Posted on 10/04/2004 1:19:30 AM PDT by allegiance
The first survey was conducted by myself at a local mall overa period of 2 weeks. I asked 2000 people the question. "Have you ever initiated a lawsuit against a non-government party for personal compensation? What political party are you affiliated with?"
Why are 65% of the people that sue others are registered Democrats? (Survey conducted in a conservative area)
Why do people say Kerry won the debate, when he blatantly contradicted himself (multi-lateral coalition in Iraq, bi-lateral North Korea)?
How did this era of bi-partisanship come to such an abrupt halt?
And last but not least... HOW DO PEOPLE RESPECT AL FRANKEN?!
These are some serious questions in which I would like some insight from fellow conservatives. Answers will be used in my Political Science essay on the current state of the Republican Party.
Thanks for your help!
1: Democrats believe in an entitlement society. So, naturally they feel that if somebody does them a wrong, real or otherwise, they fell they have the right to get whatever they can from them, no matter who else it hurts (Aside from those who think the same way they do, of course.)
2: The Jackasses have selective hearing. In their minds, Lurch was the more polished of the two, so of course he won. Heck, he could have said that he ate small children with horseradish sauce and threw little old ladies out of their Rascals and still would have won to them.
3: It probably ended once the 2002 election season began, when the Dumbs realized that people actually took this war on terror stuff seriously and wanted to support the troops and their Commander In Chief. We knew it was really over when they got their asses handed to them in the elections.
4: Like Michael Moore-on, Al Frankenweenie is seen as a "Voice" to the far-left whackos who think that nobody else is willing to get their message out. (Remember, to them, the mainstream media is doing the work of the Government, all evidence to the contrary.)The fact is, most people really don't give a rat's behind about what he has to say, but it inflates their own self-importance when Alberta gets attention, 'cause he's "Like, one of us, man!"
Yeah what you said!
JUST FOUND: BREAKING NEWS!!!! GO TO
www.worldnetdaily.com.......MONEY TRAIL BEHIND KERRY'S IRAN STANCE..IS A MUST READ..SPREAD THE WORD!!!
They're also in bed with the Sudan government. Hmmmmm...Kerry endorsing genocide?
Did I miss something? What time period are you talking about? BTW, we don't need no steeeenking bi-partisanship! Whenever you hear the word, "bi-partisanship," hold on to your wallet.
1. Democrats believe they are victims, that others are to blame for their life situation.
2. Hair and style matters more than substance. Talk and the talk of action is more important than actual action. Action takes actual doing, is hard and is fraught with peril. Talk makes one all warm and fuzzy. Isn't that all that really matters these days?
3. What era of "bi-partisanship"? Grid lock is the best possible form of government if you have to have government. The founding fathers realized this. Thankfully...
4. He was funny once, is a wealthy Hollywood type and loves to trash conservatives. What more does one need to be "respected"?
Nobody respects Al Franken. They just pretend to tolerate him because they think it will tick off Bill O'Reilly.
And they don't even want to tick off Bill O'Reilly. They want to tick off Rush Limbaugh, but he doesn't give a rat's rump.
Because he looked plausible as president and didn't have any Howard Dean screaming meltdowns.
Kerry did melt down, but it was much more nuanced, and completely imperceptible to the people who think they're smarter than everyone else.
Because the other 35% think "independent" or "moderate" sounds cooler.
An amazing number of people not only couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag, they don't have a clue about what is going on. The talking heads said Kerry won, so they believe it.
Typically, Democrats want bi-partisanship when they are advancing their agenda. When the tide changes, they become obstructionists overnight.
Al who?
By definition, it takes two parties to be bi-partisan, and one of them wasn't.
People are going to stop thinking about themselves and start thinking about me, Al Franken. That's right. I believe we're entering the Al Franken decade. Oh, for me, Al Franken, the eighties will be pretty much the same as the seventies. But for you, when you see a news report you'll be thinking "I wonder what Al Franken thinks about this?" "I wonder how this inflation thing is hurting Al Franken?" And you women will be thinking "What can I wear that will please Al Franken?" or "What can I not wear?" A lot of you are probally thinking "Why Al Franken?" Well, because I thought of it, and I'm on TV.
Al Franken jumped the shark when he actually became a completely self-absorbed person who really did think the universe revolved around him.
It's ironic that you're posting questions about the nature of Democrats on a conservative website. I don't think there are a whole lot of Democrats posting here to respond to your questions.
What the heck, these look to be honest questions so I'll give it a stab.
#1 the view of lawyers within Democratic circles is not as negative as it is amongst conservative ones. It's like the analogy that one man's bandit is another man's freedom fighter. Trial attorneys are viewed by certain portions of the populace as being people who obtain justice for the oppressed. That's not a view that I personally share, but I recognize that it is believed by many Democrats.
#2 He was more polished. I didn't watch the debate (I don't like TV) but I did listen to it. Sen. Kerry sounded more sure of himself, President Bush sounded defensive. Debating is a skill. Because you can do that well doesn't in and of itself mean you're going to be a good President. You have to look at the substance of what is being said. Having said that, some people don't have the intellectual capacity or work ethic to look beyond the debating skills.
#3 Three reasons in my view. First, the cold war ended so there was no political imperative for the two parties to stick together for the good of the country. Second, the Clinton era was incredibly divisive. The GW Bush era including the start of the war on terror hasn't brought the two parties together. And third, I think the rise of the internet has proven to be more of a dividing influence than a uniting one. Birds of a feather tend to flock together and the internet makes that much more easy.
Historically speaking, the era of bipartisanship was an anomaly anyway. Look at your history from the early part of the Republic to about the 1940's and you'll note that there were few times when there wasn't a lot of partisan rancor. I'm not sure that "bipartisanship" is a good thing in any case. I think courtesy and honesty and honor are good things to see in politics; but agreement is not necessarily a prerequisite.
#4 His humor and politics don't appeal to me, so I haven't the foggiest idea.
For the answers to your questions, and perhaps some stunning insights, I suggest you read George Orwell. Not just Animal Farm or 1984, but anything else you can get your hands on.
There are several things you must bear in mind when dealing with the "liberal" mindset:
- Personal responsibility is to be avoided: the individual is NEVER wrong, nor is he/she responsible for their actions. Instead, liberals have created a fantasy millieux in which impersonal organizations and government can be blamed for anything and everything (i.e. Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Republicans, etc). All of these impersonal organizations operate in an unreal universe, which is called "The System". The purpose of the impersonal entity and the belief in the System is to shiled the liberal from the reality that life is often unfair, and to save the poor, deluded idiot from the trauma of having to analyze himself truthfully.
- Liberals have no idea of how economics works: According to most liberal economic theory, wealth is a static proposition and it is measured in something called a "fair share". By some sort of cosmic fiat, everyone is supposed to have a "fair share". Since reality dictates that not everyone will have a fair share, due to limits on their talents, relative capacity for work, etc, etc, then the only way one can become rich is to somehow cheat everyone else out of their "fair share". In this case, it is the job of government, or that paragon of virtue, the trial attorney, to redistribute wealth via taxes or lawsuit, evening the score. This mindset comes about because liberals have little to no experience in actually creating wealth, only in forcibly taking and redistributing it.
- The mutability of reality: A liberal lives in a world where nothing is real, unless he says it is. This personal reality is created from a mixture of ideology, desire to avoid personal responsibility, and stupidity. The liberal can also switch between the "real" reality and his fantasy reality, as it suits his political or personal needs. For example, Dan Rather can present forged documents to support a theory, but when said documents are proven forgeries, it no longer matters --- the truth is still contained in the forgery. Unless, of course, to believe such a thing would go against a liberal's needs of the moment. For example: Bill Clinton can engage in sexual activity with an intern, leave evidence behind, and still continue to deny it until he's blue in the face. In this case, the truth is in the evidence, unless that becomes inconvenient.
- Language is fungible: Liberals do not speak standard English, but instead, engage in a version of Orwell's Newspeak, where words are deliberately misused and their definitions narrowed for political purposes. To a liberal, "rich" becomes not a millionaire, but someone making $200K a year. "Choice" is restricted to the killing of the unborn, but not the decision to smoke, own a gun or drive an SUV. "Private" becomes the right to keep any crime or peccadillo secret, but has no relation to the owning of property, or restrictions on who one choses to associate with.
There are many more examples, but this should be enough fo you to start with. In addition, I heartily suggest the George Orwell's Essays from the Everyman's Library for further research.
1. For libs, corporations are evil. When given a chance they will 'strike a blow' against these evil corporations. The thought that any money awarded (or taxes for that matter) are passed down to consumers in the form of higher prices, isn't considered.
2. I've always heard the following about public speaking: When people judge how well someone is at public speaking, about 90% is based on the presentation (how the person looks, delivery, being comfortable, etc) and only about 10% on what the person says. Kerry's performance was better than W's - so Kerry was deemed the winner. Only if/when people actually consider what he said will this possibly change.
3. Bi-partinship means the other side is supposed to be the one to cave. If neither side does.....
4. Al who? Seriously though, Al Franken (and Michael Moore) are a lot like Rush Limbaugh - without the talent. Rush's fans respect his opinions because, his opinions are very similar to theirs. People like to hear someone else expressing views that they share. Same with Franken.
In my experience, whenever someone says they want something to be "fair", they usually mean "I want an unfair advantage over somebody else." Most attempts to "make things fair" involve taking something away from those who have it.
Leftist economic thinking tends to focus on DISTRIBUTION of resources rather than CREATION of wealth. Many people whose focus is on wealth creation don't pay much attention to distribution.
In a completely free market, all economic inputs (land, labor, capital) will find their most efficient uses, so there isn't much to be gained fretting about it.
Free markets are beneficial to society as a whole, but individuals tend to dislike them. They would rather have some sort of unfair advantage, like a monopoly or special knowledge, or a law which gives them an advantage over others.
HOW DO PEOPLE RESPECT AL FRANKEN?!
Here you go Bud. Chance to share your wisdom.
Given those premises, style IS the determinate of who wins. How many disengaged people looked at each other across their den, stunned, as we did, when Mr. Kerry told the lie that he had visited "Treblinka?" Not one. Hell, if they don't know what Mr. Bush stands for (NO one knows what Mr. Kerry stands for), then they won't know Treblinka or the Lubyanka or Dz...(can't spell it) Square.
The solution is to remove the designation "voting rights" from our discourse and our laws; institute restrictions on voting to those who can at least read; change commercials from "It doesn't matter who [sic] you vote for as long as you vote," to "If you don't know anything, stay home and don't vote."; and do away with these "debate" shams. Anyone whose vote is in play at this late date due to not knowing what a candidate stands for does not deserve to vote. Period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.