John Stuart Mill famously pointed out that there was a ‘sufficient but not necessary’ issue in conservatives politics. He claimed that while is was not true that all conservatives were stupid, it was true that the vast majority of stupid people were conservatives.
…now we have numbers on that.
A poll from Public Policy Polling taken in Ohio asked who deserved more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden, Obama or Mittens. This is a little like asking who deserved more credit for the moon landing, Buzz Aldrin, or myself. Why? Because I literally have zero claim to having anything whatsoever to do with the Apollo eleven mission. I was not even born yet. While Mitt was alive for the bin Laden strike, he had exactly as much to do with killing bin Laden as I have lunar surface dust in my sneaker treads.
A full 15% of self reported republicans think Mitt deserves the credit for taking out bin Laden. Seriously.
But wait, in case you think maybe that is just some fringe element, 47% of republicans just aren’t sure. Maybe they can’t answer a question without direct input from Faux News or something.
This can’t be raw stupidity. There is just no way that even the birther hopped up raving insanity that is the mindless right can really believe this. Even for a party that is best explained by the sad show that is one angry old lost white man raging incoherently at an invisible threat in a chair, surely it is too much to think that they honestly believe a man who wasn’t even in on the decision is responsible for the outcome. Christ I know most of them still think Reagan brought down the Berlin wall through sheer force of will but at least he was actually near the factors that did the real work. I mean, can you be that goddamned stupid and manage to actually answer the question? Don’t you have to at least be able to grunt in response to be polled?
No, this has to be raw unfiltered spite. And that tells you the real story of this election. And the last one. The golden boy of the right, in the form of one halfwit Texan pretender, managed to break the country, lose jobs like a drunken frat boy handing out singles in the topless bar, ruin the military, and tarnish the nations reputation the world over. He did it so well they won’t even mention him by name at their own convention. But to top it all off some lawyer with an actual American success story to his upbringing and way to much coloring in his skin came in, reversed the bleeding, makes other nations believe in him, stops the tide of job losses, starts the long job of repairing the economy, ends the war, (one at least) and even manages to bag the terrorist that the flight deck strutting commander cod piece failed to find. Talk about rubbing salt in the wounds.
So how do sad little registered republicans express their impotent white power? Deny reality. “Bush wasn’t a true republican, or else everything would have worked! We are losing because we aren’t conservative enough! You will see, as soon as you legalize gay marriage god will destroy the entire country! Besides, that guy you voted for? He isn’t from around here. He is from Kenya! A muslim atheist from Kenya! Muslim atheist marxist socialist anti-colonial communist marxist manchurian candidate muslim atheist who went to a questionable leftist christian church!”
It is a lot like watching a 2 year old stomp and yell about how mean mom is, especially when she is right.
At this point the “conservatives” of America need to be disbanded, or simply admit that the current president is in many ways more conservative than their man-god Reagan, and then maybe the dems can become the conservative party, and we can get an actual liberal party. But that requires a revolution in both parties. And I honestly see no chance of revolution in either right now.
The founding fathers would be so proud.
#1 by brewski on September 10, 2012 - 10:47 pm
You mean, just like those stupid liberals who couldn’t admit that unemployment and inflation both went down under Reagan;
” in 1988, in which voters were asked several questions that were politically relevant, but had objective, factual answers: Did unemployment go up or down under Reagan (it went down)? Did inflation get better or worse during his presidency (it got better)? He found that of the 10 questions asked, seven showed “very strong evidence of partisan bias,” and that in six of those questions, “Republicans and Democrats could not even agree on the direction of change between 1980 and 1988.”
http://web.posc.jmu.edu/seminar/readings/1b-reference%20grp%20theory/bartels%202002%20beyond%20the%20running%20tally.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/10/do-15-of-ohio-republicans-think-romney-killed-bin-laden-probably-not/
So in other words, the poll that you are citing is just another example of a phenomenon that cuts both ways, and has been proven.
Guess you’re the stupid one.
#2 by Shane on September 11, 2012 - 6:27 am
Yes brewski, you have it dead on. A second example that proves the point I am making proves me stupid…
Or we could look at your reply as case number three.
#3 by cav on September 11, 2012 - 7:12 am
There may also be an element of scoffing at the ridiculous questions pollsters are asking – Americans in general are not as stupid as we are thought to be. And, I’ll contend some Dems may have answered as if they were republicans whose heads were so far up the posteriors that they actually thought Romney had anything to do with Osama’s ‘take-down’. This, if it were true most certainly says those respondents also believe Americans (specifically republicans) are stupid.
Now, stupidity abounds, and it may even be found to some greater extent on one side of a particular divide than the other, but, it is not exclusively owned by any.
As for the ‘Reagan Years’: There is no way that administration can be judged solely on inflation and unemployment numbers. The reason I find fault with those monsters was the ‘October Surprise’ that got them elected in the first place, the wars in the Middle East and Central America, and even more troubling, the further entrenchment of the ‘full-spectrum supremacy’ of the the U. S.’ In other words, they proved to be treacherous criminals even from before day one. But they are loved (by some).
It’s global now, and our little ‘democracy’ is reduced to bit parts at best.
#4 by brewski on September 11, 2012 - 7:50 am
Shane, how is my post stupid, other than it exposes the stupidity of your post?
#5 by cav on September 11, 2012 - 7:51 am
Reagan’s treatment of Unions – also shameful.
We need to promote Unionism, not further decimate them.
Oh, And Also, Too…Happy 9-11 everybody. Bush kept us safe.
#6 by cav on September 11, 2012 - 8:30 am
Is there anything the Bush junta didn’t fuck up?
But the ‘High Hopes’ for Willard support the ‘Stupid will continue’ scenario.
#7 by brewski on September 11, 2012 - 9:10 am
“We need to promote Unionism,”
Tell that to Rahm Emmanuel.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/rahm-emanuel-chicago-teachers-strike-holding-kids-back/2012/09/10/1d89ab61-ee47-437b-a0ee-66a0f1f877cd_video.html
#8 by Larry Bergan on September 11, 2012 - 7:15 pm
brewski:
You really think you need to tell progressives about Rahm Emmanuel? I just about lost my lunch when he showed up at the Democratic National Convention. He practically apologized HIMSELF for being there.
Howard Dean should have been giving THAT speech!
#9 by brewski on September 11, 2012 - 7:41 pm
Teacher unions are anti child and anti education. They are part of the problem. They need to be banned.
#10 by cav on September 11, 2012 - 7:45 pm
Bullshit.
#11 by cav on September 11, 2012 - 7:46 pm
Corporations are people, my friend.
#12 by brewski on September 11, 2012 - 9:45 pm
Cav, read and watch these:
http://vimeo.com/2439019
http://www.laweekly.com/2012-07-19/news/betsy-butler-mike-eng-SB-1530-alex-padilla-sex-abuse-teachers/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444443504577601664135014368.html
http://julieverse.com/2012/08/16/california-teachers-union-putting-our-kids-at-risk/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443437504577547313612049308.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet
#13 by Larry Bergan on September 11, 2012 - 10:33 pm
brewski:
Let’s see now: isn’t The Wall Street Journal owned by Rupert Murdock. Wasn’t his organization in some trouble over listening in on phone conversations to get news stories and destroying powerful men in English politics with ugly sex scandals in a magazine that couldn’t shut itself down fast enough because of the embarrassment.
So now his organization is hyping up bogus teachers unions child sex scandals. Typical.
You can’t tell sleaze from the truth.
Go fishing for trout, not political stories!
#14 by cav on September 11, 2012 - 11:19 pm
First, Campbell Brown and Julie Verse are hysterics of the Akin breed, who feel that what ever they feel like uttering is creditable. That’s their job. And they DO utter.
Much of the rest of your slanted offering can be characterized thus:
“These despicable union democrats think nothing of bargaining away the welfare and safety of children for their own greed. Could they possibly be any more disgraceful?” Actually posted two times – so good was it. Certainly devoid of emotion, just cold, objective facts.
Need I remind you that If a crime has been committed, no union representation, can or would beat legal statute. Membership in a union is not a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card – as has been handed the top tier of the previous administration for example.
And I’m not arguing there are no ‘bad’ teachers. But until, Due Process is abandoned or rewritten, Union members will have a say in just what that process is. You, for some odd reason, seem to have an argument with that. I’ll argue division and conquest should itself be struggled against and unification is one effective way of doing that. Perhaps we simply agree to disagree. So be it.
Finally, I see nothing wrong attempting to control class size and providing any of a number of supportive members in the school ‘team’ -ALL of whom have been under brutal, irrational attack in recent years. God knows, if a principle felt need of a cop, one would be instantaneously provided, nurses…not so readily. We’d be better off with more nurses, social workers, councilors, more quality teachers, more aides, better administrators and much less demonization. IF we really cared about our kids education. Sometimes that does not seem to be the case, but I’d put teachers (generally) at the very, very bottom of the causes for that – if at all. Most teachers care. A lot.
I view all of this as a simple jobs program. Certainly some applicants, some hires, will not make the cut or stick in the profession, but that is the case in every sphere.
While teachers and unions, like every other imaginable institution, will have faults, it is better to attempt to correct those shortcomings than to condemn and demonize all teachers and all unions for the problems with a few.
This all seems to me to be another part of the effort to bust down the middle class, to undo the progress made over the last hundred years or so, and to force feudalism upon the greater population (See: 1% v 99%).
#15 by cav on September 12, 2012 - 12:11 am
“On the other hand, the status quo, which is what the Chicago teachers want, is clearly unacceptable. In Chicago, about 60 percent of public school students graduate from high school. The percentage who graduate from college before the age of 25 is appalling: somewhere around 6 percent. In a meeting with Emanuel, according to Jonathan Alter,who profiled the mayor for The Atlantic earlier this year, Lewis “derided the longer day as ‘baby-sitting and warehousing.’ ” On Sunday night, when she announced that the teachers were going on strike, Lewis said that teachers should not be at risk of losing their jobs over new evaluations that rely heavily on standardized test scores, which don’t account for outside factors like poverty and homelessness. Reformers have long complained that teachers’ unions too often use poverty as an excuse for poor performance. Lewis’s remarks would seem to justify that complaint.”
THIS was my reaction to Joe Nocero’s nonsense.
The man is an imbecile of the highest order and not worthy of even being discussed beyond discussing his stupidity.
Yeah, Those damned inner city school teachers do love to talk about poverty. Think about it this way. Imagine reading a recruiting poster to join the army and fight in WWI.
“Join the army and come to France – beautiful women, beautiful
scenery, tremendous food and only a slight problem with a war.
“But the bullets, bombs, and lethal gas are really NOT the problem. France is still wonderful whether you are dead or alive.”
#16 by brewski on September 12, 2012 - 8:40 am
“Let’s see now: isn’t The Wall Street Journal owned by Rupert Murdock.”
This is called an ad hominem attack.
Of the two wsj articles, one is an interview with a Democrat, in her words. The other is a piece by Campbell Brown, a former CNN anchor. So it matters not where their words were printed. Did you even read the stories?
Bogus teacher sex scandals? Tell that to the police departments who are prosecuting them. Your defense of sexual predators is sickening.
#17 by cav on September 12, 2012 - 9:00 am
Your reading skills or glasses are in dire need of a prescription check.
Now, for the econ in general. try this:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/138-years-of-economic-history-show-that-keen-and-minsky-are-right-and-all-of-the-mainstream-economists-are-wrong.html
#18 by Richard Warnick on September 12, 2012 - 10:06 am
brewski–
The term you want is “association fallacy.” Like when you dismiss facts simply because they were cited by Media Matters, without addressing the substance.
Here’s ad hominem for you: Campbell Brown was hired by CNN when they decided to move to the right, but she lost to Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC show in the ratings. Now she writes deceptive op-eds in support of the extreme right. She’s married to professional liar, Romney adviser (and former Iraq occupation spokesman) Dan Senor.
#19 by brewski on September 12, 2012 - 10:18 am
Richard, I got that from you. It’s your favorite non-response. Don’t you get that I was being you?
#20 by brewski on September 12, 2012 - 10:27 am
Cav, good read. But it sounds like pretty mainstream Milton Friedman, Ben Bernanke analysis to me. Yes, credit bubbles caused by loose monetary policy result in too much borrowing and speculation and lead to asset bubbles which crash. I have been ranting on this point for years. So I don’t know who he is referring to when he says mainstream economists are wrong. This is basic monetary history.
He says:
“For example, we have repeatedly argued that government debt and deficits do matter. Over a certain level, they form a large drag on the economy. That pisses off our liberal readers.”
Well, yes.
He says:
“But we keep pointing out that – instead of imposing draconian austerity – it would be much better for the economy to stop handouts to the big banks, stop getting into imperial military adventures and stop incurring unnecessary interest costs (and see this). That infuriates our conservative readers.”
Lots of conservatives don’t like giving handouts to banks and don’t like military adventures either.
So basically your link says exactly what I have been saying. This recession was the result of an asset bubble which started in 1995 (remember irrational exuberance?). This was caused by excess liquidity fueled by the FOMC.
Thank you for your support.
#21 by Larry Bergan on September 12, 2012 - 6:01 pm
I have to admit that I wasn’t interested in spending hours reading article upon article provided by you, brewski. I am also very disappointed with every bit of corporate media. Doesn’t Karl Rove have a contract with The Washington Post? I’m prety sure that’s who Dana Milbank writes, or used to write for.
What are these constitutionally protected organizations giving known liars a forum for? I understand the Wall Street Journal has some excellent editorials, but the rest just isn’t something I’m willing to wade through to try and glean any truth from. Lying is an art form these days and is highly paid for. I have trouble getting through it.
I stick with organizations on the internet which are struggling to survive right now, but over time turn out to be doing what the constitutional framers envisioned for a free press. Their stories always lead to lights going off in your head when you read other stories because the truth makes sense.
cav gave you some very good answers and is obviously better at understanding what is going on with this teacher purge.
#22 by brewski on September 12, 2012 - 6:25 pm
Larry,
One WSJ is merely an interview with Gloria Romero, a pro-labor Democrat who served as California’s Senate majority leader from 2001 to 2008.
The other WSJ link is a piece by Campbell Brown, formerly of CNN. So neither of them are news stories or editorials written by WSJ staff. I wouldn’t have posted them if they were since people like you would dismiss them purely for their source and not for their content.
The video link are purely the words of actual classroom teachers, with no voiceover by anyone else. So all of them should have some credibility, so don’t just dismiss things before you even know what they are.
#23 by cav on September 12, 2012 - 6:32 pm
Thanks Larry. Mrs cav is a teacher, so I’ve been steeped in this for a good many years.
I too, was kinda disappointed by brewski;s glossing of that part of the discussion (especially since he put it up). I guess it wasn’t the kind of thing that could be responded to with a list (my intent), so it fell off bubbly’s map.
#24 by brewski on September 12, 2012 - 6:50 pm
My mom was a high school teacher in the California public schools for 30 years. She did say that the unions did protect bad teachers. That isn’t to say that all teachers are bad, or that even a lot of teachers are bad. But every school has some bad teachers and all the good teachers know who they are, as do the principals. Ask the principals why they don’t get rid of the bad teachers and the answer is “we just can’t”. So one can be very pro education, pro public education, pro teacher and pro child and still see that the unions are in the way of improving education. Protecting sexual predators is just the most egregious example.
#25 by Larry Bergan on September 12, 2012 - 6:55 pm
brewski:
I’m betting you didn’t listen to my important link on the other thread either. I don’t feel too bad about not slogging through your list of stuff.
I’m happy to have received a public education because otherwise, I would have had none.
Vouchers are nonsense.
#26 by cav on September 12, 2012 - 7:11 pm
New info on the Benghazi attack:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/libya-fast-team/
It was not a simple mob that attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday, killing four Americans. Benghazi was the scene of a pitched battle, one in which unknown Libyan assailants besieged American diplomats with small-arms fire for over four hours, repelling several attempts by U.S. personnel to regain control of it.
Nor was what happened in Benghazi a simple story of Americans assaulted by the Libyans they helped to liberate from Moammar Gadhafi last year, American officials say. Libyan security forces and a sympathetic local militia helped the Americans to suppress the attack and get the diplomats inside to safety.
That account is the first official telling of Tuesday’s events. It’s preliminary, as much of what has been initally reported in the media on Wednesday has proven incorrect. And it was provided to reporters late Wednesday afternoon by Obama administration officials who would not speak for the record.
#27 by Larry Bergan on September 12, 2012 - 7:15 pm
Actually, I did wade through brewski’s list enough to sense a common theme last night- as I saw it, – and that’s why I quit wading:
Teachers unions – through their desire to keep their jobs – are willing to ignore crimes against children.
I’m I right brewski?
If you don’t have an epidemic to support your political cause, I guess you have to create one. Nobody can say Republicans aren’t artists of a dark nature. I’m not against dark art, but I require it serve I good purpose. Some don’t.
#28 by brewski on September 12, 2012 - 8:41 pm
Larry, it isn’t a common theme, it is evidence. The evidence is that the union leadership, often against the wishes of the union rank and file, will protect every union member no matter what. So they treat a good teacher who may have some falling out with a principal and needs representation the same way they treat a bad teacher who is fucking a 13 year old. It doesn’t matter to the union leadership, they still will defend the teacher and make the district spend $1 million in legal fees. Just remember Larry, it is your $1 million. It is your taxes being spent on lawyers and not on teachers or classrooms or books. This is your money and you want it used to defend sexual predators. Shame on you.
Larry, do you have children?
Assuming you do, let’s assume that your child goes to Dee School in Ogden, just for example. Dee is ranked #556 out of #556 schools in the state. It is dead last. The worst. If you are Glenden’s parents you have the choice to pull him out and send him to private school. But if you are poor and you can’t afford private school, what are you to do? What would you do for your child? If you are Obama you send your child to Sidwell Friends hoity toity private school. If you are the Kennedys you send your kids to private school. If you are Al Gore, you go to private school. If you are Cokie Roberts, you go to private school. But if you are poor and your local elementary school is Dee School, you are fucked. The Democrats and people like you want to fuck your children and fuck their education and fuck their futures for the sake of the monopoly of the civil service. They are scared of letting parents have a choice because they know if parents had a choice they would leave. You are anti parent and anti child. Shame on you. You make the ethics of the Koch brothers look like Mother Theresa.
#29 by Larry Bergan on September 12, 2012 - 9:08 pm
WOW man!
The unions are SO powerful these days, they can get away with child anything!
Even a child could dismantle your argument, but keep going brewski, the election is eminent and time is running out for the dudes like you.
1 million of my taxpayers dollars?
I think I just spent over a trillion – a thousand BILLION – KILLING children in Iraq who were just trying to fly kites!
What’s your point, dude/brewski?
#30 by Larry Bergan on September 12, 2012 - 9:18 pm
Evidence?
Jerry Falwell had enough evidence against Bill Clinton to accuse him of killing over 100 people in a video – including a good friend, – but all they ended up prosecuting him for was because he got boinked with a cigar.
OK: persecuting.
#31 by brewski on September 12, 2012 - 9:27 pm
I take it from your reply that you support child predators.
#32 by Larry Bergan on September 12, 2012 - 9:46 pm
You forgot the question mark.
Ask another stupid question…
#33 by brewski on September 12, 2012 - 10:49 pm
Why do you want to harm children?
#34 by Larry Bergan on September 12, 2012 - 11:20 pm
How many times do I have to say this?
I have a name and address. I’m in the f-ing book in Utah!
Brewski/noname doesn’t have an F-ing name or address.
Who do you trust?
Of course I prefer you don’t “sneak n’ peak” because I prefer my constitutional rights as a citizen of “the greatest country on the face of the f-ing earth” (paraphasing; of course).
#35 by Larry Bergan on September 12, 2012 - 11:34 pm
Never F’d anybody!
#36 by cav on September 12, 2012 - 11:37 pm
bubbly is the only thing standing between us (with our ‘un-American attitudes about education, justice… equality) and eternal damnation.
Lol
#37 by Larry Bergan on September 12, 2012 - 11:49 pm
Hope of deliverance:
From the dark art that surrounds us.
You have to love the Beatles!
No sarcasm here. I once traded a perfectly good pellet gun for a Beatle wig costing MUCH less. I was ahead of my time, I thought.
We’ll see.
#38 by cav on September 13, 2012 - 12:02 am
Here’s another:
file:///C:/Users/Sony%20Vaio/Downloads/The%20Beatles%20-%20Tomorrow%20Never%20Knows%20(Leftside%20Wobble%20Edit)-320K.mp3
I guess you have to copy and paste to your address bar. But worth it.
#39 by Larry Bergan on September 13, 2012 - 12:10 am
Sorry cav:
Getting “file not found” .
Don’t you hate how everything seems to work for them, but not for the libs?
#40 by cav on September 13, 2012 - 12:15 am
I’m sorry too. It’s one of my favorites – must be something I filed but can’t share.
Tomorrow Never Knows…Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream. A dubby remix that totally rocks.
#41 by cav on September 13, 2012 - 12:31 am
Try:
http://soundcloud.com/leftside-wobble/the-beatles-tomorrow-never-knows-leftside-wobble-edit-320k
#42 by Larry Bergan on September 13, 2012 - 12:33 am
The Beatles were thrown the responsibility to inform us, and they decided to stop making dance music.
Revolver was the beginning of the end:
#43 by Larry Bergan on September 13, 2012 - 12:40 am
cav:
You beat me to the punch!
Just by a little bit!
#44 by cav on September 13, 2012 - 12:44 am
Larry, Do listen to the Wobble edit I finally got up at #41. I think you’ll like it.
Now I’m out.
#45 by Larry Bergan on September 13, 2012 - 12:48 am
The people are in sync.
#46 by cav on September 13, 2012 - 8:50 am
Good Morning. You know, I’m beginning to think I may not vote for this Willard person after-all. But it’s early, and I may not be not sufficiently caffeinated.