blaze. That idiot romney couldn’t get his lies out fast enough, he tried to spin a lie about Libya and take the Presidents statements out of context, but his simple mind couldn’t conjur that up quick enough and found himslef look extra dumb . I found romney to be highly disrespectfull in his approcach to the president. But I’m sure Fox News is working up a strong lie in defense of romney and trying to spin in it as Obama being a bully and so on and so……
The look on Rmoney’s face when Candy Crowley fact checked him live was priceless. He was flabbergasted someone would actually call him out on his lie.
Liberals value LOOKING intelligent. That isn’t necessarily an indictment on the things they like, that’s just how they function. Conservatives value boot straps and individualism. I don’t think I would say liberals are more intelligent than conservatives at all. I mean it strongly depends on how you define conservatism, but there are plenty of conservative young men and women in Ivy leagues across America. Liberals usually lazily/half-arsely co-sign more progressive issues which can give the veneer of intelligence from the liberal perspective because they value certain things that won’t be specified, but we all know what examples I’m referring to, that conservatives don’t and are deemed unintelligent for not supporting them.
Church!
The Libertarian is probably the smartest. Their tendency to be fiscally conservative and socially moderate, often has them looking a creative ways to solve problems.
Meanwhile Republicans and Democrats steal the Libertarians ideas and label them kooks as the plunder the ideology.
+1
Survey says…correct answer!!!!
Libertarians are not in the same class of politics as republicans and democrats are. Libertarians neither come up with any new ideas nor new perspectives. Every idea or POV that is libertarian was and is covered in either the federalist or anti-federalist papers if you ever choose to read them. The reason why those ideas seem so new, is because America has fallen so far away from it’s foundation, that it’s lost track of where it actually came from.
Libertarians are also conservative and liberal. Liberal conservatives want a more effective government, which would be smaller but still active. Conservative libertarians want almost no government at all. Neither side has the answers, but at least the debates and clash of ideas are far more intellectually appealing than what the Republicans and Democrats usually offer, which is the equal of a good reality TV show; where debates consist of halls with RED carpets and BLUE walls, and the debaters wear BLUE ties and RED ties, representing which ever side they belong to. If the politicians could paint themselves in RED and BLUE, is there any doubt that they would?
It is amazing that so many people can accept such blatant, mocking and disrespectful propaganda thrown in the faces of the mass public, and then argue over which side more represents intelligence.
“It is amazing that so many people can accept such blatant, mocking and disrespectful propaganda thrown in the faces of the mass public, and then argue over which side more represents intelligence.”
Word! That’s why I wasn’t even gonna comment today, but the above quote is ON POINT. I get disgusted every time I go to facebook and see the same ole “Obama’s amazing and has this all figured out” or “Romney’s dumb and everything he says is terrible. Ugh I hate him!” posts. It’s insulting and sickening. I’m pissed that last night’s debates didn’t include Gary Johnson. Obama ain’t want it wit him.
Gary Johnson is a joke and has about as much of a chance at winning as a snowflake does surviving in a bonfire. First past the post, winner take all political systems just about guarantee a third party will never win higher office. Ever. Our system is based on coalitions of voting blocs aligning on either side. We are not a parliamentary system nor are we a direct democracy. Basic fundamental government 101 stuff. But then again you’re a libertarian, facts be damned…. Dagny Taggart is a real person to you. Oh well.
SweetSass- Please jump off a bridge as soon as possible.
thanks
…says the person who cannot defend their position thus must resort to petty threats.
Dude, I have no problem defending my position. You’re just not worth talking to. I’m well aware of your fact twisting, refuting points I never made, assuming I believe something that I never stated or even implied that I believed, and going off on tangents about points that are irrelevant to the issues I’m discussing. You’re a professional at spinning things and completely changing a discussion to what you want to talk about and I don’t have the time, patience, or energy to deal with that today. So if you’re not gonna do us a favor and jump off a bridge just do the smart thing (since you’re automatically smart, being a Democrat and all) and just go talk to someone who respects your opinion
There is no spin. Ask any political scientist and they will tell you… the way the system is set up… no 3rd party will gain a foothold in politics. FACT.
There is DEFINITELY a spin. Wanna know how? Cause I never said they would gain a foothhold. You put words in people’s mouths so naturally that you can’t even tell when you’re doing it even though it’s obvious smh. It’s your go to argument tactic. It’s laughable that you can’t see that about yourself though.
My point was that Obama would’ve lost a LOT of votes and had a lot of his not so favorable policies EXPOSED if he was debating Gary Johnson, PERIOD. Romney was a joke of an opponent.
I don’t support the 3rd party candidate because I think they have a realistic shot at winning. I support them because I want BOTH parties to DO BETTER and produce better candidates. They respond to lost votes. Being the political strategy expert you are you should know that. I want them to HAVE to at the very least bring up the critical issues that they conveniently leave out of debates. I don’t want two people who are guilty of the same sh!t debating each other because they won’t bring up that dirt, because their own sh!t stinks just as bad. Try again Sherlock
Yes, please, write in Gary Johnson on your ballot which takes away from Rmoney.
And thanks in advance for electing Obama.
GHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHATDHAMB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jmtg!! (((((((((((((((((((((e-hugs)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mami! Whatup lil sis? I was just about to ask where you were. I wanted to hear your take on this and last nights debates
@jmtg,
that’s precisely why I’m not commenting……
I used to be a democrat; I think unless you are born under abnormal circumstances and you’re black, you will likely be a democrat. Not because they share your values, but rather because you feel they are more concerned with your interests. However, when I went to college I took a course on political psychology and I got to attend guess lectures by democratic and republican strategists: they are all awful and they are all machiavellian or they don’t make it in the business.
Unlike politicians, these people don’t need to sell themselves, they’re all about accumulating power for their side, and they’re always trying to sign up some new ambitious kid to do all their dirty work. They both actively devise ways to prevent people from voting, whether directly or indirectly. It’s just that one side snitches on the other and spins it like it’s only the other side that does these thing. Many of the ones I met were clearly psychopathic. They study the nature of human beings and they are always coming up with schemes to draw people to their side and draw their votes.
These are the people who are the backbone of the republican and democratic party, and they will never, I repeat never, allow or accept libertarian ideas, because it will cost them their power. I feel people who only see politics through television but never experience it, don’t understand how dirty and soulless it actually is.
All that being said, all one has to do is look at the parties today and see what they’ve produced. Many republicans love Reagan, because he reduced regulation and freed Wall Street. Of course, they leave out the damage he did to the poor. The democrats love Clinton, because he had a surplus and there was massive job growth during his presidency. They leave out that most of this was due to the utter lack of responsibility of Alan Greenspan to reduce interest rates and deflate the dot.com bubble when convention said that he should.
The Democrats and the Republicans live off the electorates’ ignorance, plain and simple. If the electorate knew more and demanded more, the politicians would give more. But as long as people continue to do the same thing over and over again, we’ll continue to get the smae results: decline. And until people come to the realization that our system of governance is no longer sunstainable, things will continue till we meet a tragic end.
moderation again
America’s founding economic principles were based on Triangular Trade and slavery. Thank god we’ve fallen away from those.
You’ve never cracked open a history book have you? I mean seriously, dude, what are you smoking?
I agree with BM. Libertarians aren’t bringing anything new, and they are not some alternative to Democrats and Republicans because those two parties have taken Libertarian ideals since these ideals can span both parties.
From what I learned in political philosophy, libertarians are normally classified as “right-wing liberals,” but even that classification is iffy.
Ding ding ding. We have a winner
“Liberals value LOOKING intelligent. That isn’t necessarily an indictment on the things they like, that’s just how they function”
this is what I was getting at when I said “value”
i like this comment. a lot.
As you say “value”, I agree. As you say “successful”, I agree. Yet, it is that disparity which allows the lesser of the intellectuals to thrive. As it were, being the lacking party in a battle of wits, there would be little chance for you to survive. This is why the Liberals basically create and reinforce their foes as if to create a bigger challenge for themselves. They are often referred to as punk when truly they just have a ‘morality boundary’ to overcome.
Are you saying that it’s a brains vs brawns fight between the two groups?
No, I merely stated the tendencies of the two groups. Their values make them completely susceptible to each other. However, the simpler you are, the easier it is to stay the course with whatever you originally believed. The smarter you are the more easily convinced you are.
Please, work hard to follow. Having an upper-hand intellectually, you can see what others cannot and exploit their weaknesses. Having people more likely to see your perspective and agree with you, you can use numbers to overrule what can be seen as annoying intellect.
No need to be condescending, I wasn’t agreeing nor disagreeing with your statement. I merely wished to see if I had a grasp on the message the way you intended it to be received.
And that “morality boundary” usually entails questionable moral judgement and character…
Off topic, but relevant…Champ-the piece on Ebony.com was ON POINT! Sometimes we as people (black folk) are quick to point out racial flaws in others, but fail to admit that we can be racist as well.
Black folk can’t be racist…yet. Racism is a group dynamic. It’s a shared power game. We can be discriminatory! However, everyone is about something. You can’t NEVER erase discrimination. Racism, however can be. As a great-grandchild of slaves, I could care less if someone does like black people. I DO care if they can stop me from getting a job. Or if they can stop and frisk me. Or sentence me to longer jail times for similar crimes. Etc…
Exactly! Black people do not and have not created legislation that castigates white people for the benefit of black people.
Racisim is a systemic function that perpetuates the notion of racial superiority.
People confuse bigotry with racism. And it,s not the same
Yes. Prejudice =/= institutional racism.
How long has “The spook by the door” been your screen name??? This is one of my favorite books!!!!
P.S. I voted for Roseanne so I have nothing else to contribute here. Ok, I didn’t. But I really wanted to.
While we may not have passed legislation to oppress other racial groups, I still contend that black folk can be racist. One definition defines racism as “discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race.” While we do not have innate power in this country, some of us treat members of other races horribly. Now, I’m not talking about black vs white, but I’ve witnessed racist behavior black vs middle eastern, black vs latino/latina and black vs asian.
“Off topic, but relevant…Champ-the piece on Ebony.com was ON POINT!”
thanks and shit
But the Conservatives have ‘binders full of bishes’ so there! Kidding. I am not ashamed to consider myself an independent-thinking bleeding- heart liberal but I think you can be smart across the aisle as well. It’s just that so many of them (that I’ve encountered) seem to lack the critical thinking skills necessary in life that would more than likely create more fiscal conservatives vs the wackadoo, jesus be a biscuit, social conservative types that believe the Big Guy gave us all free will but that they should use that will to prevent others from living their own damn lives. I think the study is interesting as well as your write up on it. Not sure if any of that made sense, POTUS just stunted on some guy named Mitt (two T’s) and I’m pretty sure his performance just caused me to ovulate.
“But the Conservatives have ‘binders full of bishes’ so there!”
Lol.
I can’t wait to see how SNL spins the “binders full of women” comment. That was funny on so many levels.
The binders full of women comment had me so weak. Yet, I then felt empowered that Romney believes in flexible schedules so that I, as a woman, can go home and make dinner! YAY!
*kicks rock*…I want to go home and cook 2…
‘binders full of bishes’
BOL! Romney can’t get a break.
Man…that binders full of women line was SO hilarious. like…it gave me comedic life. i found inspiration.
Trap her, keep her. Indeed.
Its like in my mind he actually was saying “nicca please, I gat hoes in catalog and shid”…that’s in my mind, doe.
If you like it put three rings on it.
Three hole punch me and wrap me in plastic cus I’m dead @this!
The problem is this isn’t simple, since as the libertarian VSBs have pointed out, GOP =/= conservative and Democrat =/= liberal. I don’t think conservatives are less intelligent, but as we saw during the GOP primaries, Republicans want to cut the Dept of Education and refer to a college education with contempt. (WHAT A SNOB! -Santorum) Whereas a 4 year degree isn’t for everyone, conservatives know having and educated and employed populace is better than uneducated and unemployable.
But yeah, NASCAR seems to be a total redneck sport. They must be going for that appeal, since Black folks (and Latinos and Asians) love fast cars and love to race
“I don’t think conservatives are less intelligent, but as we saw during the GOP primaries, Republicans want to cut the Dept of Education and refer to a college education with contempt. ”
The irony of that is the Republican Party has been trying to chip away at the funding for education for the last thirty years- and then wondered why the American schools are in such bad shape in this present day.
“Republicans want to cut the Dept of Education and refer to a college education with contempt”
I do agree that there has to be some type educational paradigm shift, and, to be honest, i do agree with the conservative stance that continuing to throw money at the problem isn’t going to automatically solve it. i don’t know what would, though
I’ll just say this… To this day, I have yet to be able to engage in a truly intellectual conversation with a conservative supporter that can truly articulate and justify their views with sound logical well thought out answers.
Before even choosing a “side”, whenever I read political articles, I often find myself asking the simple question of “how does that help people?” when reading views from the Republican side. Further, I always found myself saying “that makes sense, why don’t Republicans support that?”, when reading views from the Democratic side.
I’m not going to say that conservatives/republicans are not as intelligent as liberals/democrats, but I will say, to this day, I’ve yet to see said intelligence exercised, expressed, or articulated.
“I’ll just say this… To this day, I have yet to be able to engage in a truly intellectual conversation with a conservative supporter that can truly articulate and justify their views with sound logical well thought out answers.”
As a conservative, I can tell you first hand that most people who vote Republican vote with their wallets and bank statements. It sounds about as asinine as most liberals who practically vote with their emotions (See: President Obama, for example).
“I can tell you first hand that most people who vote Republican vote with their wallets and bank statements”
don’t know if i agree with that. how does that explain the millions of poor southerns who the republicans have in their back pockets — people who are actually voting against their own immediate self interest?
yeah. b/c there’s a whole lot of Republicans voting with their emotions too…they do not f*ck with Obama. emotionally.
Party loyalty.
They’re voting their aspirations or delusions. They will be rich one day and they don’t want anyone trying to get a piece of their pie when they finally get one. It comes from believing in the American Myth.
“As a conservative, I can tell you first hand that most people who vote Republican vote with their wallets and bank statements.”
I’ve seen this, but that’s because I’m from NYC where the ones who do vote Republican only do so for economic purposes. That’s also the case in LA and the rest of California, hence the term, “California Republican.”
And they are living in places where well off people usually reside- like California and New York.
Regarding their inability to articulate a point, You haven’t met a smart conservative. Read “The American Conservative” for a few weeks, and you’ll find that the smart ones know how to make cogent arguments.
The real problem is that most “conservatives” don’t play fair. Either they don’t know their own philosophy and their own argument, or whatever “conservative” policy they adopt is subterfuge for other aims.
Liberals/Progressives/Democrats also face the same problems, but generally they tend to be more conservative.
As a nationalist, it’s important to understand your enemy.
*leans back in wicker chair Bobby Seale style*
Honestly, I don’t think choosing to be the smartest person in the room is a bad decision at all. “Success” itself is such a broad term, though. Different individuals have different interpretations of what success is. However success, regardless of definition, can be and sometimes is, extremely finite. Especially when not backed with a certain intelligence to hold on to it. Just ask the numerous professional athletes going bankrupt nowadays. The smarter person can most likely find ways to be just as “successful” as the next guy, and then some. Now, I’m not saying all “successful” people are irresponsible/stupid/etc. I just believe it’s great to have something to fall back on and the smarter you are, the easier it gets.
But, that’s just me. I lean Liberal as well, however I don’t really co-sign the notion that liberals value intelligence more. Especially not based on TV habits. Purpose of television is to entertain. A lot of people just want to relax without putting more strain on an already stressed mind.
To parallel, I’ll refer to the attitudes of pompous individuals that erroneously believe they’re better and smarter than you because they mainly listen to underground, conscious hip hop. Yet I bet the vast majority of these individuals aren’t half as smart and accomplished as the people of the base I went to for Basic Training for back when I was doing my thing in the Marine Corps. Between the majority of the drill instructors, doctors, surgeons, lawyers and law advisors, etc, guess which rapper was the favorite? Lil Wayne. Overwhemingly. So much so that the staff were openly quoting his lyrics, and lamenting about how they couldn’t wait for Tha Carter IV.
But that doesn’t mean they are less intelligent or even that they don’t “value” intelligence as highly as the people who listen to conscious hip hop. All it means, is that they view entertainment as just that. So to me, TV habits aren’t really indictative of intelligence so much as predicting which demographics the groups are likely comprised of.
“Between the majority of the drill instructors, doctors, surgeons, lawyers and law advisors, etc, guess which rapper was the favorite? Lil Wayne. Overwhemingly. So much so that the staff were openly quoting his lyrics, and lamenting about how they couldn’t wait for Tha Carter IV.”
But that has a lot to do with race. White people have nothing to lose by being fans of Lil’ Wayne. He, Lil Wayne, isn’t calling White women bit*hs and h*es. He’s not promoting violence in White communities, etc., etc.. Lil Wayne is a minstrel, so it’s no wonder he’d be popular amongst some Whites. But, I would be leery of those Whites on issues of race. And I would think that they, when compared to their peers, would be less intelligent.
“He, Lil Wayne, isn’t calling White women bit*hs and h*es.”
He most certainly does. Numerous times. Race doesn’t matter to him in that regard.
“He’s not promoting violence in White communities.”
Because he didn’t grow up in one.
These things don’t have anything to do with race. People don’t choose what entertains them based whether or not they have a lot to lose. They either are entertained, or not. People still watched Love & Hip Hop, despite openly stating how negative they think it is, because they couldn’t help but be entertained by it. The point of my parallel is simple. Taste in things like tv shows/art/music/ aren’t ultimately indictative of intelligence. People enjoy things for different reasons. So to say people who are fans of Lil Wayne (doctors and lawyers and the likes, mind you, people whose intellect is pretty much spoken for) value intelligence less than the kid who works at Burger King, simply because he prefers Immortal Technique, is ridiculous.
100% cosign, especially on the music discussion.
“People don’t choose what entertains them based whether or not they have a lot to lose”
interesting, I think a lot of black ppl feel like we as a people have a lot to lose when viewing anything that “makes us look bad”. Part of the reason a lot of people feel uncomfortable w/ the buffonery that entails during a Tyler Perry show. A lot of main stream hip hop falls in that category today including Lil’ Wayne. Not saying it ain’t hot, cuz it’s fun to dance to & aladat, but I can see it for what it is & a lot of it’s a minstrel show & perpetuated sterotypes.
“I think a lot of black ppl feel like we as a people have a lot to lose when viewing anything that “makes us look badâ€.”
Of course we do. We don’t want to feed into the already negative stereotypes about us. Which is why things like Love & Hip Hop, a Tyler Perry production, etc are considered “guilty pleasures.” The key word there, being “pleasures”. Despite being aware of its negative cannotations, we still enjoy the r”aucous-ness” that comes with hearing a song like “Bandz Will Make Her Dance”.
So it is unfair to say doing so automatically means you don’t value intelligence (not saying this is what you said).
“Bands will make her dance?”
& you mean all this time I been singing “Dance a make a dance, dance a make a dance” LOL. I never get the words right to songs smh. Especially the ratchet ones! oh speaking of: has anybody seen Issa Rae’s Ratchet Piece Theatre- she a mess!
Val, I know your preferences, but I must have missed the “Start the Violence” initiative where Li’l Wayne was giving out guns. Oh, and all those school visits where he was asking boys to disrespect girls, and using girls in the audience as models for how they should be treated like crap.
Believe it or not, people are violent and disrespect women outside of music. I’d rather we live in a world where we acknowledge it than in a world where people are forced into narrow means of expressing feelings, with all the passive aggressiveness that results. Jacked as it sounds, I’d rather my nieces and my daughter be called names if the alternative is having to put up with emotional and physical abuse from a dude who talks about how much he respects women.
*orders a “Start the Violence†t-shirt with a picture of Brick from Anchorman holding a grenade and a trident*
*complete with the caption “You know I killed a guy”*
This would sell out.
Make it happen!!! *nudges WIP*
@Todd
You missed my point. It’s not really about Lil Wayne. I really don’t know what he raps about. It’s about the entertainment choices of those that TUK mentioned. And how one may choose a certain artist to like who has no impact on your community.
So what then, of the many educated, intelligent, and admirable black people who do listen to Lil Wayne? Are they any less intelligent than their mediocre, Jedi Mind Trick fan, counterparts?
But a LOT of educated black folks LOVE “ignorant music” too though…so….TUK’s point still stands…I don’t think most people take how music effects their community or what words it uses and how offensive they might be to some people into account when they decide what music entertains them and what doesn’t. I believe that was the crux of his point…
Exactly. Thank you.
DING! DING! DING!!!!
i think theres intelligent success and natural success. on a broad term entertainers, athletes, moguls, and ceo/inventors fall into one or the other.
then you have people who are successful by anyones definition: millionaires, thousandaires, self made individuals.
then you have America.
nothing else matters unless you are at minimum, a thousandaire self made individual. as a conservative person this is how i pick and choose the company i keep. are you a closet genius working towards something awesome. this is quite possibly the greatest epic fail of human history. it IS pretty stupid bc the answer will always be no….but somehow the personal definition of massive debt, horrible spending habits, immaturity, temporary solutions, and permanent bliss in bad decision making…..is how a typical american introduces thyself. its the silliest isht ive ever seen in my life.
everything under 6 figures is poverty to me. i feel like 98% of americans are living in poverty. frolicking about livin the good life and im being conservative hoping to trip, fall, and bust my face on a gaggle of genius’ [bonus points for being conservative oriented] but i let that go. america is killing me right now its like hoping the redskins win the superbowl and being shocked every season.
“Purpose of television is to entertain. A lot of people just want to relax without putting more strain on an already stressed mind.”
Exactly! I lean to the right and I’ll watch “Archer” and “Meet The Press” with the same enthusiasm.
~ “Success†itself is such a broad term, though. Different individuals have different interpretations of what success is.
agreed. there are also many different types of intelligence. they manifest in countless ways. what are the parameters for a discussion of intellect—who defines this and how do we measure it ?
i take issue with IQ tests, as i take issue with the practice and application of psychology, which is just another structure of social control that is egregiously used to exploit and manipulate the most vulnerable in our society.
i’ll happily be the most Me in the room, nothing more, nothing less. anything else is a subjective test of false hierarchy that reinforces pre-existing social myths about the value of the individual in our world.
“i take issue with IQ tests, as i take issue with the practice and application of psychology, which is just another structure of social control that is egregiously used to exploit and manipulate the most vulnerable in our society.”
I majored in psychology, but I am not offended by your statement. I actually agree. Unfortunately, there are not enough people of color in this field, so the interpretations of psychological studies and results are mostly tailored towards the beliefs of these individuals who comprise the majority of the psychological community. It should come as no surprise, then, that they apply ideas that can be deemed oppressive to those who do not comprise this majority. It’s sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, in a way, as well as shaping society to be the way the majority thinks it should be.
“However success, regardless of definition, can be and sometimes is, extremely finite…The smarter person can most likely find ways to be just as “successful†as the next guy, and then some.”
I don’t care for this argument. The idea that the dummy, who was successful in the first place, will lose success and never get it back doesn’t really make sense- they did it once, why couldn’t they do it again? (For an athlete, is “going broke” making $100k like an everyday joe blow?) Why would the smart person who hasn’t done sh*t suddenly figure it all out? I can’t accept the idea that success and some type of intelligence aren’t deeply intertwined.
“The idea that the dummy, who was successful in the first place, will lose success and never get it back doesn’t really make sense- they did it once, why couldn’t they do it again?”
This is why I state success is a broad term. You can achieve “success” in a number of ways in which intellect played no noticeable role. See Kim Kardashian. But I’ll give you an example. Take a supremely talented basketball player. His skill relies mostly in the physical. Except, he has career ending injury. He can never play pro-basketball again. He will never achieve that specific kind of success, at that level, again. Not to mention he blew all his money (which becoming more commonplace).
“Why would the smart person who hasn’t done sh*t suddenly figure it all out?”
1. Who said the smart person hasn’t done anything?
2. Being smarter means you have more options. Which is why higher education is stressed so much. A lot of “successful” people (usually those in the Entertainment industry and careers which intellect isn’t really a factor) don’t have but 1-2 options (for example’s sake). Of course, one of them has paid off. But what happens when that person is no longer “hot”? They fade. And without the intellect needed to open more doors and create more options, once they lose that “success”, it stays gone.
1. The options were smart verses successful. From that I can only assume smart/unsuccessful verses dumb/successful. To me the premise made them sound exclusive so that’s how I responded.
2. To that effect, having options is meaningless unless one takes advantage of those options. So under the premise that these were exclusive, the smart person hasn’t taken advantage of their options yet. We can assume at some point they will but any assumption can be made to make our points in this case.
I totally agree that successful and smart are broad terms that can mean many things depending on point of view. I have a hard time totally separating success and intelligence.
“The options were smart verses successful.”
This is where you made the mistake. The options were, “the MOST successful” and being the “SMARTEST”. Meaning, there could be a millionaire in the room (successful), but he wouldn’t be considered the most “successful” (from a financial standpoint) if there was a billionaire in the same room. Apply a similar example of that same concept to the intellect side as well.
This is why I made it a point to mention in my opening comment that just because you’re successful doesn’t always mean you’re “irresponsible/stupid/etc.” So I didn’t see it as dumb/successful vs. smart/unsuccessful.
You’re right, I did overlook the superlative element to the question. I believe I’d still rather be the most successful and and the second smartest, LOL.
“Especially not based on TV habits. Purpose of television is to entertain. A lot of people just want to relax without putting more strain on an already stressed mind.”
so, you don’t think there’s any reasoning behind the fact that the liberal-loved shows that came up in the study are “smarter” and take more work than the conservative-loved shows?
Not particularly, no.
Let’s take into account that a lot of Republican voters are blue-collar workers. They are not interested in going home to watch “smart” television. They work too hard. They want mindless entertainment. Not stating this is fact, but this can be a strong possibility and type of employment can truly be an extraneous variable that needs to be taken into consideration.
The reverse could be said too…
Why after a day of mindless work would you want to have mindless teevee?
It goes back to… more likely than not… they don’t have the intellectual capacity to roll with a show like House, Scandal, or Breaking Bad.
Not sure I would include Scandal in a list of high-brow shows. It’s right up there with The Good Wife and Grey’s Anatomy and most other network primetime shows. Those are good shows but nothing that I need my thinking cap for.
I agree with you, SweetSass. Truth is that one’s choice of entertainment may not be due to intelligence at all. We just can’t assume that smart people automatically watch “smart” shows, or something to that effect.
conservative people are stupid bc 99% of the ppl theyll encounter are out of control ratchets with absolutely no home training. conservative people are typically genuis’ though.
liberal minded people are too stupid to do anything of long term importance or significance but they can seemlessly fit into social life. which means life is peachy easy street. bliss in ignorance. smart.
then you have Barack Obama. He’s smart enough to work his butt off for genius ideas even though it means the mass of liberal minded people live circuotous lives of blissful ignorance, and then someone like Mitt Romney goes…..”hey. i bet i could make a few hundred million if i conserved my right mind.” i think the loophole is to be a liberal person who works hard for grand ideas bc its smarter than being a conservative genius with no support for your genius en masse.
I would pick apart your statement just based off the holes in it. But, I won’t, now that we all know you’re crazier than a bag of hammers. (5 points to anyone who gets that reference lmfao)
you cant even spell on a high school level.
please, expound on your knowledge of conceptual leadership. please.
dont pick apart my argument. contribute to it. see the substance with your sane mind and contribute something profound.
i dare you.
Iceprincess2: I will take Mitten’s 5-Point Plan for $1000 please.
Lol!
Yeah, I can’t really be bothered to explain shid to someone koo-koo for cocoa puffs.
I find fault with a lot of what you said.
Those “ratchets” that the “99%” (by the by, I’m tired of people throwing out these erroneous percentages. Like, 7% does not equal 50%, most of us learned that in elementary school, but I digress) of conservatives encounter… Could it possibly be that they approach others in a ratchet way themselves and push those other people’s buttons in an attempt to say “See, see! Crazy liberal commie!”? Because I’ve had that personally happen, and even when I didn’t lose my temper they still scoffed at me and came at me arrogantly while not providing any of their own ideas or opinions, just the recycled ideology of their party. Could it also be possible a lot of those ratchets are their own people i.e TeaPartiers and Birthers? Because those people? Wow…
As for liberals not having long term goals, is that in the political sense or in the life-living sense? Politically, liberals may not be getting anything done because their friends across the aisle refuse to let them. For example studies show clean energy to be working wonders for Europe and other allies abroad and yet, many of the bills to at least get cleaner energy more widespread here than oil and coal have been ceremoniously smacked down. By whom? Mostly conservative leaners.
Life-living wise? You can’t judge really, as every party has a subset of people who just refuse to live their best life
but are the most vocal about how everyone else’s should be. But to say liberals are too stupid? That’s a vast, ignorant generalization, don’t you think? And if there’s one thing everyone can agree upon it’s that ignorance isn’t good for progress.**Even if those people are ignorant of their own ignorance. Not saying that’s you. Just saying, there are those kinds of folks in the world…
“Those “ratchets†that the “99%†(by the by, I’m tired of people throwing out these erroneous percentages. Like, 7% does not equal 50%, most of us learned that in elementary school, but I digress) of conservatives encounter…”
yeah, i literally thought about doing a percentage of that before i said it but then i realized i didnt feel like actually looking at people for ratchetness and coming up with an actual statistic. but its funny that you say that lol. really though, it seems like out of sixty people only 3 will be relateable or out of twenty people only 1 will be relateable. the rest are just oc on the behavior tip and i totally feel you on how people approach you and i generally dont even tend to approach because i know there is no way in the world its not going to sound like im slapping them in the face; so, i let people come to me. and because of that most people will approach me acting ratchet thinking my respect is earned when really, i just wanna hear whats awesome about you.
“As for liberals not having long term goals, is that in the political sense or in the life-living sense?”
i meant that more of in a lifestyle sense. i just dont understand what people in my age group are looking at that they have the spending habits and behaviors and decision making skills that they do. they live for what feels good now and support one another in that and as a general lifestyle theyre not looking long term. for example, i knew what college i was going to in elementary school. thats not normal and i dont expect it to be. but friends in high school didnt know what college they were going to senior year. most of them didnt make their first choice and ended up partying college away not looking at the long term impact of spending reckless amounts of money on frivolous things. even in more personal arenas like what they did with themselves (drugs, alcohol, s*x) they werent looking at long term impacts. when i was in college i was figuring up what i was gonna do after college and i put everything i had and all my time towards that. that made me a conservative person. a liberal lifestyle to me is short sided. as far as the liberal parties?
republicans tended to contact me after i turned 18. if i liked the candidate i voted republican, or libertarian based on a principle i had of giving the underdog the opportunity to run things for awhile. i typically cant comprehend what a liberal/democratic party leader is doing bc it registers to me as sloppy, unorganized leadership. ‘tf are you doing, heres some pointers’ and then a conservative comes along and i totally get it. if you cant catch the flow of the conservative party it sucks. i agree about the discord though. i think its hard to accomplish anything when you have a few thousand opinions on EVERY SINGLE THING not to mention the hundreds of millions of opinions that constitute the public. its hard for anyone in those conditions. i cut both sides slack.
If you paid attention to world history, you’d know humanity by default is mainly stupid. That is not by nature, it is by conditioning. The ability to withhold information if you have a position of power has existed for a very long time, and conditioned the mass public to not seek information on their own. Ergo, they will take whatever are given and deem it to be the truth. It hasn’t changed since the days of yore when speakers of the Church would skew quotes from the Bible in order to keep the masses stupid. That didn’t change until Martin Luther invented the printing press. That was less than 500 years ago, and information on a whole wasn’t available to most people around the world until 200 years ago.
In other words, calling out the mass public for being stupid is beyond stupid itself because this is the way it has always been. You have a choice, be an individual and find your own way to be intelligent or be part of the mass public and believe what you’re told. Truth is, you’re probably both, as most people are. So when you make up those weird assumptions, recognize from time to time, you fall under those categories too and are basically making fun of yourself. We are all guilty of it, no matter what anyone says.
yeah, ive found that within communities i can sort of go along with things but in excessive amounts i get really stressed out and annoyed and then i start calling ppl out so that i can feel better. it doesnt change anything, ever. i also cant seem to find a group of like minded people and by the time i do, my nerves are fried so its easier to keep to myself. its hard for me to go along with someone/something when i feel like what im being told is a lie or manipulation so i take it upon myself to seek truth. which is the wedge in my life. personal effort. i find it hard to be in a mass public that is not making personal effort. everything about it grates my nerves but im in the process of learning, telling a a public en masse ‘this common thread amongst you is stupid and getting on my nerves’ is pretty futile. one day ill probably learn to relax and be just as dumb.
In the lifestyle sense, I personally believe, that it’s more an environmental thing than an actual political leaning thing. My parents are Dems, and I’m an independent with liberal lean. I was raised to think for myself, to read and research for myself and form my own opinions. I was also raised to believe that money isn’t everything, which might be why I lean the way I do.
I didn’t know where I wanted to go to college and in truth, at 22 I don’t think it much matters as long as I go. I’m just not going to go because “traditionally” I’m supposed to, nor am I going and spending/wasting all of my own money (because there’s no way I’m trusting Sallie Mae with a damn thing) and I don’t know exactly what it is I want to do. It’s not a “plan,” but it works for how I want to live my life. Where am I going to be five years from now? I don’t know. What will I be doing? I don’t know. Will I be happy with my choices? Most likely, yes.
I think that people find generalizing easy and simple when people are all different. Take people at a person to person basis, and maybe address how you approach them; chances are you’ll have more in common* than you thought.
*And even if not, you don’t come off looking like a douche for how you came at them.
“I didn’t know where I wanted to go to college and in truth, at 22 I don’t think it much matters as long as I go. I’m just not going to go because “traditionally†I’m supposed to, nor am I going and spending/wasting all of my own money (because there’s no way I’m trusting Sallie Mae with a damn thing) and I don’t know exactly what it is I want to do.”
Tes, can I just offer some advice here… 3 things:
1- college is not for everyone, true. However if you do graduate from college you’ll be doing a hell of a lot better in a shorter amount of time than someone with only a HS diploma.
2- Study what you enjoy to be successful in college, not what you want to be. My philosophy, and what I’ve told my kids repeatedly, is that if you study what you enjoy and have an interest in what you’re learning, you’ll do well academically. It doesn’t particularly matter (unless it’s a specific profession, but you’d know if that’s what you want to pursue later) what you earn a degree in, just so that you have a degree. You separate yourself from 65% of the job seeking population with a degree.
3- Investing in yourself and your future with a formal education is NEVER a waste. But, there are some cost cutting, time saving avenues. a- go to a community college for the 1st two years and then transfer your credits/associates to a university for your major study. b- take CLEP tests to earn credits and speed up process. Pass or fail grades. Does not impact GPA and costs considerably less than taking a course. c- once you choose a course of study, stick with it. don’t change your major. You can always pick up another degree/training in something else if you like.
Ms. Nilla,
I was thinking those same three things. I’m working steadily towards it but I wanna just be sure. I know you’re never really sure about those types of things, but I wanna be as close as possible.
[*laughing*] i do have a tendency to sound oc when i talk to ppl and a lot of that comes from the company i keep. i tend to only be around older people who are successful so i dont have to worry about how i come off bc theyre whatever enough to not be bothered by me. but then i know for a fact approaching the average person im going to sound snooty and theyre going to be offended bc being in that environment means i have to measure UP.
i have to scale myself upwards. then in a normal setting i sound extra rude bc i realize people didnt grow up like i did. and then im annoyed and overwhelmed; its actually really confusing. i typically generalize to stay level and i like when people just talk bc i can pick up on stuff i like and build from there. when ppl approach me with too much energy in the wrong way about things i dont like i get crabby. i simply dont care. but i REALLY like listening to the best of people. i can do THAT on an individual basis all day.
Do ratchets even vote?
For American Idol.
do you think 30 million people are well behaved, morally driven individuals?
…
na. ratchets dont vote. nuns and monks elect our Presidents.
I know that you are having a hard week, but tone down the attitude and the sarcasm.
tone up the energy put into moral character and i wont have to be sarcastic. really. you try sitting in a place where 9 out of 10 ppl dont even have even a basic grasp of basic life skills, and see how your attitude fares. i think crap people who are intentionally crappy for majority of their lives need a healthy reality check. i will adjust my attitude to the degree in which people adjust their capabilities. i may or may not be sarcastic, it depends on how annoyed i am. i find the vast majority of americans to be annoying. dont try to check me like you missed the part where i calmed down.
yes, you clearly seem calm.
lol, i actually am putting effort into calming down. that made me laugh though. sarcasm meets sarcasm is oddly soothing.
HA! I GOTCHA!!!!!!!!
I think age is a factor too. Many people become more conservative as they grow older.
Another thing to consider is that conservative doesn’t always equal Republican. There are tons of African Americans, for instance, who are very conservative but are Democrats, which is a Liberal Party. Obviously that has to do with the engrained racism within the Republican Party.
Considering there are large numbers of unrecognized African American conservatives in this country, I wonder how that plays into the entertainment choices that they make. Do their entertainment choices look more like Republicans or Democrats?
So I think that being a White conservative and being a Black conservative, though they’re ideologies may intersect at points, are two totally different types of people.
Whereas White conservatives tend to be less intelligent, according to a few studies, how does this play out amongst African American conservatives? Obviously Black Republicans are less intelligent but what about non-affiliated conservative Black people?
I’d say they’re less intelligent as well. If anything, other than the ballot booth, they have the same mental blind spots as White conservatives.
“Obviously Black Republicans are less intelligent but what about non-affiliated conservative Black people?”
Armstrong Williams laughs at the notion of this very statement…
9-9-9, Pizza man Hermann Cain resembles that statement…
So does Iraqi Torturer Allen West who still thinks he is part of the military despite dishonorable discharge…
Straight gangin’ on conservatives and Libertarians, huh Sass?
Don’t get me started on Mia Love and her party city weave… I bet she got her suit at Rainbow.
Mia Love is the perfect example of the delusional Black Republican.
“Considering there are large numbers of unrecognized African American conservatives in this country, I wonder how that plays into the entertainment choices that they make. Do their entertainment choices look more like Republicans or Democrats?”
Considering how popular the “The Real Basketball Wives of Hiphop” happens to be, I’d say more the former
C’mon Champ. I hope you’re not suggesting that few liberals watch ratched tv (particularly any d@mn thing that comes on VH1). U and I both know better
Yeah, I’d say the majority of us are tuning in. The shamed liberals just label it a “guilty pleasure” or just deny deny deny.
“I think age is a factor too. Many people become more conservative as they grow older.”
Funny you say that because I find myself less liberal than I was 10 years ago but even less conservative than conservative folks. It’s like the liberals aren’t liberal enough for me lol
I’ll say it’s not that simple. I’m a black conservative who is inclined to vote Republican on a state level, but well, my favorite TV shows run the gamut from Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Seinfeld, to Downton Abbey and Once Upon a Time. The sports I love to watch are tennis, ice skating, and gymnastics. So I don’t know…what does that say about me?
“So I don’t know…what does that say about me?”
If you are Black and vote Republican I’d say that makes you someone that is either not too bright or is willing to overlook the overt racism in the Republican Party. And someone who is oblivious to voting against their own interests.
…And what has the Democratic Party done for Black people besides continuing to take their votes for granted and not really doing much?
Meh, I’m not a Democrat, PA. And you are certainly right, the Dems take the Black vote for granted. Which is mostly the fault of Black voters, IMO. But, the Dems, as imperfect as they may be, do not practice the Southern Strategy. The Republicans take great pride in the racism and bigotry that is at the core of their Party.
Black voters don’t have much of a choice. Hell minority voters don’t have much of a choice. Either vote for the asshole who keeps saying your life will never be worth a damn or vote for the smug bastard who lies about how important you are but will forget you as soon as the inaguration is over.
Why do you think a black person leaning R would be voting against their own interest?
Is that a serious question? Lol
yes.
Yes it is. Lets say I make over 300k a year, anti gay marriage, and am black. Why wouldn’t I want someone in office who would allow me to keep more of my money and whose policies I agree with? Sure its an extremely selfish and self-serving outlook but you can’t call that voting against their own interest.
“Yes it is. Lets say I make over 300k a year, anti gay marriage, and am black. Why wouldn’t I want someone in office who would allow me to keep more of my money and whose policies I agree with? Sure its an extremely selfish and self-serving outlook but you can’t call that voting against their own interest.”
Okay, then.
01. Do you want Black seniors to suffer? The Republicans are hell bent on privatizing both medicare and Social Security. If that happens huge numbers of Black seniors will fall into poverty.
02. Do you want a federal surplus rather than a deficit? Republicans believe in a political strategy called, “Starve the Beast”. The beast being government. They believe that if the deficit is high enough then they will have justification to privatize social programs and cut social programs. And that’s why under Republican Presidents there is always a high deficit. Why do you think Bush was so hell bent on going into Iraq? It was to raise the deficit so he could privatize Social Security. Which he tried to do at the beginning of his second term.
03. Do you think Black children living in inner cities should be educated? Republicans want to create more charter schools. Charter schools in general do well but they siphon funds from public schools and also take the focus off of them. And since only a small amount of kids can actually attend charter schools that leaves the majority of inner city Black kids left out.
Is that enough?
no. thats not enough.
i live with a black senior. he takes it upon himself to work and be independent, his wife does the same. the impact is lessened but their children can afford to aid them when need be.
this is why young adults who buy apartments, cars, clothes, gadgets, and invest in music, entertainment, and alcohol, annoy me. those are fun personal decisions in the moment until reality of responsible living hits you. personal accountability does wonders.
social programs and schools, that is a community issue. in a community it is up to INDIVIDUAL people to educate themselves. that happens in the home. you can educate a black child if you werent so self absorbed in being reckless. “you” as in “my generation.” granted, private education is a drainer….but a Harvard grad can teach a high school grad and a high school grad can teach the kids and people who are educated publicly/attend college can create community based systems of education. that is individual and community efforts. a black person taking charge of that could EASILY have republican interests.
that isnt enough to say republican interests dont align with blacks bc if you were black and made 300k a year, could afford to care for your elders, were selfless enough to do so, the impact on your solidarity is not against you.
if youre black and youre investing in your community and making above 6 figures doing so, your interests align with republicans.
if youre black and you live your life in a way to be benefited by republican policies, your interests align. ….so why arent you?
because the class of wealth and status is racist? right. be your own class of wealth and status. cant be racist if its black. and if your beliefs align with a conservative/republican candidate, its in your best interest to vote republican. i dont see how black people view wealth and status as white interests…..
are you not interested in those things? bc youre interested in entertaining yourself and enjoying life?
So you suggest we all work hard enough to make six figures while caring for our elders AND home-school our children instead of demanding better schools?
Sounds like a great strategy.
yes. because in the meantime, hows it working out waiting for democrats and republicans to do it?
Actually no.
I agree with you somewhat on point two but honestly neither party has been very good at lowering the dept. If, for some reason, I felt that privatizing social security was a good option for lowering the debt, why then would you think I would be voting against my interest in supporting politicians with the same view?
Your other two points presume that I care at all about the black community. Just because I happen to have the same levels of melanin as you does not mean I should care about your plight. Why should I pay more taxes so kids can keep having kids in these inner cities? What if the republican politician has actual school reform ideas rather than just tax me and throw money at the problem? As I mentioned before its self serving and selfish but I would be voting in my own interest rather than in the interest of blacks in general.
I’m just playing the devil’s advocate here. These are not positions that I actually hold but I do believe that people, black,white, asian etc, are too complicated to fit into neat little (R) and (D) boxes.
The funny thing is that we all know the Republican Party was the party more friendly (and I use that term VERY loosely) towards black people than the Democratic. Stating the obvious, that isn’t the case anymore, but it goes to show you that things do change…while at the same time, they don’t. Like PA pointed out, it isn’t like the Democratic party has done much for minorities either. And maybe some people prefer the overt racism of the Republican party than the covert racism of the Democratic party.
They used call that “Choosing between the lesser of two evils” back in the day, LOL!
I’m mad old school and ish LOL
that youre prepared to be insulted, demonized, and misunderstood.
*passes Gigi some libertarian pamphlets* You know, you can get fiscal conservatism without having to tune out racist dog whistles. Jussayin’ my girl. And don’t mind the weed smoke.
Twistin’ stank on VSB, are we Todd? LMAO!!!
The fact you vote Republican on a state level (and seems to think that that’s not so bad) just seems like you may be a person with a limited sight of how far that state level vote actually goes. As for the TV shows? *shrugs*
It depends on the state where you live. Voting for conservatives in, say, New Hampshire is different than voting for conservatives in Georgia. Pools of candidates – and voters, obviously – are different in each state. On the surface, though; I’m still left to wonder how black people can know what the past was like in this country (and how some want to take this country back there) and still vote for conservatives.
The same reason Black folks in the Christian faith can still claim Christianity, despite the notorious history that religion was used to enslave them.
“I’ll say it’s not that simple. I’m a black conservative who is inclined to vote Republican on a state level, but well, my favorite TV shows run the gamut from Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Seinfeld, to Downton Abbey and Once Upon a Time. The sports I love to watch are tennis, ice skating, and gymnastics. So I don’t know…what does that say about me?”
rule meet exception
The question I would ask is why do you feel compelled to vote Republican? Do you do your due diligence and research every candidate you vote for policies, track record, and stance on the issues?
I wouldn’t say Conservatives are less intelligent at all. I think they are more prone to tribalism and the pitfalls that come with that sort of philosophy.
This is anecdotal, but most conservatives I’ve come across are just as intelligent/good-at-problem-solving/witty, as most liberals…… until they perceive something as crossing their tribe. Then, like a hard headed sports fan, they are unable to see or admit any shortcomings or failings of their worldview as long as a member of the opposing “tribe” is around.
Is this a lack of intelligence? No. It’s more likely a self imposed blind spot born out of a fear of change and perceived loss of power.
And so, Obama is a Kenyan, Socialist, Muslim, Communist, Fascist, empty suit, affirmative action, great speaker, who needs a teleprompter to make those speeches, criminally intelligent mastermind and complete idiot, antichrist who bows to foreign leaders, except for Israel whom he hates plus he’s not really black anyway, but hates white people and he wants our guns even though he hasn’t introduced one bit of legislation towards it.
The amount of stupidity it would take to truly believe all of these conflicting ideas would mean Conservatives were functioning at the levels of a Banana Slug.
No my friends, conservatives are not lacking for intelligence….
They just want to win so bad, that they’re willing to compromise their morals to achieve victory.
They are amoral and authoritarian.
Liberals, not so much.
Honestly, if in order for Obama to win a second term, all Black liberals had to participate in a voting scheme where we each could step into the voting booth then vote an unlimited amount of times, and not get caught, how many liberals would sign up to do it? 2%? 5%? It would be low, I’m sure. For one it’s wrong. And for two, as Liberals we enjoy the moral superiority of being proven the good guys throughout history. It gives us a woody. However you can’t cheat and be the good guys though.
(Even though this is exactly what conservatives claim we do)
Now, say, if in order for R-Money to win, the average Conservative just had to turn a blind eye to voter intimidation and schemes that knock Minorities and young Whites off the voter rolls. How many conservatives do you think would turn that blind eye?
I believe you already know that answer……..
“I wouldn’t say Conservatives are less intelligent at all. I think they are more prone to tribalism and the pitfalls that come with that sort of philosophy.”
Well first, I assume you mean Republican when you say conservative, right? If so then I’d have to say that unless you are wealthy and White and vote Republican then you are pretty stupid. It is insanely obvious that the Republican Party is the Party of the rich. And yet they have managed to convince a large number of Whites (and amazingly some Black people) who are middle class or even poor that the Republican Party represent them. The only explanations for these people being hoodwinked like this are either they are stupid or they are racist. And if they are racists then they are pretty stupid.
I think you’re overreading the line you quotes. Racism is a subset of tribalism. A particularly violent form of tribalism, but one nonetheless. Seeing that I actually know and talk to Romney supporters, they feel that if ish got real, and it was between them and bunch of Democrats, that Obama would do his best impression of W in New Orleans. Forget whether it’s true or not. It’s what people actually feel and feelings matter more than we think in the voting booth.
“Racism is a subset of tribalism.”
Excellent point.
I usually don’t comment, i just lurk and read all of the comments lol but I felt the need to today. While i definitely identify as the typical bleeding heart liberal, I have a problem with how we sometimes classify ALL republicans as stupid. I also just generally dislike the words stupid and crazy because it fails to address the real issues. Do I disagree with most Republican policies? Of Course. Is everyone who votes Republican stupid? I don’t think so. As Bill Clinton said during his speech at the DNC, “Even a broken clock is right twice a day”. They just have different values than me. And that’s okay. I’d also like to point out that Supreme Court Chief Judge Earl Warren was a Republican. Because of his advocacy on the stand, there is no more school segregation or mandated school prayer. Would I call this man stupid? Absolutely not.
“They just have different values than me. And that’s okay.”
This is the way every political debate should end. lol
Yes, some are evil geniuses like Karl Rove or Dick Cheney.
@emjay
“They just have different values than me. And that’s okay.”
Yep, you are definitely a Democrat. That kind of thinking is why the President has been run over by the Republicans for the last four years.
And Republican ‘values’ are destroying all social programs, destroying the environment for the sake of business and taking away personal freedoms that don’t match their crazed evangelical beliefs. And we won’t even get into their ‘values’ on race/ ethnicity.
“Republican ‘values’ are destroying all social programs, destroying the environment for the sake of business and taking away personal freedoms that don’t match their crazed evangelical beliefs”
Very true!!!
“And yet they have managed to convince a large number of Whites (and amazingly some Black people) who are middle class or even poor that the Republican Party represent them. ”
This is a problem, IMO, that can be resolved. We need to flood the republican party. I saw a stat last night that 90% of the voters in the Republican primaries were white. In trying to stick to our side, we’ve polarized the candidates in such a way that there will always be an “us” against “them” situation. If more liberals (not just black) became interested in the Republican party, I imagine our choice of candidates would be very different. Uber-conservative Republicans could be replaced with more moderate candidates.
There are plenty of women in the Republican party but nearly all of their representatives are male. That does not follow that the tenor of the candidates would change at all. They attract all kinds of voters who are white who are also voting against their own interests.
Are a proportionate number of women competing for those representative positions?
Why would they? They believe a woman’s place is in the home. Not in politics. That is ‘traditional’ values.
Also, look… nearly every GOP female voter has used, will use, or is currently using some form of birth control… but that doesn’t stop the GOP from being vehemently anti-birth control.
@WIP
Black voters don’t need to flood the Republican Party to change it. Black voters need to put their votes in play. And to do that we can’t just give away our votes to the Democrats every election. We have to at some point withhold our votes and let it be known that they are up for grabs. That is the only thing that will change the Republicans Party.
Just waiting will change the GOP.
The average GOP voter is 65 years old+.
They are dying out and will need to be replaced but minorities are procreating at a higher rate than white folks. By 2030 we will be majority minority.
How does only withholding votes without engaging with another party prove our votes are “up for grabs”?
“How does only withholding votes without engaging with another party prove our votes are “up for grabsâ€?”
As it stands no one is campaigning to Black voters. Why? Because Black votes have already been counted and are for Obama. Which means that Obama doesn’t need to campaign for our votes and neither does Romney.
So as it stands we have no political power what-so-ever. But, if a large enough group of Black voters were to publicly announce that they were not going to vote out of protest against the Dems taking us for granted, then both Parties would compete for those votes.
I disagree. The Republican party gets votes by using us as the boogie man. They are not going to let that card go just because a few blacks decide to put their votes into play.
What they will do, is what they already do. Pat the black republicans on their heads for being “one of the good ones”. Then put you on the front lines to give them cover as they continue to play the race card and call out those lazy “urban” types.
Joining or forming a third party “may” do what your suggesting however.
You’re right, TOJ. But Republican strategists know that their base, White baby boomers, are dying off. They also know that the Party will die with them unless they can replace them. So the question is replace them with who. This is a perfect time to put our votes in play.
Ideally, but what if both parties throw us a ‘Ye shrug and say “we got this”? (I’ve heard people say that “voter suppression is part of the Republican strategy anyway.) Then we aren’t represented anywhere. My belief is the more we can influence we can wield, the better off we will be.
“If more liberals (not just black) became interested in the Republican party, I imagine our choice of candidates would be very different. Uber-conservative Republicans could be replaced with more moderate candidates.”
i agree. its white as all h*ll in those circles and i really do think black people could stand to become more interested and involved in what happens and what it takes to be in the circle of wealth and status. val spoke on racism in the republican party downthread and i thought it was interesting she felt that way because to me, i can overlook an almost non existant snub in those circles but i take issue with a white friend saying the n word to me in a small community. i just think black people and liberal people need to understand that learned habits and conditioning would do wonders to put certain people at ease. otherwise if you try to flood the party youre perceived not as a threat per se, but you look unnatural and out of place and they tend to thumb their noses. you will find yourself on the wrong side of an uphill battle bc you have to receive the necessary….forget the word. its like constantly teaching someone over and over again the same thing so that theyll become conditioned. so it takes actual change of person and adaptation which a lot of black people find difficult to do and then they eventually just feel like eff it, youre racist. mad at black people who get it like tf, im tryna clue YOU in.
“If more liberals (not just black) became interested in the Republican party, I imagine our choice of candidates would be very different.”
1: They ran the liberals out of their party. The Republican party is not a big tent and they have no intention of becoming more inclusive until demographically forced.
2: Liberals actually do have values that they promote and won’t capitulate on. Joining the republican party in order integrate it would force one to give up his values and adopt theirs.
Since the primary Republican value seems to be fear of change and the “other”, i’m not sure integrating it would bring change there, so much as it would change you.
A few consecutive years of defeats at the ballot box (even in non presidential years) should do the trick.
“The Republican party is not a big tent and they have no intention of becoming more inclusive until demographically forced.”
Is there more to it than registering as a Republican? How is inclusiveness an issue?
Are values not determined by the party members?
[*puts coinage in the snaps jar*]
im a conservative person and i deem that amazingly and humorously accurate. i genuinely laughed and thats kind of relaxing. it gets pretty tense when you feel crossed. i will be the first to admit im stubborn and i hate adjusting bc i know im right as isht. amoral? meh. not so much. intolerant. condescending. moral character is robust. i step over ppl to be successful, yes. i havent learned how to not be annoyed by people. all of humanity needs to adjust to me; i have no idea what “stubborness” youre refering to but i laughed at your satire of sorts. i definitely do not sound or act like that….
[*nose slightly lowers as arms unfold and i giggle*]
Liberals? Not authoritarian? ROTFLMAO! Call me when they actually legalize drugs, or even fall back on minor stuff like trying to ban junk food from schools and certain towns.
The difference between liberal authoritarians and conservative authoritarians is that at least the conservatives are open about it. Liberals want to run your life, then swear up and down that they’re allowing you to be free. The thing is that freedom means freedom to realize how morally superior they are.
Thank you, Todd! Couldn’t have said it better. At least conservatives are open about that authoritarianism. Liberals front like they don’t have that. Please.
“Liberals? Not authoritarian? ROTFLMAO! Call me when they actually legalize drugs, or even fall back on minor stuff like trying to ban junk food from schools and certain towns.”
Hey buddy, i’m not talking about MY teams faults and shortcomings ok! LOL
Killer point though
I agree with a lot of what you said Other Jerome. Especially that last paragraph.
“They just want to win so bad, that they’re willing to compromise their morals to achieve victory.”
That’s politics for you in a nutshell…
Basically.
ie. John Mccain
“they are unable to see or admit any shortcomings or failings of their worldview as long as a member of the opposing “tribe†is around. Is this a lack of intelligence? No. It’s more likely a self imposed blind spot born out of a fear of change and perceived loss of power.”
This is spot on. For a conservative, that was hard for me to say lol. but I’m a big girl, I can admit it. I have done this before.
I actually had a discussion on VSB w/ somebody about how I’m not for abortion & they suggested that if conservatives are so against abortion they need to step their game up when it comes to adoption & providing services for those in crisis.
During the conversation I was not able to admit that they were right, but….
They were so right!
….. see this is why I like coming to VSB (although 90% of the views are liberal), it rattles my conservative box so I can see things different & hopefully grow.
“This is anecdotal, but most conservatives I’ve come across are just as intelligent/good-at-problem-solving/witty, as most liberals…… until they perceive something as crossing their tribe. Then, like a hard headed sports fan, they are unable to see or admit any shortcomings or failings of their worldview as long as a member of the opposing “tribe†is around. ”
I don’t know about this, either. for instance, women (and men) who describe themselves as ultra feminists are often unable to even acknowledge the fact that they might be wrong about some things. they’re just one example (perhaps you can say the same thing about black people and any conversation that has to do with race) but it’s proof that some ultra liberals have a tendency to mindlessly circle the wagons too,
Difference is… to propose a new way of doing things, you have to *think* about what it is you are proposing. Conservatives maintain the status quo or go backward and that takes no thought at all, just complacency.
When you push a conservative to the wall about the details… he or she will become vague. (See Chris Wallace asking Paul Ryan for the math.)
When you push a liberal… they will bore you to death with details… (See criticism of Gore, Kerry, and Obama for being too professorial & longwinded.)
I understand some fiscal conservatives (don’t agree with, just can see where they are coming from) but don’t get social conservatives. Why have everyone live by the guidelines you live by? I understand you have traditions but it doesn’t hold true for every American. Why say you want small government, but want to dictate what a woman does with her body? Why be so hard on immigration when you wouldn’t be here without it. I want to “get” them because from what I see it just doesn’t make sense. Any conservatives who would like to answer, or help me see your point of view and why?
you know, abortion is perhaps the one issue where, although i don’t necessarily agree with the religious/conservative stance on it, i understand why it’s such a big issue for them. if you believe — as they say they do — that abortion is actual murder, then I totally get why they’d protest it to their last breath
Explain why they are pro-war/gun then? Anti-welfare… even if that means children go hungry?
Or even advocate for the death penalty. cognitive dissonance
Republicans love fetuses but hate children.
I also think that liberals tend to be also led by their emotions. The adage “Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line” is very true. We have to feel emotionally invested with out candidate, at least on the national level.
I heard a pollster quoted saying that when he gives bad poll results to Republicans they want to kill him, but when he gives Democrats bad results they want to kill themselves. Remember how we liberals felt after Obama’s poor debate performance: down and out. We can sometimes be too emotionally invested to be as cutthroat and calculating as Republicans.
I’m curious how this psychographic difference comes about. It’s beyond just simple intelligence, but it says a lot about our psychological makeup. How can the same family raise both liberal and conservative children?
I think liberals AND conservatives are over-emotional types. Then again, I have social science to back me up. Of course, you can throw at me and my libertarian beliefs that I’m an over-rational cyborg who needs to understand FEEEEEEELINGS, but to me, a hero ain’t nothing but a sandwich, a legend ain’t nothing but a car, and Feelings is nothing but some song from the 70s.
Perhaps if people would swallow their feelings in politics and focus on Reason, the world would be a better place. But I know I live in a world filled with people too crippled with emotion to do that.
…And that world I kindly refer to as the American public, LMAO! Always hypersensitive over the wrong things.
I agree with you for the most part, Todd, but there is such a thing as being *too* rational. We have to be wary of that too.
“I heard a pollster quoted saying that when he gives bad poll results to Republicans they want to kill him, but when he gives Democrats bad results they want to kill themselves”
interesting point
I don’t really fit in, seeing as that I’m a libertarian. (#VSBLibertarians STAND UP!) Then again, other than Jersey Shore, all I watch is various forms of sports, No Reservations, Man vs. Food Nation and the occasional cooking show. I love Not My Mama’s Meals with Bobby Dean.
In fact, I need to catch up on that show on TiVo.
Here’s my thing when looking at both conservatives and liberals. I’m reminded of the Jay-Z line “Sensitive Thugs/You all need hugs” whenever I see both groups. Of course, they’re sensitive to different things. Conservatives are sensitive to tradition and meaning, while liberals are sensitive to the weaker among us. The problems are that they lead to some very dangerous places. I remember seeing a lot of liberal-leaning types say that government’s job is to help people. People tend to forget that whenever government helps people, someone’s getting screwed. Heck, Jim Crow sure helped a lot of White folk recovering from the Civil War, but people tend to forget that part, especially because of all the lynchings that were done to spare Whites their feelings.
Any government that is powerful enough to help is a government powerful enough to hurt. A government powerful enough to protect morality is a government powerful enough to dictate what businesses can or cannot profit. A government powerful enough to help the poor is a government powerful enough to let poor people starve and live in hovels to suit its own purposes. Yes, we need police, a military and a court system. And I think we could have a spirited debate about what government services are truly public goods that absolutely need to be produced by the government.
But oh yeah, Obama is cool with Jay-Z! Mitt likes small-town types! Friendships are the only things that matter! GTFOHWTBS.
Though, since I did fire a few shots on both sides of the political spectrum, there is that whole stereotype of libertarians having Asperger’s Syndrome, but hey…that can’t be me, right?
“Any government that is powerful enough to help is a government powerful enough to hurt. A government powerful enough to protect morality is a government powerful enough to dictate what businesses can or cannot profit. A government powerful enough to help the poor is a government powerful enough to let poor people starve and live in hovels to suit its own purposes.”
Realest sh*t spoken (shout out from a fellow Libertarian)!
Bruh…u just said it ALL. And the tribalism thing TOJ mentioned upthread is applicable to Democrats as well. WAY moreso now that they got a cool black man in office.
A cool Black man in office who hsan’t done anything other than being cool…and running up the national deficit…
You really those two things are all he has done? Even if you disagree with what hes done, he as done a lot.
“A cool Black man in office who hsan’t done anything other than being cool…and running up the national deficit…”
Romney…is that you? Don’t go hacking people’s accounts and spouting your lies. Shouldn’t you be out somewhere telling women that the reason they should get flexible work hours is so they hop in that kitchen as soon as possible?
Come on, man! You know he ran that deficit up to holy hell in his first term.
What we really need is a society where people are free to be flexible, regardless of gender, to deal with managing their household, and a word where being a woman with kids doesn’t mean you’re not taken seriously on the career front. I’m not too sure what any president could do with this other than use his bully pulpit to change minds.
I totally agree. That ish was real. Food for thought.
“Any government that is powerful enough to help is a government powerful enough to hurt. A government powerful enough to protect morality is a government powerful enough to dictate what businesses can or cannot profit….”
My major gripe with libertarianism is that it fails to address the issue, that power, like energy, will always exist. The question is who will have that power and how will it be checked? If for instance we privatize the entire school system, you then have the risk of one day having a single business magnate owning all schools, at which point, said individual will pretty much be a god with nobody to check his virtually limitless power. I’m ok with the govt having power, as long as there are things like a constitution, bill of rights and supreme court to check legislators and other officials.
Excellent remark there, VAB. You’re right that there will always be power. Also, unlike the more extremist elements within the movement, I recognize that there will have to be someone to be the police and the military. By definition, that is concentrated power. However, in most circumstances within a society, power can be distributed among the people as broadly as humanly possible. When you do that, concentrated power doesn’t last for long. In fact, historically, few private citizens have maintained that level of power without some sort of government backing. When you limit the government’s ability to back private power like that, concentrations of power are only in the short term.
Let’s take your example of one business magnate running all of the schools. He or she would be an immensely powerful individual with incredible amounts of wealth and a good deal of influence. Regardless of the structure of the government, the decisions of this one person would have a major impact on the day to day lives of people throughout America. And that would lead to their ultimate downfall.
Why? For one, people like making money, and such a huge wealth center would be a sitting duck of a target. Of course, there would be people gunning for that #1 spot. Then you would have more enterprising types who would figure out a weakness is such a company’s business plan and target marketing to those students underserved by the current company. And there is the great human ability to innovate in ways that a giant company would be averse to doing, which could have the real potential to upset such a business.
Look at Microsoft for example. Circa 1997, they ran the personal computing game tout suite. Save for a few niches, if you wanted to end up on someone’s screen, you had to deal with MS. However, people saw niches and innovation to take that spot. Web 2.0 rose up to avoid the issues of people having to go through MS to get on screens. Apple found out that while they were mediocre at the PC business, they could do a great job of developing consumer devices and leveraging that to up their PC sales. And even look at what happened to Linux. Do you own an Android phone? Guess what? The Android OS is a fork of a Linux distro! Now while MS isn’t exactly on welfare these days, their dominance in the PC market is far from assured.
My point is that the only constant is change. Impervious gods have fallen many a time in human history, and I think we can count on that again.
“In fact, historically, few private citizens have maintained that level of power without some sort of government backing. When you limit the government’s ability to back private power like that, concentrations of power are only in the short term.”
Basically.
Great comment. The technology example was a good one
“The technology example was a good one”
Actually Microsoft only fell back because of govt regulation. See. 1998′s United States VS Microsoft…the greatest thing that ever happened to the tech field.
Thanks for the response.
“In fact, historically, few private citizens have maintained that level of power without some sort of government backing.”
This is partially accurate but also misleading. When this has been the case, it happens primarily because the individual or individuals become so powerful, that they are the govt. (Julius Caesar anyone?). This was the motivation for Karl Max’s manifesto, I.E the fact that this class will eventually get too much power, and only through violent struggle can they be overthrown. That’s what history has shown
“Regardless of the structure of the government, the decisions of this one person would have a major impact on the day to day lives of people throughout America. And that would lead to their ultimate downfall”
But at what cost. In a libertarian govt. I postulate that the only way they’re going down is through violent revolution
“Look at Microsoft for example. Circa 1997, they ran the personal computing game tout suite. Save for a few niches, if you wanted to end up on someone’s screen, you had to deal with MS.”
I’m glad you used this example. THE ONLY reason that other businesses were able to eventually step in, was because the govt…yup the govt. hit microsoft with a major anti trust lawsuit in 1998. That case essentially cut Microsoft’s legs off. Were it not for that case, all these technologies would have been ruthlessly crushed…don’t you remember what they used to do before that (remember what they did to netscape?)?? Damn, I remember those winmodems….that life was horrible
Ultimately, I’ve observed that the position that there should be minimal govt regulation, is generally only made by people in countries that have ample govt regulation, because when there’s none…not only do you not want to make that statement, you’re too busy suffering to make it.
The anti-trust case was great political theatre. However, the fields that MS ultimately got beaten in weren’t covered by the case. And even the descendent of the Netscape browser, Mozilla, is thriving under a non-profit model. The anti-trust case was besides the point.
“The anti-trust case was besides the point.”
This is flat out not true. You cannot blatantly ignore the fact that as you stated circa 1997 they DOMINATED and soon after said case other companies started popping up..and claim that the case had nothing to do with it? C’mon.
Mozilla succeeded where netscape failed PRECISELY because microsoft could no longer use unfair practices.
That law suit stopped them from using unfair business practices PERIOD. It even went a step further and forced them to be more open to competition.
This is my problem with most libertarians. There seems to be a complete failure to acknowledge when the govt’s. regulation has helped society out.
The first grade… brought to you by Nabisco.
Cookies are vegitables kids!
War is peace!
Freedom is slavery!
Ignorance is strength!
Very Orwellian.
“Any government that is powerful enough to help is a government powerful enough to hurt. A government powerful enough to protect morality is a government powerful enough to dictate what businesses can or cannot profit. A government powerful enough to help the poor is a government powerful enough to let poor people starve and live in hovels to suit its own purposes..”
That’s true. But, what is the alternative to strong government? It seems to me that a weak central government usually equals a failed state and a lot of chaos.
So my question is; how can a balance be achieved between too strong government and too weak government.
There are two things. One is to mandate that there are certain basic civil liberties that are to be protected no matter what. The other is to have a government system with very strong checks and balances oriented around those basic rights. You’re right about the risk of chaos. Personally, I want just enough government to prevent things from going straight Mad Max, and we’re a long way from that.
“Personally, I want just enough government to prevent things from going straight Mad Max, and we’re a long way from that.”
I think there are a lot of people who agree with this (definitely a lot more people than there are libertarians). The problem is that most people believe (and I wholly agree) that this is actually CONSIDERABLY MORE govt. that libertarians claim.
“That’s true. But, what is the alternative to strong government? It seems to me that a weak central government usually equals a failed state and a lot of chaos.
So my question is; how can a balance be achieved between too strong government and too weak government.”
Thank you for this Val. Not only is this one of the most relevant questions I’ve heard all month, but this is how a TRUE progressive approaches an issue and a disagreement. Concede a good point, and ask a genuine question about how to find a solution. I sincerely hope SweetSass is taking notes.
That’s a question I have as well, and I haven’t found an answer I love yet. This is where my open-mind remains open because I’m not actually sure. This is the type of discussion I would love to have with liberals though. Beats the hell out of constantly having to tell immature extremists that I’m not advocating anarchy. A balance does need to be struck though. Anybody that’s interested in actual conversation have any ideas?
Open… empty… tomato… tah-mato…
I’m an Independent with obvious, blatant liberal bias. Mostly because the liberal side of things seems to want to let me keep my uterus my own, which I like. I also fancy myself quite smart. Does any of that have to do with what I entertain myself with? I don’t think so.
I don’t think one party is smarter than another, I just think that one party is willing to overlook their morals and the interest of the people in order to just be right. Entertainment wise the only opinion I really have is that people who watch The Big Bang Theory either legit get the jokes (which is hot) or are pretending to, just to seem smarter (which is lame). That’s all I’ve got *shrugs*
“I just think that one party is willing to overlook their morals and the interest of the people in order to just be right”
Please elaborate, curious to know what you mean by this comment?
I feel, personally, that Republican leaders, or the people who are most vocal about the Republican values, overlook the fact that a lot of the things they are voting for are against the better interest of the majority of people voting for them. I also think that a lot of the times, when I hear the vocal Republican leaders speaking they drastically change their positions on things (depending on how the polls are doing) as well as seeming majorly out of touch with the average person. Again, that’s just from the observations I’ve made. *shrugs*
Thank you for elaborating Tes. My curiousity (& love for poilitical commentary) wants you to elaborate even further as to what specific areas you feel the republican party needs to step their game up in. But the fact that I’m about to go home pretty soon & eat some chicken tells me it’s an elaboration that will fall on deaf ears. So I’ll save my inquiries for another day.
As a Big Bang Theory watcher, I want to know your views on grey areas. I don’t get all of the jokes on The Big Bang Theory nor do I pretend to, but I laugh at the ones I do get and continue to watch because there are enough of those in the show for me. Does that make me lame?
As an avid fan of Big Bang Theory, who understands all the jokes, I feel like I’m obligated to tell you that, you are not lame. You get a lot of the jokes and admitted to not understanding a few. The best thing you can be, is honest with yourself. Rejoice.
Big Bang Theory is THE SHIZNIT! I get most of the jokes (don’t always follow the comic book references though) but I don’t see the need to pretend to understand jokes you don’t get. Do adults actually do that? Either way there are WAY too many jokes for me to believe that anyone actually understands ALL of them. I haven’t seen but one or two episodes from the latest season though. I need to catch up. I’m just thankful my mom isn’t like Leonard’s lol
I get all of the jokes because I was into science very early, since 2nd grade. Especially all things concerning Astronomy. Then as I got older, I picked up on Phsyics and Chemistry. Since I didn’t own a library card, I used to steal science books from the library regularly. So this is my kinda show.
…
You just became a good 7 degrees hotter.
Definitely not lame; I’m one of those people too. Super cool.
I love the Big Bang Theory.
But my mom had to google Schrodinger’s Cat to get the reference. She laughed about that a good three months after the episode aired.
I think it depends on how one defines “successful” and “smart”.
Successful in terms of finances? Accomplishing a goal that one has had since they were young enough to remember first learning how to spell ‘goal’? Having all the things that Aubrey mentioned in the chorus of the song?
Smart in terms of an IQ test score? Being able to win any game of Trivial Pursuit imaginable? Having a transcript/resume/CV that takes 15 minutes to read? Having the ability to figure your way out of any situation that you may find yourself in?
I would imagine that liberals and conservatives have different ideas of success. Conservatives probably define it in financial and competitive terms, the latter of which Champ alluded to in the post. Liberals probably define it in financial – we’ve all got to eat – and collaborative terms. Even rappers talk about “putting my team on”.
I don’t think the question Champ posed at the end is really a matter of ‘smart’ versus ‘successful’. I think the real matter of contention between liberals and conservatives is the amount/degree of overlap found between the two.
Americans usually see disconnection where there should be connection. Take for example, foreign policy, domestic policy, economic policy and educational policy. All of these four things are intertwined, and they all affect each other. Changing one, has an effect on the other three. However, in America, all these four are viewed and treated by the electorate as separate issues which is a confession of lack of intelligence when dealing with political matters.
The term liberal and conservative usually refer to people who are pro-change and anti-change respectively in politics. However, when people have no context as to what they are trying to change or not change, those ideas become rather useless and empty in terms of their meaning. Much of American politics today is very similar to politics in the decline of the Roman Republic. American Politics today is about pandering to interests groups that have either the most amount of money or the most amount of dedicated voters; it is not about the overall survival or progress of the nation as a whole. Those interest groups represent people who identify themselves as liberals and conservatives, gets these people to put money together, and then uses the money they get to either bribe or coerce politicians into passing favorable legislation for their affiliations.
People who engage in this whole republican vs democrat or liberal vs conservative simply do not see things in their clarity. Those terms matter, when the betterment of the entire country is being considered. However, when a nation is more governed by interests than it’s own survival, those words no longer have any meaning, and might as well stand for the red and blue team in the scripted reality tv show known as the “Real World.”
And this is (part of) the reason why I’m libertarian. People are too busy using the government to rep their clique instead of doing the right thing.
“American Politics today is about pandering to interests groups that have either the most amount of money or the most amount of dedicated voters; it is not about the overall survival or progress of the nation as a whole.”
There’s a movie on Netflix called “The Best Government Money Can Buy”. In the film, they allude to the possibility that the United States government isn’t really for the people, but for the corporations. A lot of politicians sitting in office may be puppets for lobbyists and big businesses. It’s something that makes you wonder if that’s really the case today- especially when you consider how many members of the U.S. government are aslo part of the board of trustees at these companies.
Do you think libertarians are concerned about campaign finance reform? Lol. Citizens United is a libertarian wet dream. If special interests run things it’s only as a result of neo-con/libertarian policies that will hand over the reigns to an oligarchy.
Libertarians are the most simple minded of the bunch. Their arithmetic doesn’t add up. You can’t have something for nothing. You can’t have progress if your main agenda item is inaction. Libertarianism is the devolving of civilization, it’s all about might makes right. Who has the biggest caveman club to knock over enemies with. Libertarians like Rand Paul basically want Somolia for white people. No government, plenty of guns, and draconian gender relations. Go to any libertarian convention and you’ll see more dudes than a gay bath house. It’s politics derived from playing too many video games.
Bioshock disagrees with this post.
And Resident Evil is pretty anti-corporate, I guess, but the point remains… it’s based in fantasyland.
You’re clearly a liberal and do not see any stark differences between conservatism, neo-conservatism or libertarianism. Like most people who identify themselves as conservative or liberal or republican and democrat today, you have more concern with images than with principles, and if that is the case, on the surface, just as there is little difference between environmentalists, neo-liberals and liberals; there is very little difference between the previously mentioned groups who all appear to be conservative. You win that argument fair and square.
However, if you want to talk about principles then you are clearly in the wrong and have absolutely no idea what you are taking about. You are politically uninformed and should spend more time reading books by people who present political philosophies and not by their followers who you gain your second-hand knowledge from. Just because someone attends a rally, or screams that they support a party or an idea, doesn’t mean that they actually know or even practice what they themselves are talking about.
The principles of libertarianism are mostly based on classical liberalism ideas and ideas that are well presented and documented in the federalist and anti-federalist papers as I said before. Most of the “images” that modern liberals and conservatives stand for are based and founded on these same documents as well, however, the difference is that most modern liberals and conservatives have neither read or understood these documents, which are the foundation of our political system. These principles precede the elephant and the donkey and they precede red team vs blue team. Catch up on those ideas, get informed, then come back to me and argue about what libertarianism is, or is not.
moderation
You have to admit that modern libertarianism has to a large extent been co-opted by conservatives as a justification for conservative principles (or prejudices, in some instances).
As far as the image of “libertarianism”…I can’t disagree, as I said before.
Modern politics is all imagery: being cool, being charismatic, being tough, being empathetic etc. That is why money matters or why people still love Bill Clinton even though he is the one who passed NAFTA and GATT legislation that threw down the final gauntlet on the American middle class.
In the time of the federalist and anti-federalist, it was by merit of your argument that the people were swayed. The people read your pamphlets, and you would make an argument and your argument for or against a policy had to be well understood and well written. The people were better literate then, than they are today and thus demanded more from their politicians, and got more.
Libertarians are the only ones who are asking for more than images from their politicians, which we all should be doing.
I just have to pluck this out:
“In the time of the federalist and anti-federalist, it was by merit of your argument that the people were swayed. The people read your pamphlets, and you would make an argument and your argument for or against a policy had to be well understood and well written. The people were better literate then, than they are today and thus demanded more from their politicians, and got more.”
Do you know that ‘The People’ in the 1790s consisted of… white, male, land owning aristocrats. Those were the only ones eligible to vote. Only a handful.
More literate? You’ve got to be kidding me. Seriously, this is a f*cking joke. You think there was higher literacy in 1790 than in 2012?
You must live in some alternate reality.
Thank you for pointing that one out….I thought I was loosing my mind.
As for literacy rates:
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/09/01/were-colonial-americans-more-literate-than-americans-today/
As for the forefathers: once again I would suggest you read the federalists and anti-federalists papers, rather than rely on what you’ve been told from second-hand sources on the history of politics in the United States. America was founded on debate, and in the founding of America things like slavery and voting rights were debated with people for or against them. People debated, some people lost and some people won; the important thing was the quality of the debate and the participating of the public (even when they could not vote) were far better and far more promising than the nature of the debates today and that has everything to do with the political illiteracy of the American public(I should have emphasized that before.)
The questions asked to Obama and Romney yesterday were a complete joke. The questions showed that the people have no idea on how or what the political process is all about; all the questions were based on “what are you going to do for me or my group” with no regard for how that affects all other aspects of the society or at what costs they were going to come by.
If one has no knowledge of the interconnectedness of foreign policy, domestic policy, economic policy and educational policy, you are politically illiterate and you are most likely subject to the propaganda and abuse of demagogues, which despite the massive flaws of the founding fathers and their ideas, they were intelligent enough to notice.
You might not like libertarians, but the simple fact is they are the only ones who bring such an approach to politics to the people in this day and age. I have never heard one democrat bring up the federalists in any conversation: where they got the vast majority of their ideas from. People like yourself and most minorities think that special interest groups are great because they feel they owe these people their loyalty because they gave them political power. Unfortunatelty, special interests always overstay their welcome and are even more prone to corruption than actual politicians are (politicians have to rely on votes, special interests simply have to rely on dissatisfaction), and today, special interests run our political system and do so because the vast majority of the public doesn’t know how the political system works and relies on these special interests for their information (or spin).
The vast majority of the nation doesn’t want America to do deals with the Middle East and they don’t want America to put middle east dictators in power. However, they don’t want to pay high prices for oil. They don’t understand that the reason why oil is cheap is because of the fact that America has so much power and influence in the middle east, and that if America even produced more oil, the price would still go up and be more expensive because the labor price would be far more expensive. You don’t get taught that in school and you don’t hear that in the news for obvious reasons. Until more people can understand the basic facts on how politics work, our politicians will simply appeal to the mass ignorance in politics that exists in America today.
seriously??? to support your extraordinary claim that people in 170 were more literate than they are in 2012..you send us some blog post by some unknown clown…one that fails to provide any sources and makes absurd comparisons like sale of a pamphlet in 1770′s in to the sale of the Davinci Code and concludes they were more literate in the 1970′s??
You should be marched out of the city gates…
No, I simply put the link out there so you wouldn’t think the idea is some how farfetched or unique to only myself (Here’s a link to this nobody clown who wrote that article by the way http://mit.edu/sanjoy/www/. Very clownish bio I must say). Or perhaps you could have checked out the article and you would have seen a link to John Taylor Gatto (who is by no means a clown) where the person who originally wrote the article got this crazy idea from.
And perhaps, if you had googled John Taylor Gatto, you would have read a little about his heavy criticism of the US educational system. Then you would have wondered, “when did America have a good educational system?” And then you would have found out that “literacy rate” abilities have been on a steady decline since the beginning of the 20th century, though ability to merely “read only” have remained relatively high.
Then you might have done further research and discovered that what I said wasn’t so violently ignorant after all, but alas, I had too high expectations.
I read the link well before I typed. Unlike you I don’t assume people in 2012 are less literate than folks in 1790. The man is a mathematician. In the fields of anthropology, sociology and history, he is a NOBODY. That’s a logical fallacy known as the appeal to authority. (by that logic BTW, I’m also an authority)
And yes, he’s a clown, when he makes comparisons between a single pamphlet in the 1700′s and the Davinci code to conclude they were more literate back then. Ridiculous
By your logic then you are assuming that literacy rates are higher today than they were 200+ years ago, and I am assuming as well that that isn’t the case, base on what I see and read. Yet, according to your “assumption” I aught to be stoned and abused for even thinking or assuming that.
I actually teach kids and I have a father just began teaching as well. We have both looked at examinations given to children in the 1890′s, the 1930′s and the ones he has to give today, and the demands on the children to pass unto the next grade have clearly declined and these exams were simply in basic things like social studies and english. However, according to national statistics the literacy rate has gone up, especially since then. When you read these studies they merely define literacy as being able to read and write; whereas before our recent times, literacy also consisted of understanding and critical thinking.
The article written by the clown above uses such a perspective when talking about literacy. I’ve read Common Sense by Thomas Paine, and it is a difficult book which is analyzed and studied by college professors in English today. I read much more than most people I know, and I am sure you do as well. Common Sense is a demanding book that requires one to be able to understand and critically think about a large number of ideas and information. Those demands are not made on children or even adults today, whereas in 1776 it was a demand that was met by at least 20% of the population.
Also as the clown suggested, even if you couldn’t read or write, you had to be able to comprehend and think about what the author was talking about. From my experience and observations, those things are very slim in the American public today. Furthermore, the esteemed historian David McCulough even said quite frankly that the literacy rate was higher in 1776 because “everyone read the bible”, which I would believe included slaves and women.
If literacy is simply reading or writing then yeh, what I’m saying is obnoxious. However, if literacy is reading, writing, understanding and critically thinking, I don’t think so.
We don’t rehash the federalism question because it was decided. The 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states. Finito. Alladat was resolved in the aftermath of the Civil War.
And while they were ‘debating’ your Black azz would’ve been in chains picking cotton. What is your point?
They often say, if you don’t know where you’re from, you don’t know where you are going. If you are liberal or a conservative today, you come from anti-federalism or federalism. Your ideas might have evolved, you might have more science and technology, but if you don’t know where you got your ideas, you don’t know what those ideas were fundamentally all about.
And whether you’re black or of any other race, if you decide to be a liberal or a conservative, you are either a federalists or an anti-federalists,even if those words have little use today. Those who are unaware of their history are doomed to repeat it. The flaws of the federalists and the anti-federalists led to civil war, and it is not farfetched to think that that cannot happen again.
Holy f*ck! Black Medici just shut this whole conversation down! The part I wasn’t even considering was how gas prices would shoot up. But yeah we’ve spent all our intelligent minds on producing lawyers even though the market’s oversaturated with them and didn’t invest as much cultural or financial capital in alternative energy or anything financial or economic. We also don’t teach the principles of economics or anything financial in school. That’s @ss backwards. But great post BM. Possibly the best I’ve seen all day
Not the image, but who identifies and “libertarian”. And libertarians aren’t the only ones asking for results. I think the progressives hold that title to a larger degree. And democracy has always been a blood sport and full of slander. People haven’t changed; demagogues were around back then as well. The slander was even more bitter back then.
And to a large extent Obama has delivered on that front, but I dont want this to devolve into a political convo so I will leave it at that. But you’re riight, if it were about results and not image, more people would realize that.
“The people were better literate then, than they are today and thus demanded more from their politicians, and got more.”
This statement is so ridiculous…you should be marched out of the village while small children throw pebbles at you….
“Literacy refers to the ability to read FOR KNOWLEDGE, write COHERENTLY, and THINK CRITICALLY about the written word.”
I can honestly say, I wouldn’t be offended if a mass of children today threw pebbles at me, because I said they were less literate than their ancestors 200 + years ago, while they filmed it on their smartphones and updated people via twitter.
LOL man, I can’t… I just can’t…
You can’t speak truth to crazy. And dis fool is nutso.
Coming from you, I view that as a compliment. Insane people think all other people around them are insane.
Nope, just you.
Yeah, it’s a compliment when the world’s most delusional intellectual calls you nutso lol.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/309976-the-thing-about-smart-mother-fuckers-is-that-sometimes-they
Save me from moderation. The link said it not me lol
“or why people still love Bill Clinton even though he is the one who passed NAFTA and GATT legislation that threw down the final gauntlet on the American middle class”
not to mention the draconian 3 strikes laws that basically ( further) decimated the black and hispanic communities
+1
Libertarianism has about as much difference from the GOP policies are ‘Tea Party’ does. Which is to say… very little.
First, let me say that I find it interesting that you consider Rand Paul and Paul Ryan to be exemplars of libertarian thought. While they do have some libertarian leanings (with Rand Paul moreso than Paul Ryan), most people in libertarian circles have serious issues with their policies not too far from their issues from broader conservative ideas. They’ll just listen to them more because they have more issues of broad agreement.
It’s interesting that you find that libertarianism is something for nothing. The thing is when I read stuff from across the broad libertarian spectrum of ideas, they’re generally asking for a whole lot less of something for less than what they’re giving now. You can argue that they want to get rid of too much, or that they can’t do what they want with the resources they want government to have. I’m not sure where you’re getting something for nothing, though.
The other thing I’ve noticed is that you’ve confused government for society. Reducing the power of government doesn’t mean that societies won’t organizes and develop their own standards. There’s nothing in libertarian thought that mandates lots of guns and “draconian” gender roles. Heck, there aren’t a lot of mandates period. I remember during my college days the Libertarian Party giving out a bumper sticker that said “Libertarians are Pro-Choice on Everything!” Now you can argue that society should impose standards through government. That is not what I hear on offer.
And those last two sentences? Really? Resorting to gay jokes and remarks about nerds? I’m sorry you couldn’t get that date with the Halo champion. It’s OK though. Some of them are into women, even you.
I like a lot of what you said, and you’ve brought up one point that always presented the prime limitation of libertarianism in my eyes and why I can’t fully commit to it as a stand alone political system:
“Reducing the power of government doesn’t mean that societies won’t organizes and develop their own standards.”
Do you support this because you believe that the resulting standards would be superior in efficacy and individual freedom for individuals? (a free market paradigm like Rand Paul), or purely on the principal that government should be limited and whatever resulting repercussions are justified because that ideal of freedom (freedom from government but not necessarily the tyranny of anything else) should itself be the central tenant of a society?
Great question, because it outlines what’s an internal fight between libertarians. Personally, I believe that the resulting standards would be superior in individual freedom, because people would be free to roll with whatever clique they want, from old-school tradition to full-on polyamorous junkies and whatever permutations in between and thereof. I believe in freedom to be you and me, and I personally don’t care what that means for you, so long as all involved are consenting adults and children aren’t being obviously neglected or abused.
There are more social conservative libertarians who believe that the freedom of government is necessary for a more traditional society to rule, and that without the influence of government, more traditional values will be upheld. In fact, that last statement is why someone like Ron Paul is comfy in the Republican Party despite having broad policy diversions with them.
“Personally, I believe that the resulting standards would be superior in individual freedom…”
So you think it would be superior in individual freedom, but what about any other beneficial aspects of society?
IDGAF about the rest. Seriously. The second you do that, you start taking away individual freedoms.
Todd, it seems like Meech is asking how do you propose we “check” individuals who already have economic advantages over the rest of us from limiting our opportunities, even if we have individual freedom? Or maybe he’s asking what responsibilities do you think the government should have and how effective in practice (as opposed to theory) would small government be? Essentially just how small do you want government to be? This is something I’m still deciding on myself. Just how free should the market be? Do you want full out deregulation? And do you think that would simply be a replay of Reaganomics? If you can answer those questions effectively you just might persuade some people who are currently on the fence about Libertarianism. Then again, I just put words into Meech’s mouth, maybe he didn’t mean any of that lol
Yeah, that could and would be an example of one of the applications of what I was asking, but I was speaking more generally.
Perhaps I’m a bit of an optimist, but having power broadly distributed limits the abilities for any one individual or small group to maintain power for a period of time. Like I mentioned to VAB above, while it is possible for someone to get a lot of power in a short period of time, it’s hard to maintain that level of power without the backing of government force. If you prevent the government from taking sides with someone on that level, the specific amount of power can be necessarily limited.
Plus, he kind of said all of those things you were taking into consideration are secondary.
Yeah he kinda did…I guess it makes sense that every promising option requires an inconvenient trade off…(patiently awaits Todd’s reply)
I respect that. And that is essentially the essence of true libertarianism. But I personally don’t rank “individual freedoms” above all other functions of governance. I also value maximizing arrogate freedom instead of absolutely defending one at the expense of others. Campaign finance reform for freedom of speech or stand your ground laws for example. All freedoms have costs, and those costs are usually the freedoms of others in my opinion. Forrest for the trees and what not.
And true liberals get what I’m saying, but would truly sacrifice all of the niceties of an orderly and productive society for their idea of freedom. Don’t agree, but I respect that. These brand new conservative liberals who want to pick and choose which freedoms to allow and limit based on their personal preferences are the ones that piss me off. I don’t even know if they know what a real liberal is.
“All freedoms have costs, and those costs are usually the freedoms of others in my opinion.”
I see what you mean, but how exactly can my freedom COST you a freedom? It could certainly inconvenience you, hurt your feelings, change the publics opinions of you, make you want to kill me etc; but can it actually encroach on your freedom? Not saying it can’t, just asking for an explanation/example.
“And true liberals get what I’m saying, but would truly sacrifice all of the niceties of an orderly and productive society for their idea of freedom.”
What niceties have to be sacrificed though? Could u be just a lil more specific
“These brand new conservative liberals who want to pick and choose which freedoms to allow and limit based on their personal preferences are the ones that piss me off. I don’t even know if they know what a real liberal is.”
Yeah they p!ss me off too, but then again I’m not FULLY on one side or another (even though I identify most with Libertarians) so I don’t know how much I can knock them for picking and choosing…neither of the 3 parties are without flaw so….
I got really busy at work, ill try to respond later.
“I also value maximizing arrogate freedom instead of absolutely defending one at the expense of others.”
What exactly do you mean by maximizing arrogate freedom though? Sorry I know I’m asking you to elaborate on a lot, I just respect your opinion more than most people on this blog, so I wanna at least understand where you’re coming from.
Basically it’s the concept of limiting an individual freedom so that the overall freedom is maximized. A libertarian might argue that you have the freedom to drink and drive but should be held responsible for whatever consequences, even if that freedom could (and would) endanger the freedom of other individual’s basic right to life.
Libertarians usually want to make all drugs legal, even if combining heroin with Geico’s marketing team and Apple’s ruthless efficiency would probably have negative consequences for a society as a whole. What Todd was saying earlier is that these freedoms are worth the price to what I called the niceties of an orderly society. Is freedom the ability pursue any vice you wish or to live in society with limited crime and danger to your person and increased social mobility?
The general rule is that an individual’s freedom should be limited only when it affects someone else, but when the relationship is indirect or raises the probability of doing so then it can be a little murky. Societies are basically the rules of engagement for limiting the freedoms of individuals in certain instances (ideally) for the betterment of the whole.
I’m not a libertarian, or at least not what the vast public or more specifically think libertarians merely are. I for instance don’t believe in gold and silver, but rather am for fiat money if the government is the one printing it, rather than the federal reserve bank. Libertarians can be as liberal as Dennis Kucinich and as conservative as Ron Paul, but based on the way our system is designed they can only reach office as republicans or democrats with relatively little power, since they lack the tools necessary to partake in the duopoly. The one thing libertarians have in common is that they are more concerned with freedom than they are with interests.
Both republicans and democrats have both passed legislation that is anti-freedom in recent years. Bush passed the Patriot Act, Obama passed the NDAA. If you are a republican or a democrat these things don’t bother you as much as gay rights or abortion and that’s where the most amount of money comes from. If you are a libertarian you are more bothered by those laws than you are by gay rights or abortion. Civil Liberties trump wedge issues if you’re a libertarian, whether you be on the right or the left.
One has to be much more informed to debate about the merits or the demerits of the Patriot Act and the NDAA than they would have to be for gay rights and abortion or against them. Those things don’t require too much thinking, you’re either for them or against them. For those Acts however, you actually have to read about these things to get a clear understanding of what they’re all about, and these tend to be the things the vast majority of Americans are unaware of.
+10 well said
“The term liberal and conservative usually refer to people who are pro-change and anti-change respectively in politics.”
When I hear these terms I usually think more about specific social topics- gay rights, ab0rtion, gun laws. Both sides say they want to help the poor, the middle class, business, seniors, education, etc.
In politics, that usually means they are willing to help the ones who has the most money.
Basically, you think in terms of interests, which is my whole point. Under our political system, people think in terms of interests and that’s what politicians think about only. They don’t care about freedoms. Yet, what is the point of having the right to marry the same sex, if you’re a slave and have no right to privacy?
This is an election I’m really struggling with. I think Obama would have it if he wasn’t so far left because I like some of his view points, but being a Christian I just can’t get w/ him on a lot of his moral view points.
Er…you know Obama is a Christian, right?
I judge by actions & not just by what he says he is. One min he says he’s a Christian (while campaining for his first election) & then next min he’s over in muslim nations (pandering) saying America isn’t a Christian nation. The far left beliefs I disagree w/ him on are as follows: under his administration there have been unprecedented grabs for power- gov’t tryna take over things like banks, auto industry, health care- that’s scary cuz the more power “they” got, the less power we have & the more we’re taxed to have them run things. His views on abortion & gay marriage I can’t get w/ either. Especially his flip floppin views on gay marriage. wth?
So I said all that to say, Once his political actions begin to align with the Christian beliefs he professes, then I’ll be able to rock w/ the Obamas.
Obama has ZERO left beliefs or actions. The fact that people believe someone as centrist as Obama is left wing is terrifying.
The only ‘extreme’ thing he is… is extremely moderate.
“Obama has ZERO left beliefs or actions”
Malik you described yourself as all the way far left downthread (or upthread I don’t remember lol). I’m shocked you feel this way about Obama & am curious to know why & would love to get your take on him.
oh & SweetSass, I would love to hear your viewpoints as well!
Obama has deported more undocumented persons than Bush, for starters, over bull*ish like a broken tail light. It’s a big scheme to give money to private prisons which hold people being processed for deportation.
Trust, there are days when I feel like smacking Obama. But he is by far, the lesser of two evils.
THANK YOU! Very effin’ true!
thank u for elaborating sweetsass, I wish I still believed there were a lesser of 2 evils……
The United States of America is not a Christian nation. It’s a nation with a long history of a Christian majority. This Christian majority has definitely influenced the governing of this nation, but never made it a complete theocracy. I have gleaned from your comments that you want it to become a truly Christian state. I seriously oppose my country going in that direction.
“One min he says he’s a Christian (while campaining for his first election) & then next min he’s over in muslim nations (pandering) saying America isn’t a Christian nation.”
I agree… America isn’t a Christian nation. Pres Obama saying he is a Christian does not contradict that.-
+1 Kema- If he said America was a Christian nation I’d have a HUGE problem with that
Like Biden said, he personally adheres to Christian values but he wouldn’t agree with legislation that forces his values on others who may not subscribe to them. Obama is the President for all Americans not just Christians.
America isn’t a Christian nation, Prettichica10. At least, not our founding fathers. They were deists for the most part or secular. They did not intend for America to be a Christian nation.
Exactly!! and this why I did NOT vote Obama for pope. Wait, he was running for president? Yeah… I’m concerned about my President running the country like bible study about as much as I’m concerned about my dry cleaner’s opinions about the council of trent.
Well, I started to point out that Obama being a Christian, and him stating this isn’t a Christian nation, isn’t a contradiction. But several people beat me to it. So I’ll go with this:
” Especially his flip floppin views on gay marriage. wth?”
Technically, his views never flip flopped. Even in 2004, when he opposed same-sex marriage, he did so for strategic reasons. He stated that personally, he’s for domestic partnerships of same-sex couples. But he’s been in favor of same-sex marriage since 1996, which was stated during his candicacy for the Illionois State Senate.
@ The F.acially U.nappealing C.hicago K.id? (**sidenote** why is a handsome guy calling himself facially unappealing?? stop that!!)
you said:
“Technically, his views never flip flopped” because ” He stated that personally, he’s for domestic partnerships of same-sex couples”
then you said:
“when he opposed same-sex marriage, he did so for strategic reasons”
so basically his personal views never flip flopped(in his own mind), but the views he led everyone to believe he held on same sex marriage flip flopped back & forth for strategic reasons? lol-
ummm…and please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but I see a bit of a contradiction with this comment & you thinking his views on gay marriage never flip flopped. no disrespect tho.
In reality, I’m in no place to judge what faith he professes, but his actions & views on marriage, abortion & many gov’t policies don’t align with my own personal views as a Christian. That’s all I’m sayin’ nuthin against him or any Democrats, it’s just a different view.
Perhaps I should’ve been more succinct. I meant his *personal* views never flip flopped. He’s been in favor of same-sex marriage since 1996. And echoed a similar sentiment in 2004, but for whatever reason because of the position he was in, couldn’t let the personal affect the political. So while lamenting that he was in favor of it, he still had to oppose, at that point in time.
@niksmit, Kema, Justmetheguy, KENYADIGIT, Asiyah, Medium Meech
Ya’ll got me on my faulty contradiction! & ya’ll are right: him saying America is not a Christian nation does not make him any less of a Christian. It did raise an eyebrow for me being that he was saying this to a majority muslim nation, but still it was not solid argument.
Lots of people, including people oversees, perceive America as a Christian nation. It’s not a sign of faulty intelligence or anything like that. It’s like people believing Syria, Libya, Iraq, Egypt, and other countries in the Middle East are ruled by Islamic shariah. It may influence certain laws, but they are not shariah-compliant. We all hear or read fault information sometimes. If I seemed rude or condescending, I apologize!
Asiyah I don’t think you sounded rude or condescending at all!!! I secretly (now, not so secretly lol) enjoy the ratchetness that enues when ppl address topics with passion, but i digress….
What I was trying to express, but didn’t quite articulate fully, was that it raised an eyebrow for me because I felt Obama (knowing America is viewed as a Christian nation by most of the world, as you said) was doing more of his flip flopping, trying to pander to a mostly muslim nation. But I had to admit it was not a solid argument to say his statement had anything to do with his personal believes.
Ah! I see what you mean.
Liberals are smarter because they have to be. They are always pushing for change. Doesn’t mean they make good decision, but it is in their nature not to be like conservatives and maintain the status quo.
This kinda sounds like a backhanded compliment towards liberals…
I think I figured out Mitt’s 5-Point Plan:
1. Eliminate
2. You
3. Broke
4. Arse
5. Niccas
Meanwhile, Obam tried to make us all broke. Where’s the jobs, Barry?
What you talking bout Willis?!?!? The jobs are in Mitt’s state, even he keep referring to them and how great it is there…courtesy of Barry
BTW: good to see you on here. I was wondering if you got kidnapped.
Nah, I’m good. I had some stuff to straighten out at the job. It mostly involved paperwork and/or the lack thereof. Basically, the person who was in charge of my paperwork quit before I could fill anything out and the person who took over had me fill out the paperwork, but forgot to put me on the payroll and the insurance.
D’Oh!!!! *in Homer Simpson’s voice*
Here are some m’fn charts for ya.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/04/793041/charts-yes-were-better-off-than-we-were-four-years-ago/
You know…that link could hold more weight were it not for the fact that it came from an ultra-liberal source. Carry on…
Numbers are numbers. But yeah, I heard the truth definately has a liberal bias.
Got any other sources besides an ultra liberal website? I’ll wait…
It’s funny you say that. A friend of mine worked for the census & they continually fired & rehired them. She explained that each time they were rehired it was tracked as a new job that Obama helped create to stimulate the economy.
Well damn, talk about adding insult to injury, LMAO!
Other issues aside, Romney does have a history of success with the specific need to create jobs. If he wins, I bet that’s what it will come down to.
If he doesn’t ship them to China first…that seems like the go-to plan for these Fortune 500 Politicians, LOL!
LOL, but in order for them to be “shipped” anywhere, they have to exist right? I wonder if any of the deductions and credits Romney plans to cut are related to job creation.
It all depends on whether or not he plans on taxing the corporation that funded his campaign…
It’s hard to describe what Romney’s role in business was, but PE isn’t about “creating jobs” at all.
I am uninformed. Please tell me about/link me to Romney’s “history of success with the specific need to create jobs.”
Since I had no desire to scour the web for than a couple minutes, there are many conflicting views of his jobs count (many I was not aware of).
There are also many about his time as an investor. There is debate about whether the jobs created by his investments should be attributed proportionally and whether his guidance matter more than his investments in companies that added tens of thousands of jobs.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/romneys-jobs-record-is-best-or-worst/.
http://www.american.com/archive/2012/january/how-many-jobs-did-romney-create-at-bain
And let me add this, I’m ain’t finna be posting links for every comment I throw out there niksmit.
I won’t be requesting them on every comment either. I was just curious as to where your statement came from.
“Job creation” is such an interesting phrase.
Based on your first link, I’m not convinced Romney’s That Dude in job creation, whatever it really is.
In the end though, I’m don’t look to the office of the president for job creation.
I really need to get my hands on some kind of idiot’s guide to the relationship between government policies and economics. The media is always on It’s the Economy Stupid during campaign season and a smartypants told me once that it shouldn’t be about that at all.
BOL!!
Bush was born with money. Romney was born with money.
Both had parents who were politicians. And their parents parent also came from money.
Successful my ass. It can’t be that hard to be where you are when everything was literally handed to you.
Smart for the win everyday. Because smart will turn 25 cents into a dollar. Smart will use lemons to make lemonade.
I don’t think being born with money qualifies them as successful. I also don’t think being born with money means they shouldn’t receive any credit for their own achievements. No one can help being born rich. (poor them, right?) Smart is potential. Success is fulfilled potential.
I don’t care for the smart vs. successful premise. To be successful one has to have some level of intelligence- at least to align oneself with the right people and take advantage of opportunities.
Not always. Not even close to always. I’m living proof of this. There have to be a ton of other factors that line up for you as well. Having successful parents is one of them. Has anyone else read Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers”? Pop psuedo science, I know, but he makes excellent points about the American myth that anyone who works hard and is clever enough will achieve blah blah blah. It doesn’t usually turn out that way. There are always a few that make it through and give us AWESOME stories to tell but usually your environment and your circumstances play a waaaaaaay bigger role in your success than your intelligence or drive does.
True but if you look at the bigger picture… I’d much rather be someone who could truck it through to a grad degree than someone who dropped out of high school. While getting a degree is no guarantee of being smart… it at least gives you *access* to much more information than being on your own. And the lifetime average income differential shows how much of a difference it makes.
As for my own political leanings, I am very left. If I had to con a term it would be cosmopolitan Black liberation socialist. Which I guess is a mix of Thomas Sankara, Malcolm, and maybe Henry Braverman.
SANKARA!
Yes, lawwwd!
And this is why I fuxx with chu… Right on.
So in other words, you want to force people to do what you think is the right thing for their own good, then hope you get assasinated before people see what a power-hungry knucklehead you truly are.
People like you scare me, because there’s a chance of someone with those beliefs getting elected, then rounding people up into concentration camps because those people didn’t direct agree with the leader. It’s good to know there are future despots among the VSBs.
I laughed. I wouldn’t do camps or mass executions.
That tinfoil hat is a little too snug on your head. Cutting off circulation to your brain.
Nothing about what he said suggests totalitarianism. At all.
So how would you pull off such revolutionary change without resorting to concentration camps or Fabian-style socialism?
Decades worth of work on Caribbean islands. It definitely wouldn’t be possible to have anything more than a small community scale of what I support within the United States. It’ll be easier, and nonviolent, to discuss and merge and evaluate change with people within the Caribbean due to their already uneasy living conditions brought to you by their steadfast desire to be capitalist.
OK. That at least makes sense. It’s just that the info I got on Sankara was…less than favorable, to say the least.
We already socialize things everyday. Through the democratic process…
Public schools… socialism.
Public parks…socialism.
Community centers… socialism.
Libraries… socialism.
Medicaid… socialism.
Medicare… socialism.
Social security & disability… socialism.
Unemployment insurance… socialism.
Etc., etc., etc.
Create good ideas… sell them… and people will vote for them… and sadly, eventually take them for granted.
Ie. The old tea party ladies that say, “Get your gubment hands off my Medicare!”
For more examples of socialism:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/29/1078852/-75-Ways-Socialism-Has-Improved-America
I’m in full agreement with this list, save for the community centers, since there plenty of community centers outside the aegis of government. Oh, and I’m in 1000% full account with you on the “hands off my Medicare” crowd. What a bunch of clowns. They make small government types like myself look like idiots.
I’ve never seen a privatized community center that allows you to come in and use a pool for free, a basketball court for free, a Zumba class for free, or provide free afterschool programs.
If you are counting ‘Sunday school’ and other religious stuff… well.. that is cheating because you generally have to be a member of said church and are expected to tithe and/or are indoctrinated into the religion in exchange for use of their facilities.
No they just allow for idiot hyper-liberal ppl to confuse u for one and the same smh
You are just like those people. You take for granted all that government does for you.
Street cleaning, sewers, water utility companies, schools, student loans…
You say you want small government but you never specify what needs to be cut. You are a dunce.
lmao! U want me to engage in your silly adolescent games but I don’t abuse children. Go read a book and let the grownups talk sweetie. You’re embarassing yourself in front of the lurkers lol
As many of you probably know at this point, I am a conservative. I’ve made it no secret and I don’t try to downplay it either. You’ll see it more often if Very Smart Brothas can stop with all these damn love and relationship posts, LMAO! Can I get more political and social commentary, please? I mean, this blog is called Very SMART Brothas, no?
To address whether or not liberals are smarter than conservatives, this will answer the question. As a person who has dear friends who are of both political leanings, one thing I noticed is that liberals prefer to be entertained by mindless drivel (See: the ratings for CBS and Fox), while conservatives happen to be entertained by mindless chatter (See: Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck). Does that mean one is smarter than the other? Not really- it’s more along the lines of different people being into different things. That’s all it is.
“If given the choice between being the most successful person in the room and the smartest person in the room, while I’m sure most conservatives would choose the former, I’m just as certain that the majority of liberals would probably choose the latter.”
I am what is considered liberal. But I’d much rather be the most successful person in the room. Success is sexier; opens more closed doors and boxes. Success is the oil industry. Smart would have been the electric cars of 100 years ago, but that ain’t sexy. Smart only matters to people when it is coupled with (often times not favorable) traits that we think lead to speed and success, otherwise it is ignorable. Success trumps intelligence. History and prestigious institutions are littered with the names and conquests of successful (and some times dumb) men.
On the road to riches and diamond rings real dummies do big things.
“On the road to riches and diamond rings real dummies do big things.”
Someone’s been listening to “In My Lifetime, Vol. 1″ this morning *snickers*.
I see you!
Haha.
“In My life Time?” Naw homie. “Life After Death.” Good effort though.
I was close- you know how Jay likes to swipe damn near every line from Biggie, LMAO!
Banging my toast off the roof drinking 90 proof in spring….
PA I prefer the Vol. 1.. In My Lifetime version.
Same here!
“If given the choice between being the most successful person in the room and the smartest person in the room, while I’m sure most conservatives would choose the former, I’m just as certain that the majority of liberals would probably choose the latter.”
LOL, what?
Who gives a cr@p how smart you are if you have nothing to show for it other than snark? I’ll be the successful dumb b*tch. I’ll have plenty of money to buy books and free time to get more learning…
I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion. One could argue that Republicans – who proclaim to believe in individual responsibility and a love for capitalism- love the act of competition thus they are drawn to reality competition shows and individual sports like golf and racing. One could also argue that Democrats enjoy smug rebellion against the status quo and thus would enjoy sarcasm and “adult” cartoons that often make fun of conservative beliefs. Neither of these conclusions indicate a level of intelligence IMO.
I think everybody like college sports, no? (Although I recall Rush L. saying he didn’t like to watch amateurs, he only wanted to see the best athletes if he was going to spend time watching. Made sense at the time.)
“Who gives a cr@p how smart you are if you have nothing to show for it other than snark? I’ll be the successful dumb b*tch. I’ll have plenty of money to buy books and free time to get more learning…”
You know WIP, TLC had this same mindset over fifteen years ago…and look what happened to them *snickers*.
That’s that hood logic, LMAO!!!!
LOL, it is? Well I’m from the hood so…
IJS, being smart for the sake of it seems pointless. I saw a dude on Hoarders who was a certified genius living in trash. Making success last does require some intelligence- or a trustworthy accountant.
I’ll say accountant, because if it weren’t for them a lot of entertainers would be broke by the time the year ended, LMAO!
Since I’m a rural, black southerner I call myself a moderate liberal who tends to leave his emotions in his other pants from time to time. I’d rather be the person in the room who is kind of smart with a nice amount of success. I’d probably leave the room when I find out they don’t have beer anyway. Like Malik said many liberals like to look smart. I see conservatives favoring looking tough. Neither seems to work in the real world due to the fact that ideas should never trump the people.
I agree. There are Liberals that are total frauds, elitist, and nut jobs like conservatives. My issue with conservatives is that they don’t have an honest debate based on facts that cheats the whole discourse. I’ve heard great ideas from Conservatives but they never get surface. Right now it seems like the age of the crazies. It’s funny how Eisenhower spoke on this and now it’s true.
The middle is a waste land, Humble. Extremism bothers me because each side gets tunnel vision where they try to out extreme each other. I also agree with members of the GOP having good ideas but unfortunately they get shouted down or out voted.
Ike was right about a few things. The military industrial complex breaking the budget is one of them. The constant need to build and sell planes and technology that we can’t afford is a problem with both parties. (For instance Congress wants the Army and Marines to purchase more tanks when they have tanks they aren’t using at the moment. The services are like “We’re good.” and Congress is like “No, you aren’t.”) Why? Jobs creation sold to them by lobbyist. Neither Obama or Romney would speak out against this.
I swear Obama has hit on that in both of the Presidential debates. His campaign likes the talking point of Romney wanting to give the military $2B it doesn’t want or need and how that contradicts his ticket’s supposed commitment to fiscal conservatism.
Thank you Wu! Neither the Dems nor Rebpublicans will talk about the military industrial complex or the prison industrial complex, but we’re supposed to blindly support Democrats because they are more willing to put band-aids on a surgical wound? FOH wit dat
“The constant need to build and sell planes and technology that we can’t afford is a problem with both parties.”
They don’t believe in “can’t afford” just print more money and pay it back with interest. Inflation be d@mned.
“Jobs creation sold to them by lobbyist. Neither Obama or Romney would speak out against this.”
Cause they know to shutup, play ball (ie perpetuate the status quo), and re-direct people’s focus. Otherwise more and more people would be critical of their candidate regardless of party affiliation smh
” Neither seems to work in the real world due to the fact that ideas should never trump the people.”
+1!
Are liberals smarter than conservatives? Ummm, yes. By most any measure, IQ, education, eyeball test, liberals are smarter than conservatives. Doesn’t mean that every liberal is smarter than every conservative, but the trend is too large to ignore. It isn’t just momentum either, even if you control for socioeconomics, smarter kids are more likely to grow up and identify as liberal. It really is that simple.
Empirical data aside, come on!!!!1… Which group is has members more likely to be racist, sexist, not believe in evolution, not believe in global warming or would want to determine legislation based on their religious beliefs?
I have an idea why this is, but that’s another post.
Why are you torturing me with your bacon avatar!? You are making me want bacon and I have no bacon! Why, why, why?! Lol
Because everybody else was making me hungry with their food avatars and I wanted revenge. Plus most of the stuff was sweet so I needed some savory to counterbalance it.
But why bacon though dude… why!? **stomach growls**
Plus, it’s bacon cooked just the way I like it. I’ve also learned that you’re immune to the effects if it is your avitar with the food.
” I’ve also learned that you’re immune to the effects if it is your avitar with the food.”
you can speak for yourself on that one!
Preach Meech.
What’s always interesting to me is that if you go to one democrat, republican, conservative, libertarian, and all the other categories and ideologies, no one will say the same thing. When you ask them their beliefs, it won’t be consistent. It also kind of bothers me how so many people are just throwing out numbers and imaginary studies to prove their point. Please send me a link that says Black Republicans are ‘less intelligent’. Have you done ANY research that gives you authority to call someone ‘stupid’? Like seriously, too many people are commenting and throwing out ‘statistics’ that are assumptions but if I tell you to bring a link, I highly doubt anything of substance will appear. As intelligent as anyone can be, I believe respect is very important. I disagree with too many of Romney and his posse’s beliefs but the last thing I will do is call him stupid or call Black Republicans stupid. It only makes you, the oh so educated intellectual, look classless and stupid.
Anyway, that study was pretty interesting. I wonder how large the sample was for tivo…And I agree to a degree. I feel like economic status has a lot to deal with things like intelligence and success. One may be less successful, but want to appear to be far more successful which may give them the credibility of also being intelligent at the same time. In my eyes they go hand in hand for some. I remember taking a class solely on persuasion and perception. So I think it’s def more complicated than just success and intelligence because to some intelligence can give off the impression that a person is very successful.
I don’t have anything on the differing intelligences of black conservatives and black liberals but in terms of real scientific commentary on the subject at hand…
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608001049
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
I remember more studies from school but I don’t have access to Jstor or LexisNexis now.
“I disagree with too many of Romney and his posse’s beliefs but the last thing I will do is call him stupid or call Black Republicans stupid. It only makes you, the oh so educated intellectual, look classless and stupid.”
Lol. Oh my, that’s funny.
I’m not sure if I agree with conservatives being less intelligent. There are two types of conservatives. They are the poor/working/middle class conservatives and the wealthy conservatives. The wealthy conservatives are not less intelligent. Actually they are very cunning and intelligent. The poor/working/middle class conservatives are the ones that may be less intelligent. They are less intelligent because
1. To be conservative is to conserve. For wealthy conservatives it’s conserving wealth and power. They conserve their wealth and power by misinforming, scaring, and manipulating poor/working/middle class conservatives. Wealthy conservatives lie so much because they know the majority of people will not buy their philosophy because it does not benefit them. They need to keep the majority of their constituents (poor/middle/ working class whites) scared and ignorant to maintain their wealth and power.
2. They struggle with nuance and ambiguity. Everything has to be in black or white
3. Fear. They are scared someone is always going to take something from them It leads conservatives to be in constant fear of losing what they have. This fear comes from being in a position where what you have is based on taking without giving. There is enough for everyone. There isn’t enough for everyone when one side is bent on taking everything and leaving you with nothing. If you are left with nothing thats still too much to them.
There are other characteristics of conservatives that may have an affect on the intelligence issue but I’m not sure. They are
1. Selfishness to the degree of being a sociopath
2. They believe if something doesn’t make someone money or generate monetary wealth it’s worthless. Either you can turn it into monetary gain or not. If you can’t profit off of it it’s no good to anyone. This applies to the arts, human beings, and natural resources.
3. Lack of empathy until it happens to them
4. love of power and authority. As much as they hate the government they have orgasmic levels of love for CEOs, Police, and Military.
I could articulate this better but it would be much longer. I have more but it would become an Obsidian comment. Lol. I’ll stop here.
Through all my comment I didn’t specify it but I’m talking about the extreme side of Conservatives. AKA the crazies. I don’t agree with their politics but Eisenhower and Theodore Roosevelt were conservatives that didn’t fit into what I typed above. The extreme of anything is not good. Liberal or conservative.
Teddy actually left the G.O.P at one point also.
I approve this message.
Very timely and poignant point, I concur with the final assessment. From personal experience liberals lean more to the cerebral side or demonstrations of brain power. While conservatives tend to lean towards not having anything to prove. I think it comes down to your desire to be a people pleaser and what value you place on fiscal security versus Academic credentials. When asked that final question I’d rather have my kids college paid for than be a professor at the college.
Liberals *are* actually smarter and more open-minded and less risk averse than conservatives.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608001049
http://jca.sagepub.com/content/11/2/205.abstract
The The National Longitutinal Study (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.
No wonder people who actually are smarter look smarter. D’oh.
do you define success as money, as freedom, as peace of mind?
do you define intelligence by knowledge, by originality, by creativity, by ingenuity?
what do labels means when they have no fixed meaning?
why do people label themselves when a word is equal parts blessing and curse?
why create false heirarchies and ask people to measure themselves according to this?
to me, this premise is like try outs for the Oppressor Olympics, self-appointed self-importance organized around dualistic political groupthink. long live the everyone who rejects labels, generalizations, and the divide and conquer technique.
Exactly, there are people who are extremely smart but also extremely altruistic so accumulating money isn’t their goal in life.
These words do have fixed meanings. They are found in a dictionary, subsequent colloquial bastardizations of said meanings notwithstanding.
with all due respect, i am not a concrete thinker and i do not believe in Universal Truth or Absolutes. i do not believe words have fixed meanings. i believe words are given new life in each person in which they exist. if you study linguistics you will discover the evolution of language parallels the evolution of biology, as well as civilization, thus the dictionary must be updated regularly. this goes against the very idea that information can be “fixed.”
the applications of words as labels is not something that abides by the strictures of Mirriam-Webster. words do not exist without a social and personal construct, no matter how much we try to force them to be “independent” of this.
success and intelligence are among a host of words that have a wide array of meanings depending on speaker and their milieu. all i mean to suggest in this post is that we question labels and consider the larger implications of what it means to use them.
If we allow each person to come up with their own personal definition of every abstract noun, then language itself loses about a quarter of its practicality. Unless you seriously want people to start conversations with, “For the purposes of this conversation, ‘intelligence’ is defined as…” That won’t work. At least not widely. When the specific cultural or personal context is unknown, it’s best to abide by a dictionary.
It’s great that language evolves along with people, as long as isn’t different for EACH person, as you seem to suggest. Language is used to efficiently communicate ideas and it starts to fail if people have to start from scratch every other sentence.
I suppose I should apologize. When I said, that words have “fixed” meanings, I didn’t mean that they have “static” meanings. I meant “fixed” in the sense that the text of their definitions are “fixed” on a page, as opposed to existing fluidly and independently in the minds of each individual. Of course the meanings of words change with time, but they should mean the same thing to every speaker the language, within a certain space and time.
I think conservatives aren’t necessarily dumber they simply see things as their way and their way only. They are very close minded and stubborn in that regard, if they knew better they do better but they are usually well off so why bother? Liberals are a lot more open minded, they rarely accept the status quo always looking to change things. They are ever expanding in knowledge in interests while conservatives do enough to get a level of comfort and chill
Maybe the Fox News conservatives are a bit more low information. But I have broken bread with some smart conservatives. My beef is that many of them are cowards. So partisan that they won’t speak out against the big money or the right wing nut jobs that run the party.
Their way of life is changing, the paradigm is shifting from the white colonial strangle hold on the earth, and it scares them to death. They fear that the black and brown people of the world wants payback for a 1000 years worth western civilization / white tyranny. In reality black and brown folks just want to live their lives out in peace and I’m ranting aren’t I ?
I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social moderate (Yay reproductive rights). I enjoy all the shows that, supposedly, only pinko commie liberals are supposed to like. Mad Men is my everything. I’ve met a lot of incredibly intelligent, funny conservatives. I’ve also met a lot of liberals who are absolute dipsh*ts. They exist on both sides. I think the whole idea of conservative = dumb and liberal = smart comes more from the representatives of the two groups that are in the media and the spotlight. There is definintely an anti-intellectual vein in many of the conservative media’s and politicians’ talking points. However, I think your average conservative is no more anti-book learnin’ than your average liberal. But the mouth pieces that see themselves as spokespeople for conservatism (I’m looking at you, Rush, you fat piece of sh*t) definitely do the rest of us a disservice.
this is one of those “when am I suppose to give a f!ck” type studies.
I like (or liked) 30 Rock, Parks and Recs, i also love reality tv, college and professional sports, and whole host of ridiculous ratchet and informative tv. programmiing.
this study is meant to be devisive.
i know a whole lot of dumb mofo’s that dont watch tv, or who watch PBS and the documentary channel all day long and aint got the common sense God gave a gnat.
meanwhile lets be real parks and recs and 30 rock are not high brow comedies.. LOL i mean really you dont have to work to understand or get those jokes
and if feel this study validates the intelligence you dont often get credit for…
your probably stupid.
Survey: “Would you rather be (a) the wealthiest or (b) the smartest person in the room?”
Me: “If I’m the wealthiest, can I still be almost as smart as the smartest person, and vice versa?”
Survey: “So that’s “b”, then?”
Me: “…yeah.”
If I’m the wealthiest I can hire the smartest person to work for me…hopefully they won’t rob me.
Champ, this is a false dichotomy.
Conservatives are successful? The elected officials? The corporate overlords? Or the average GOP voter?
I went to the Glenn Beck rally to see what kind of people would show up. Successful is not what I would classify the ‘People of Walmart’ that showed up.
There is a reason that red states have the most people on welfare, the most people receiving food stamps, the worst schools, the most teen pregnancy, the worst job outlooks. All of the conservative policies lead to such denigration of the quality of life that even when they eliminate all corporate taxes… corporations *still* don’t want to set up base camp in states like Alabama or Mississippi because there is no quality of life.
Solid blue states on the other hand… like California and New York have the largest economies in the WORLD… not just the U.S. And every year it is a huge transfer of wealth from successful lefty-liberals with their elitist college education to the Bible Belt ignoramuses who vote based on fear of a Black President who will come to take away their guns.
Irony at its finest.
You’re half right. Mississsippi is a complete craphole in terms of jobs. Alabama, on the other hand, is actually doing well with jobs. One of the major changes in the economy that’s going unnoticed is how certain Southern states like Alabama and Tennessee are cleaning up in terms of manufacturing jobs. If current trends continue, we might get to a point where Alabama actually manufactures more cars than Detroit, which would be shocking.
Not knocking the cultural thing. I’m just injecting some info.
You’re right, Todd. But, those Southern States are gaining manufacturing jobs because they are anti-union States. And anti-union States have lower wages and less job security. So in the end this is a win for corporate America but another loss for workers.
Blue States have strong unions and better pay and job security.
Compare the GDP of Alabama to NY, CA, or IL. That’ll be the day. Just because they open one or two factories does not make ‘the south rise again’.
So far, we got Kia, Toyota, Mercedes Benz, and all of their suppliers stretched out all over Alabama.
Gainin’ on ya!!!! *in Parliament’s voice*
And you have to have the U.S. Military doctors and dentists come and set up tent cities in rural areas for several days to give basic healthcare because there are no doctors for miles and miles. And you see all these toothless rednecks and po’ black folk lining up for their free healthcare to get basic care… Red States. Gotta love ‘em.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/09/military-stop-brings-health-care-to-rural-alabama/
There are no doctors in rural areas for miles and miles? You’re not from down here, are you?
Why is it so important to be smarter than everybody else, what type of satisfaction does that bring?
Right! That’s what I was thinking Breazy Hale. It’s one of the reasons Democrats annoy me almost as much as Republicans. I almost feel like the snobby condescending demeanor so many Democrats take on makes the aggressive, paranoid, and irrational Conservatives worst. They perpetuate defensiveness by insulting people’s intelligence religiously. Neither side seems to be about unity and civil discussion. I do admit that the Republicans are worse than the Dems about this, but acting like (and then flat out stating that) you’re smarter than others is ironically not smart at all…if your goal is cooperation and progressive problem-solving that is.
I’m sorry but anyone who says the world is only 6,000 years old… and Jesus rode on a dinosaur… then goes to the BP station to fill their car with natural gas deserves to be mocked.
Anyone who’s tried to discuss a disagreement in theory/opinion with SweetSass is totally justified in being batsh!t crazy by osmosis.
When has mocking someone been persuasive? Even when it caused them to concede a point, when has it encouraged cooperation or unity?
Some people cannot be unified and when they hold diametrically opposed ideas it is a foolhardy task to try.
Thankfully, politics is more about getting your friendlies to the polls than it is about changing minds.
So I’m going to go mobilize my pippoz and energize the Democratic base.
That is how elections are won.
I’ve been a GOTV campaign director twice. Won in my both districts twice. I know how elections work.
“I’ve been a GOTV campaign director twice. Won in my both districts twice. I know how elections work.”
I would give you a cookie for that but I already ate it.
“Some people cannot be unified and when they hold diametrically opposed ideas it is a foolhardy task to try.”
Some people can’t. However your approach is to alienate those who disagree with you about ANY D@MN thing, this isn’t limited to politics either. Even if they agree with you about 90% of the important issues. Terrible strategy. Plus define “diametrically opposed”, you constantly sh!t on Libertarianism while simultaneously making it obvious that you don’t fully understand what it means or why its supporters think it’s necessary. And rather than asking questions and GENUINELY trying to understand (rather than just getting a quote from that person so you can rebut, insult, and assume an extreme based on their words) you ASSUME ASSUME ASSUME and take everything we say and turn it into an extreme. Somalia really? You’re no better than the extremist Republicans who claim that Obama is a Communist for wanting to give poor and middle class people a better shot at wealth and opportunity. Like you are EXACTLY the same as them when it comes to people disagreeing with you AT ALL. It’s very telling of your personality that you can’t see how similar you are to them though. Irony at its finest
Fine, start spitting the Libertarian policy platform points and I’ll poke so many holes in them you’ll think Rambo came through while on steroids.
Just hold your breath and keep waitin…
Imma have to start swingin for my eboo! Yall are out of hand!
And all that’s left is the smokign gun.
“being batsh!t crazy by osmosis.”
I hear angels coming for my soul!!! I’m in TEARSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!
osmosis…I keep seeing that sorry ass potato I took to school that day! Oh my..THIS definitely made my day!
I found that for some proving their intelligence (or lack thereof) is more important than cooperation or a resolution. That’s my beef with both parties, rather than unite (while including the citizens) the country for the greater good, they would rather prove which parties ideas are better. Maybe I’m the dumb one because I don’t see the sense in that.
Nah, Breazy we see eye to eye on this one. I can’t tolerate people who approach serious discussions more concerned about “proving they’re right” than cooperating and finding a pragmatic solution. That leads to people accusing, exaggerating, insulting, and keeping a stubborn and close-minded approach. And it’s NOT just conservatives either. Between this message board and my facebook newsfeed I can definitively say that Democrats are almost as bad. You can see it in the comments section here at VSB EVERYDAY including today, but today it’s really only one commenter doing it. If it was a gender discussion or any discussion where there was more disagreement you’d see it from SEVERAL commenters, both male and female. It’s sickening and depressing
for a person like myself, who has no self-esteem, intelligence is everything.
wow, that’s honest girl
it’s true, though. a lot of it is all ego. and that’s a part of the problem I have with liberals. that hubris is a turn-off.
you know, that’s a good point. A lot of the whole “i’m smarter than you” bravodo is just a wall of ego people choose to hide behind to mask insecurities. I respect u being real about yours!
+1 Sincere4life- You’re a wise one. I witness it on this very site almost everyday too
Same here…and they are the same ones who do the most talking and/or insulting and passing it off as “debate” *snickers*.
my personal life aside, liberals feel the need to have this hubris and bravado because they do not have party unit. They wouldn’t feel the need to overcompensate by being pedantic if they had a stronger sense of in-party unity. This is why seeming intelligent is crucial to them. They can say, “hey, we’re not solidly united, but at least we’re smarter!” I have to give it up to the Republican party for that. Then again, the Republican party is not as diverse as the Democratic party (and I’m not just talking in terms of diversity) so there is bound to be more unity within a homogenous group.
Agreed. Intelligence is how I got my self-esteem, and all I have to build it up. It is a false ego, but I’d rather be right and look stupid than be wrong and look great.
brilliant question ..
in my experience, the idea that one is smarter is predicated on the idea that one is “right” which forces a false hierarchy, which is (to me) the power play of the small mind.
i’ve also experienced the reverse, with people seeking other people to think for them, by exalting them as “smarter” thus, they are “leaders” thus the followers may choose give up responsibility for their actions by saying their choices are based on someone else’s ideas.
we might do better to think for ourselves and not allow other people to define intelligence for us. we also might do better not to seek superiority. if only because doing so is always advertising the inner void.
“Why is it so important to be smarter than everybody else, what type of satisfaction does that bring?”
Hmmmmm. Excellent, thoughtful, immensely important question. Im sure excellent answers are coming.
But isn’t intelligence open for interptation? Just because someone may know more about foreign policy than me doesn’t make them intelligent, it just means they know more than me on a particular subject, especially if they can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.
Not certain I agree here Champ. Reason being, there are a lot of very smart people who are financially successful who are also liberals. I worked at a major ivy league medical center that is historically known for its liberal views. You’d think just the opposite because it’s a private institution- hell, I did for a very long time- but, they have a reputation for being very liberal on political matters. Most of the folks that work in the higher academic areas are paid well and have tons of benefits. One might refer to them as financially successful.
I don’t necessarily think ‘smarts’ is a quantifying feature to being liberal. More so, I think it is the ability to see how policies affect humanity. It seems to me that most liberals are thinkers v. just being smart. They actually think things through and derive a hypothesis that is realistic in terms of the utilitarian idealist. Conservatives, not so much.
Liberals just usually seem smart. Anyone can do that. Some are actually intelligent but not enough. They co-sign everything but offer nothing so I can’t hang with them.
I don’t believe all conservatives are dumb, however I believe many to be quite ignorant. Not ignorant like jerks or racists, but ignorant to facts that affect other people BESIDES THEM.
Yall already said this stuff so it is nothing new. But that’s what bothers me about people. Few people see equality in bullshyte, and just assume what they affliate with is completely in the right. As long as we are human beings, we will never be 100% right, we will always make mistakes, we will always lie, misconscrue our intentions and play armchair general when it comes to the hard decisions. Ergo, I don’t understand what it would take for the American public in general to start seeing presidential debates, elections, or the idea of the federal government in general as the farce it is.
As for the debate, I want to murder Romney in the face with a dull butter knife for having the audacity to say gas in Nassau County was $1.86 before Barack took over. Maaaaaan any NYer knows that’s worthy of Taliban strike for making lies like that.
” Ergo, I don’t understand what it would take for the American public in general to start seeing presidential debates, elections, or the idea of the federal government in general as the farce it is.”
I’m still wondering what it’ll take myself smh
We might never know. Or something so radical would be done that there would be nothing to say at all.
[kanye shrug] who knows [/kanye shrug]
if GWB stealing the presidency in 2000 didn’t do the trick, nothing will. this country just rolled over like, ain’t no thang cowboy.
this country is built on smoke coming out of the backroom deals and even when you show it to the people, they will hide their heads in the sand.
denial is easier, especially in this country built on the first amendment right to lie.
“if GWB stealing the presidency in 2000 didn’t do the trick, nothing will. this country just rolled over like, ain’t no thang cowboy.”
WORD!!!!
Denial helps when you’re too stupid to understand what you’re looking at. Which is how most people react to politics. It is way too complicated for most folks and should you get the absolute truth, you realize reality is a lot more bleaker than you ever thought it could be.
Watching Boss has taught me so much.
Esa I gotta say u stole my heart today girl. I mean that. And Sincere4Life too. Y’all held it down. And Rewind sealed his status as my brother from another motha. Speak on it. It’s too complicated and simultaneously bleek/depressing as it stands right now, so u get a LOT of denial or trivializing of VERY relevant issues. Smh
@JMTG… you should go to the Middle East. That is ALL they do there. Eat, sleep, drink politics it seems. I didn’t meet a single soul, male or female, who were not well versed in the political happenings all across the world. It simply amazed me. And, then they’d just dismiss the entire conversation and continue on with life in the moment. It’s a whole different philosophy of life there compared with the States. For all the opinions of how backwards Middle Easterners are sometimes viewed, a lot are very in tune with little known political affiliations and back door happenings.
Almost every Arab I know majored in Pol. Sci.
Word, I believe u. That’s really interesting and admirable. I’m scared to go over there cause it seems so intense but I realize this is just a prejudice and I could be completely shocked when i get there.
The appearance of being smart is easier than actually being smart.
While this is true, the difficulty in seeming smart is the art of keeping up appearances. Eventually you’ll expose yourself.
Mitt Romney was telling the truth for January 20, 2009. But Barack Obama had the right comeback in mentioning why. Mitt wasn’t lying as much as hiding the context.
Todd….when the hell has gas been BELOW $2 in NY since 05? Because I don’t remember that at all. If I remember correctly in November of 08, gas was like $3.75 in Brooklyn, so it had to be as high or higher in Nassau County.
Notice the date though. I specifically remember the gas price on that date because I was running back and forth between Jersey and Nassau County trying to get a job put together. So Mitt Romney was right on the specific fact, but wrong on the context.
Are you sure? I sincerely don’t remember gas being under $2 for almost 7 years in NY. I could be wrong, but I just don’t.
“I don’t understand what it would take for the American public in general to start seeing presidential debates, elections, or the idea of the federal government in general as the farce it is”
And a farce it is, smh. Sometimes it feels like living in America is like being a civilian in a marvel Comic Strip.
Seriously…that’s a good analogy. We are just bystanders watching these super powered beings do whatever we want, and all we can do is wait for some shyte to go down.
I don’t fit in the category of Democrat or Republican, which is what you are using as your definition of liberal and conservative, Champ. I read John Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice as Fairness” as well as Imam Ali’s letter to Malik upon the former becoming governor of a nation somewhere in North Africa (I forget where, and the letter isn’t in front of me for me to be more specific, so I apologize for being vague). I was strongly influenced by both of these readings and I can attest to them pretty much changing my politics. While I have never read the “Communist Manifesto,” my father, like many Latin Americans, was a communist in the 70s (he no longer is), so I am also influenced by socialism/communism to a small extent (though not as much before). While I am not a nationalist or a fan of that, I am also influenced to an extent by Simon Bolivar and Gamal Abdel Nasser. As you can see, my political beliefs are pretty complex. FYI, I voted for Nader in 2008 and will most likely vote for him for the rest of my life if he continues running. I guess that makes me a social democrat, or a left-wing liberal. I don’t like labels, so I just call it my politics.
I do not find one group more intelligent than the other. I’ve never really thought about it in terms of intelligence mostly because I don’t see much of a distinction between liberals and conservatives when it comes to certain issues such as foreign policy, an issue that is of extreme importance to me just like domestic issues are because I am an immigrant. Both groups have a history of intervening in foreign affairs, especially in Latin America, which is where I’m from. See the Monroe Doctrine, the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, and Roosevelt’s Giant Stick. Both groups have a history of supporting cruel dictators in Latin America and elsewhere and only removing cruel dictators that didn’t fit into their agenda (“he may be a son of a b*tch, but he’s OUR son of a b*tch”) so I really don’t see much distinction between them when it comes to foreign policy. And let’s not even get into Israel.
I know that when it pertains to domestic issues, they are different, but they are so busy with emotional rhetoric that borders on propaganda that they lose me. Maybe one day I’ll figure out who to vote for. Maybe one day I’ll cave and vote between the lesser of two evils. But until then, nah, I’m good. Until we have more third party candidates I will not participate. Not that it matters anyway. Our votes don’t really count.
thats pretty cool. your dad was a communist. and youre an immigrant? bonus points for two firsts. wait. im pretty sure that one guy who couldnt read english was an immigrant. he could only read arabic. hm. well, ive never knowingly encountered an immigrant at least. pretty cool backstory.
I don’t understand what you were saying about the one guy who couldn’t read English and how that is relevant, but I’ll take the bonus points.
unless you were referring to Ralph Nader, who not only was born here, but is a Princeton University graduate and the author of “Unsafe at any speed,” the reason why we have seat belts. I’m sure he speaks English.
“I don’t fit in the category of Democrat or Republican…”
Yep, me too. I refuse to pledge my allegiance to a political party. Plus, I have a lot of socialist leanings that aren’t really represented in either party.
Thank you SO much for this post Asiyah. Americans in general don’t give a sh!t or know sh!t about foreign policy moves their presidents make, and you’re right that there’s little distinction between them on foreign policies. They not only support cruel dictators, they ENSURE that these dictators gain power. I’m burned out on talking about this, but I’m with you on how little faith I have in the two party system. I’m done choosing between bad and worse
“I’m done choosing between bad and worse”
this sums it up.
Do you honestly think there is another choice in life? Are y’all taking Lupe Fiasco as a prophet now? Is near sighted idealism what’s hot in these streets.
Lupe Fiasco is not articulate, but he has a point. Can he express it better? H*ll yeah lol
You’re right, I am an idealist, but I tend to think that if we really wanted to we can change the system slightly so that we can at least have more candidates on the ballot. I know it’s crazy, but I never claimed to be normal LOL
+1 Asiyah- we can change it and it starts with civilized and effective/productive discussions like the one Meech, myself, Todd, and VeryAverageBrotha had upthread. Not by snark, sarcasm, and mis-managed frustration from voters who all of a sudden have a vested interest in ur decision for once in life.
F*ck unproductive snark and Lupe Fiasco. I’m just bein real. I get that y’all give a sh*t about my voting practices cause it affects u in a remote way but you’re not gonna bully me into voting for Barack or voting at all. Criticizing my thought process or choices in life is as pointless as it is comical. Barry will win this election with or without my vote. He’s the CLEAR favorite and I think enough Americans have done the bi-partisan work necessary to cast their vote for him. Insulting me is not a smart move bruh. FYI
*Bi-partisan research not work
Welcome to the wonderful world of Obama stans, LMAO!!!!
Word. And domestic issues mean SO much to me too, you don’t even know, but when they keep flip-flopping on domestic issues I need something to fall back on. That’s where foreign policy comes in. Besides, foreign policy affects domestic issues. We wouldn’t have so many immigrants from, say Central America, had our foreign policy not had a hand in the civil wars of the 80s. More immigrants leads to the domestic issue of immigration and how to handle it. It also ties into welfare. Do we take care of these folks? Finally, it ties into our safety here in America.
Americans in general don’t give a sh!t or know sh!t about foreign policy moves
GLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORY!
“They not only support cruel dictators, they ENSURE that these dictators gain power. I’m burned out on talking about this”
I was gonna say, please don’t get me started. But, you ended it nicely… I’m burned out too.
On the foreign policy front there isn’t much of a difference between the two. Both sides meddle in the affairs of others. If not for the the military adventurism of the 20′s and 30′s many of the servicemen of the WWII era would have had no experience. Whether it was Haiti, China, or the DR that experience came through. Fast forward to the late 40′s, 50′s and 60′s both Ike, JFK, and LBJ had no qualms about putting their fingers where they shouldn’t be. Greece, Nam, the DR again, the Congo, and other places are examples of how both parties get down on the foreign policy front. Sure the the GOP will call the Dems p***ies when it comes to foreign policy but historically the only difference has been the execution of the FR policy. Liberals and Conservatives alike have long wiped their bottoms with the notion of self-determination of other states.
Exactly my point. And us here in America STILL get neglected by our leaders time and time again. It’s like there really is no winning. I love this country very much but our leaders really don’t represent us. And before anyone says that America isn’t the only country where leaders fail, I acknowledge that too. I’m Dominican, God knows my own country has men who are full of crap winning every time.
I’m gonna tell my future kids that I once knew of a wise man named Wu Young. U just made me slightly less heartbroken at the soul-crushing loss my Dawgs suffered to ur Gamecocks. South Carolina might be worthy of bein Champs this year based on that last post alone.
Let’s not forget that there are different types of intelligence… a notion that the left, ironically, is trying to inject into the much needed reform of our education system. At some point intelligence can and does give diminishing returns as far as actual achievement and purpose is concerned.
^^^^^ This right here!!!
I don’t know how this all got infected by Libertarianism but let’s us look at some libertarian principles… directly from their policy platform:
1. “While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.”
Ok, geniuses… What will happen in 2050 when the price of oil will be $40 for a teaspoon because of the high demand and low supply. How will we compete when China, et. al. have beat us by investing in solar, wind, and biofuels for years ahead of us? I guess you are all ok with Mad Max and the Thunderdome-style duking it out for the last tiny bit of oil.
2. “We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.”
You do realize that deregulation was what caused the Depression and the Recession, right? Laissez faire has been proven not to work. Over and over again.
3. “We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.”
And what happens when free markets fail due to the natural ebb and flow of economics? Do we shut down all the schools and go back to child labor like in the early 20th century? What about all the seniors citizens that have their retirement savings tied up in the market? When the market dips and their savings are gone… do we let the banks kick them out of their homes and onto the street?
4. “Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education.”
And what about parents who make less than the minimum wage (not that we’d even have a minimum wage under your system)… Their kids wouldn’t be able to go to school? Off to the coal mine with ya!
5. “We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.”
What about people with pre-existing conditions and conditions they had from birth? The disabled. The diabetics. The hemophiliacs. Those with lupus. Mental health disorders… You know… all those people that cannot get healthcare on the free market because it’s too much risk for private insurers.
“Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.”
Again, what would happen to the seniors whose savings were stolen by likes of Madoff or Lehmon Bros … etc. etc. etc. And how many of you Libtards are currently running homeless shelters, free nursing homes, etc.? Can we count on you personally to give charitably to cover the costs of taking care of the sick and elderly?
I’m all ears…
“And how many of you Libtards are currently running homeless shelters, free nursing homes, etc.? Can we count on you personally to give charitably to cover the costs of taking care of the sick and elderly?”
I’m not a Libertarian, but I have heard this sentiment that it is up to communities and individuals people to take care of the sick, elderly, severely disabled, etc. The person I was listening to argued that we really don’t need government to fulfill that role.
My initial thought was this can only happen if people 1)have money and 2)truly care about each other and are willing to give with no return; it’s a very “kumbaya” ideal. On the surface it makes sense if the large majority of people are financial stable. I realize people give to charities already, I just wonder how that could be a reliable system? How would we go about keeping thousands of private charities stable? If the government bows out, I guess we would essentially be forced to take over…
When you look at it… it doesn’t make sense and it is not sustainable or would even begin to cover the great need. In the last year the top major corporations have made record profits. But there is no matching growth in charity. Currently, charities for the homeless can usually only house a very small fraction of the homeless in most urban areas. So even though you have people who are BILLIONAIRES and could pay off the entire continental debt of sub-saharan Africa themselves… we don’t have them giving that money away. In fact, the wealth gap is only increasing at an exponential rate.
So because you can’t get the wealthy to care about your particular priorities, you want to use the force of the State to make them care.
God bless you.
Yes.
Because unlike you, I don’t believe a civilized society should let the poor die out in the cold.
Who said anything about letting the poor die in the cold? You do realize that throughout America, there are private groups who do stuff to feed, clothe and house the poor. The government isn’t the only operation out there that cares. That you believe otherwise is sad. After all, I could direct you to the people and organizations who have, of their own volition, helped me in my time of need.
Perhaps you need to live around people who care about their fellow man without being prompted to by Uncle Sam. You apparently live in a very heartless place.
It’s good what they are doing but they are only a drop in the bucket.
I’ve also volunteered at St. Vincent DePaul, etc.
Big whoop.
50% of the country makes at or below the minimum wage. Ain’t no way without the current worker protections would charities be able to care for all the people that would need it.
This is why I like libertarians, because they actually provide you with things to think and argue about.
Your first question is the most important question, and is the one most evaded by all our political parties and philosophies. How do people get money?
Well, before you answer that question, you have to ask a much more basic question: what is money? Well, money, simply is a tool of exchange for goods and services. Someone has something you like, you give them money then you get to own it or you do a service that someone needs and then they give you money for it. Why is money valuable? Well because we the people want it to be valuable. Who guarantees money’s value? Well, in our present economic system, the private banks do through the federal reserve system. IMO It should be the people who represent the people, which is the government.
You see, all political dialogue about economics and poverty are useless when the federal reserve or any central bank printd your money, because your money is created with debt to your government. When the government prints your money, it’s not created with debt to your government which gets passed down from one generation to the next and has no effect on wealth.
When a government, through it’s treasury prints money, it would have to print money based on the productive capabilities of a nation; if it prints too much money that leads to inflation and the money loses it’s value, if it prints too little, you get deflation, where the money has more valuable but is less acessible to buy things. A government cannot produce anything, it can only redistribute: thus communities must produce things of value and build wealth (basically things people wish to buy aka assets), then money can be used to buy these things. If communities or individuals produce nothing, money is useless.
When you have a system like that, poverty is much more easier to deal with.
Most Americans are willing to work to make money, ( and more Americans would gladly go into private business or be entrepreneurs if corporations didn’t influence politicians to pass legislation that stiffles competition and makes entrepreneurship difficult) contrary to popular belief or the propaganda from republicans; but most Americans are underpaid for the things they produce based on the system we have, where money is debt.
If poverty is on the rise, a when the treasury is in charge, a government can simply print more money and give it to the poor and the poor can pay it back when they are all set and on their feet without any need for interests, since government doesn’t rely on profits for it’s existence, a good government only needs to break even.
In the system we have today: socialism allows money to be printed to the government and the poor are fed, however, the debt is passed on from one generation to the next and piles upon itself, while the currency constantly loses it’s value and money and credit become synonymous. In capitalism, in our system, it is only those who can afford to be in debt (people who are likely to have good credit or pay of their debts) that become wealthy, the poor are led to either live lives of crime or self-destruction.
If you change the system, you improve the options.
“In the system we have today: socialism allows money to be printed to the government and the poor are fed, however, the debt is passed on from one generation to the next and piles upon itself, while the currency constantly loses it’s value and money and credit become synonymous. In capitalism, in our system, it is only those who can afford to be in debt (people who are likely to have good credit or pay of their debts) that become wealthy, the poor are led to either live lives of crime or self-destruction.”
Let the church say A-f*ckin man!
You know the Fed is a private bank don’t you? It’s an international banking cartel…. in other words… it’s the natural conclusion of laissez faire economics which last I checked… libertarians ascribe to. It’s the mightiest and most powerful of banks working together to make themselves richer.
Except that you ignore… austerity measures in every single country… ever… after a recession have caused the recessions and depressions to worsen.
That is why there is Keynesian economics. Deficit spending to spur growth. Reagan took that and distorted it to serve his own interests. And Bush did as well. Put two wars on a credit card. Ahem, liberal bleeding hearts like me protested in the street until our voices were hoarse. I bet your azz was on yo couch eatin’ cheetos.
Demand is important. Income redistribution is important. Without money in the hands of the ‘everyman’ the economy cannot grow. Supply side economics is an abject failure. Trickle down is conservative fantasy that has been proven not to work.
Without minimum wage… without regulation… without worker protections… without unions… there would be a race to the bottom. (Libertarianism is against all of these things.) There would be people making 30 cents an hour.
Our dollar is second only to the Euro. What is Europe? Heavily socialized. And, lo, and behold… they have the highest valued currency in the world.
The dollar is also relative to the GDP and the overall per capita wealth of a nation.
3rd world countries have wide margins between rich and poor which contributes to the devaluation of their currency and much more insane levels of inflation fluctuation. They economy stagnates because greedy plutocrats plunder all of the money at the top. And they can do that because there is no regulation, no check and balance, no redistribution.
If you take away all the ‘liberal’ policies… we will become a banana republic just like any 3rd world shithole.
It is our liberal socialized system that makes this the best place on Earth to live.
The only reason we have this huge deficit issue is the lack of backbone and moron Republicans of all stripes… neocon, religious right, libertards like Ron Paul and his spawn… think they can wage two wars while giving the biggest tax cut to millionaires and billionaires.
In the 1950s-1960s we had a top marginal tax rate of 90%… the most progressive tax in the world. We also had the most robust middle class in the world. We cured polio and taught every child to read. Redistribution works.
Remember Slick Willy… we had a FURKING SURPLUS under his presidency. So too can we under Obama if the morons in Congress get replaced.
Yes, but this stems from a basic lack of understanding of human nature. Nobody who works to produce wealth, whether they are rich or poor is going to tolerate a 90% tax rate forever without any consequences for long, doesn’t matter how much money they make. I’m not a fan of oligarchs or even the rich but damn, don’t you think the rise of the modern day republicans was the utter abuse of power the left exercised during that time period where they were creaming them?
Furthermore, Keynesian economics is also based on the same false premise that Austrian economics is generally based on, which is that money is gold and silver. However, those premises are fundamentally flawed and they are responsible for the dominance and the power of the oligarchs, because who do you think possesses the most amount of gold and silver in the world? Neither Austrian economics, nor Keynesian economics require a national bank, they both rely on private central banks for their policies to work and it is ultimately the cartels that cash in on the main prize.
As for Europe, are they not still locked up in a severe financial issues, and dealing with crisis and riots in Greece and Spain as we speak? They are indeed currently subsidized, but their economy is very unstable because of smaller nations not being able to handle the debt they’re in.
As for the 1950′s and 1960′s, people need to once again understand that things are interconnected and you can’t leave out one thing without the other. Back in those world war times, most of the world, especially Europe, was on the gold standard and when nations owed debts to other nations they paid in gold. America, made several loans to most of Europe during those two wars and got paid in gold after they were done. This occurred in the 20′s and in the 40′s. Compared to their allies, America had very little debt because they had not suffered as much fatalities or destruction of wealth. Both post-war periods were followed by great booms of wealth/productivity and then crashes. Whoever is president during the boom gets credit, whoever is president when things finally crash gets the blame, but really all parties are simply opportunists in the matter.
In the 50′s, America had so much credit, because they had so much gold under the gold standard, that it was able to rebuild the whole of Europe even Japan, and put a lot of money into it’s own nation through investing in businesses and infrastructure, including the highways under Eisenhower. There was great wealth generation in the 50′s and into the early 60′s. And America began to transfer itself from a productive nation to the consumerist nation we see today. However, in the 70′s that good ole crash came along under Carter, and he got the blame. Mostly because America didn’t have all the gold anymore. Nations had been rebuilt, some were even thriving and they wanted gold as well. Europe was slightly back on their feet and the rest is history. And yet, America still thought it was in disneyland with the consumerist mentality, and the federal reserve has ensured that feeling remains the same since Reagan.
The federal reserve system controls our booms and our crashes. They are indeed a cartel, and whoever makes the currency, controls how it’s use; better whoever has the gold makes all the rules. Republicans and Democrats don’t make the rules, because a. the public doesn’t know what is going on, and b. the politicians who do know what is going on keep their mouths shut, and take advantage of it. Things like austerity are always going to exist as long as you have a private central bank and your money is based on debt that must be paid.
All these people when they are in power do, is try to better the interest groups that put them in power, and usually it’s the ones who gave them the most money. Hopefully, they inherit a boom or a period of great invention like the 80′s and 90′s and then the people think they’re policies were responsible for all the glory and jubilee. But they’re usually all wrong, and have no idea how things function within the parameters of foreign policy, domestic policy and economic policy, mostly because they are poorly educated on the issues that really matter, and are too caught up in matters that have to do with interests only.
Despite you utter dislike of libertarians, they serve a purpose; they force people to think about issues outside of the wedge issues. If it was left to the republican party and democratic party all things would simply be wedge issues. There would be no talk about principles, philosophies, histories, ideas etc. They promote a higher level of dialogue that is utterly lacking in our political system and they make people have to explain the basis of their ideas and what factors they are based on. This is why people like Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Dennis Kucinich etc are left out of presidential debates, even though we all know they will lose. The two political party representatives don’t want to step their games up and actually have to educate a public that knows little to nothing.
Austerity measures don’t come down from the Fed.
Austerity measures come from morons like Paul Ryan in Congress and his retarded congressional budget proposal that would plunge us to into destitution in a generation.
And for all the Paulbots railing against the Fed, exactly how do you propose dismantling it? It exists because of laissez faire. At the heart of Libertarian philosophy is that ‘the market’ can do no wrong aka laissez faire. Well, sorry to tell ya… even basic community college Macroecomics will teach that there are SEVERAL ways in which the free market f*ck*s everything up.
Cartels… monopolies… boom and bust industrial flux… externalities that are harmful to human and other life (ie. pollution)… a permanent unemployed class… irrational actors. All of these are ways in which the market fails extraordinarily.
Even if you are successful in dismantling the Fed… unless you break your no-regulation principles another cartel will spring up overnight. Cartels are a normal byproduct of ‘free market’ run amok. OPEC. D’oh.
Not only that… the cartels would be so much worse under a tiny government. Because libertarians also believe in no restrictions on campaign finance and money is speech… So, all these mega corporate douchebags like the Koch bros would easily be able to ‘buy’ every single politician in that ‘small government’ and we would go to war whenever their buddies in the oil industry needed securing other oil rich countries… or their buddies in the forestry industry need some land in the Amazon… why not just use the U.S. Army to do it for them.
See what a nightmare your ‘small government’ would wreck.
Also, without a strong central government a Christian Taliban statewide takeover state-by-state would be easy as pie. That is why the religious right and neo cons are in bed together. It’s scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. They would hand over the military industrial complex to the Koch Bros and the states to Pat Robertson.
Capitalism predates central banking.
Monetary policy is responsible for economic policy, not vice versa. No money, no economy.
What’s bigger than a government that directly prints it’s own money?
Can you not debate without throwing insults?
There is a difference between political parties and political philosophies.
Why do you think that it is only the right that is corrupt, when it is clear that the oligarchs fund both sides? You think when regulations occur, one side will just forget who gave them the money to put them in power?
Finally, all study of economics today pretty much assumes that the federal reserve bank is meant to be private and is going to be private. There were times in America, where it was not, and the records speak for themselves. As with all things, capitalists, socialists, communists and all other economic-isms, it’s mostly people taking credit for things they aren’t responsible for and blaming things on the other systems as well.
The private central bank exists by law, and is singed through contract, when the contract ends, you simply don’t renew it. That’s what Andrew Jackson did during his presidency.
Ralph Nader is not a Libertarian. I’ve met Ralph Nader. He is part of the Green party. The diametrical opposite of the libertarians.
I met him too, SweetSass! He is so intelligent!
You still didn’t answer my questions about energy policy, schools, health insurance, and elder care…
This conversation is frustrating to have because people will throw shade and justify its use.
This conversation is hard to have when respect isn’t the first line of reasoning.
Using social constructs as the party system to both argue for and against in a single sentence is verily short-sighted and destructive.
Just reading a portion of the comments is discombobulating.
SO, I offer that, if in the future, you or whoever, decides to bring about the topic of Religion, Racism, Politics or Education, then you should set parameters to limit the distortion and discord among the participants.
But I guess, that’s just me attempting to optimize the prevalence of fact instead of uninformed opinion. With a grain of salt….as y’all were.
“people will throw shade and justify its use.”
I agree w/ this & your entire comment. It’s been difficult for me to read through some of the threads today just because politics can become such an emotional topic. It can become a contest of being heard & proving a point as opposed to listening to other perspectives & maybe learning something new.
“It can become a contest of being heard & proving a point as opposed to listening to other perspectives & maybe learning something new.”
Blog Cancer
good way to put it Mr. sobo
Sagey… a man that tries to bring focus to delusion. You’re so very right. Any of these topics (Religion, Racism, Politics or Education) is always hard to maintain an objective view to facilitate open discussion without causing offense, most of the time where none is intended. But, then again, censorship stifles inclusion and exchange. However, it is best if all involved could rise above petty bickering and name calling to focus on respectful discussion- even if we don’t agree.
Missed ya these last couple of days. I used your name several times.
Unfortunately Sage, the art of politics is based on the art of war. Ergo, there are no rules. You just shoot them in the head. That’s how it goes, and it truly brings out the ugly in people, but to expect better out of people at this point is simply hopeful wishing. Politics has lasted for many centuries and divided humanity so consistently that we’ve nearly annihilated whole populations at time. Name calling is the least of our worries, though I wish I could get the same results you seek.
What we need is something else. Whatever that maybe be. But something to shift emotions into actions in a much more productive manner.
Man Rewind u r SPOT.THE.FCUK.ON.2.DAY. Name calling ain’t sh*t ppl used 2 get shot, clubbed, dogs unleashed on and shunned entirely for speaking their mind when it was an unpopular or uncomfortable position.
As we learned in the 70′s, through the Vietnam war; the more informed and educated people are on an issue, the more difficult it is to get them involved in a war. I think the same applies to politics.
That is why I don’t put faith in politicians, as George Carlin said about politics:
“Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky. They don’t pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It’s what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you’re going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain’t going to do any good; you’re just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it’s not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here… like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There’s a nice campaign slogan for somebody: ‘The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope.’ ”
Until the public sucks less, the politicians will suck more – my political philosophy in a nutshell.
True dat. Just look at how many delusional trolls spew non-sense and insult the people who make their arguments look weak on EVERY site. Luckily VSB only has one troll you can count on to do that consistently (it had 3, but 2 of them don’t comment frequently anymore). These trolls are considered the best and the brightest America has to offer too. hyper-Republican and hyper-Democrat trolls are idiots with a vast array of conflicting and incomplete knowledge. It’s sad. Makes me wanna re-patriate honestly
Africa has an open door policy for immigrants!!! Take your pick, 54 countries mbambie!!!!!!!
Don’t tempt me! lol, but seriously I have legitimately considered it and I certainly won’t rule it out for somewhere down the line…gotta do a lot more research and take a visit or two first though
President Obama is the lesser of the two evils, vote for him on that precept alone. God bless you ma pippoz!
How about just because he is BLACK
that’s just dumb.
she said it
LOL @ Mami. Yes, President Obama will be receiving my vote and I’m voting early – on Saturday actually to get it out of the way before I will possibly be making a major move.
I’m voting for him because while some of the policies of his administration may suck donkey nuts, most I do wholeheartedly agree with and support. I can’t say that about Romney or the GOP in general.
I’ve read Romney’s plan and it mimics that of GWBush. In fact, he repeatedly refers to GWBush’s policies in his plan and how he’s going back to that policy. Since I thought GWBush was one of the worst leaders of my lifetime, I want none of his policies adopted by our government. But, that’s just me.
BTW, what do you consider a herd of cows?
Romney just completely finished me yesterday with his immigration bullshiggidy. But I’m not here to rehash bs.
A herd of cows, sounds splendid-only if it is YOU receiving, not giving!!
+1 I’m most likely voting for him too because he’s a much better short term fix that can stop the bleeding way more effectively in the short run so I’ll vote for him. Romney is Satan’s sadistic step child, Obama’s just a gorgeous and charismatic killer on the low that also happens to do a lot of good in the community so he has Extremely passionate followers willing to trivialize and or live with his flaws. I get it tho, and like I said I’m voting for him and like most of what he stands for.
I like your political views, very much-BALANCED and respectful!
Thanks Sis. I feel the same way about yours. Same for your brand of feminism. That REAL and REALISTIC sh!t. I rarely disagree with you on social, political, or religion-based topics. You remind me why I love African women
Can we please talk about ice-cream tomorrow????
Only if we talk about butter pecan! Man I miss me some butter pecan..(hint: there’s a double entendre in that statement)
Man, I’ve been having this craving for Dairy Queen turtle pecan blizzard! They are SO freaking good. But, I have to scale back and just get a cone dipped in chocolate. No more talk about ice cream! We need healthy food talk! Like, like, like……………………………..
hey, I had carrots with my lunch… therefore, I can have some ice-cream tomorrow!
I love you, Sir.
this warms my heart!
I see you was holding your boo down upper thread, but he did one hell of a job!!
jmtg for PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!
@ MJoy- Love u more dear. And thanks Mami, I just can’t let people slide with educated sounding foolishness and hypocrisy. Not when most ppl aren’t calling em out for it. Especially bitter @ss fact/reality manipulators with their own agendas hurling delusional and pathetic insults at me. I really should know better than to converse with some of these clowns but they just make it too easy lol
This is a reply to a comment upthread re: federalism.
If you believe you should have the right to sit at an intregrated lunch counter and not be beaten/jailed for it….
Newflash, you are a federalist. That is why I said, the whole federalist debate is so over it’s weird and bizzare it’s being brought up in 2012.
Because it was the federal government that oversaw the integration based upon the jurisdictional reach of Commerce Clause + Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment.
When you hear a Paultard talking about ‘States rights’ they are talking about a state’s right to discriminate based on race, sex, national origin, etc.
Jesus tap dancing Christ, I cannot believe I have to explain this… in 2012. Know your history people.
Why would I want to sit next to people who hate me?
Why would I patronize places that hate me and people that look like me?
Why should I have that right? That right to annoy and irritate?
Why should the guns and uniforms stand behind me as I order a ham sandwich (prolly with extra mayo, just to spite me)?
In 2012, they not really trying to live next to us, have us come to they schools, hire us at they jobs, loan us they money, patronize our businesses,..et cetera.
Even nowadays, a lot of em do it grudgingly.
Did you really learn algebra better cause you was in a class with Chet and Buffy?
And if you really want to keep it real, how integrated is your social life? Outside of school and work, how often do you find yourself in their houses, in their houses of worship?
Most black folks live a particularly segregated life. (as do all people, really)
CDV
@ Coup De Villain- THANK YOU! It’s a true blessing when lurkers like you come out and bring such intelligent reasoning to an otherwise lost cause (I wouldn’t advise you go back and forth with SweetSass but your points are appreciated for sure
Seriously, you believe in Jim Crow?
What the f*ck are you smoking?
Yes, I have a diverse set of friends. Whites, Latinos, Gay, Straight, Indian, Asian.
I wish Medgar Evers ghost would rise from the grave and slap the black off of you. You are disgrace.
“The one thing libertarians have in common is that they are more concerned with freedom than they are with interests.”
It’s like you have a super power called PRECISELY accurate reasoning. Seriously that’s EXACTLY why I align myself with libertarian principles.
“Both republicans and democrats have both passed legislation that is anti-freedom in recent years. Bush passed the Patriot Act, Obama passed the NDAA. If you are a republican or a democrat these things don’t bother you as much as gay rights or abortion and that’s where the most amount of money comes from. If you are a libertarian you are more bothered by those laws than you are by gay rights or abortion. Civil Liberties trump wedge issues if you’re a libertarian, whether you be on the right or the left.”
Exactly! And economic regulation (as well as the lack thereof) not to mention human rights for the WORLD’s citizens, not just the United States’
This comment ended up in the wrong place somehow but it was in response to Black Medici’s post upthread
well im not going to deny the facts above… Im with you bro about the Liberals
You’re really biased about conservatives. FYI, not all of them are stupid just as not all liberals are smart. How would you like it someone badmouthed liberals? If I’m you, I’d leave conservatives alone.