Bush May Be Gone, But Expect BDS to Live On
In Britain, they are still bashing Thatcher 20 years later.
Now that we have seen the back end of George W. Bush, many wonder aloud what his frothing-at-the-mouth detractors on the left will do with all the bile they have accumulated over his time in office. Some conjecture that since they will no longer have W. to blame the vitriolic trashing will come to an end. Others predict that it might continue for some time to distract from Obama’s missteps and broken promises.
I have to say that I think that both schools of thought are wrong and that Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) will continue for a least a decade and probably more like two or three. You see, there is precedent for this sort of demonization of a shining leader of the right. And I am not referring to the occasions of Reagan bashing by the knowing left.
For that sort of irrational hate figure, one that inspires loathing on an almost biblical scale, you must look to the UK. The hate figure I am talking about is now known as Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven. But she will be forever known in the souls of the left as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Not since the mighty lack of social mobility:
At a time when many of their fathers were hit by unemployment, many of the generation that some have called Thatcher’s children — the lost generation — were sadly denied the chance to progress.
And despite being out of power for 20 years, Thatcher was saddled with the blame for the credit crunch the UK is suffering from:
I know the argument are more complex than that, but for me the problems in this country were born from Margaret Thatcher’s housing policy.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Andrew Ian Dodge blogs at Dodgeblogium.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
61 Comments
1. Marc Malone:Please, let them bash away! I’ll relish the sweet opening it’ll give me: “What, you get your Anointed One with a near filibuster-proof Congress and Senate, and you can’t get the job done, so you have to blame Bush?” Rinse, and repeat.
Feb 4, 2009 - 1:11 am 2. Mary Jackson:I think you’re right.
Margaret Thatcher was the best PM since Churchill. New Labour has tried its best to undo her good work, but hopefully the Tories will get in next time.
Feb 4, 2009 - 1:30 am 3. Blackwater:Most of the young people I know from the UK refer to her as the “crazy warlord lady” who destroyed a lot of blue collar communities. And everyone on the left here in this country still laugh at anyone who thinks Reagan was a good president. They think he was a moron who destroyed the environment.
Feb 4, 2009 - 2:17 am 4. formwiz:We have BDS; they have TDS. Four more years of Bambi and PDS is just around the corner.
Feb 4, 2009 - 3:41 am 5. Craig:BDS will certainly continue for years and years. The left will MAKE SURE of that. Time.com, NY Times, Washington Post, and Reuters will write hit pieces to keep the fever alive.
Feb 4, 2009 - 3:58 am 6. David H:I cannot understand how people can escape the fact that in 1997 prior to Blair and Brown gaining power on a hope and change ticket, the whole economic position of the UK was looking extremely good, with the lowest national debt for 100 years, and now look at it.
I remember the early 80’s and the people thrown out of work because the left had let the rot run too deep during the 70’s, Thatcher was not the cause, we were wasting money propping up industries that were infested by extreme left unions that felt that they could bring down governments at will and were producing shoddy goods and services. Thatcher sorted all of that out, true the industrial base of the country was reduced to too low a level, but it was on life support during the 70’s.
There is no failure of capitalism, because this is not capitalism, this is a warped version of capitalism dressed up to fail, even worse the whole financial crisis was allowed to happen by agencies like the FSA in the UK failing to carry out their role of oversight and a misplaced fleeing by certain people that the good times would never end, AKA Mr there is no longer an economic cycle Brown.
The left never own up to their errors, its always someone else, that is why they make such good allies with Islamics.
Feb 4, 2009 - 4:24 am 7. Mongoose:Well one if the sercets t Reagan’s and Thatcher’s Successes is that they ignored these ankle-biters.
As any Brit business man about Thatcher and it is another story.
Feb 4, 2009 - 4:50 am 8. Andrew Ian Dodge:As any Brit business man about Thatcher and it is another story.
As someone who knows quite a few as friends… how do you think they would react to that question?
Taxation has certainly shot up under labour in addition to all the regulation.
Feb 4, 2009 - 6:42 am 9. Mongoose:I have never met a UK business person that did not have good words to say about Thatcher. Most of them are industries that would not exist had she not been in power.
Feb 4, 2009 - 6:58 am 10. pete:I know 60’s – 70’s college students who still exert energy fighting former President Nixon. BDS will live for many more years because fighting the past is easier than formulating new policy.
Feb 4, 2009 - 7:07 am 11. David H:9. So true, I remember in the 70’s my father spending days at work, dealing with union problem after union problem, in the 70’s we had one holiday because of this, and that he almost cancelled because of a strike.
Feb 4, 2009 - 7:13 am 12. Jim Baker:Here is reality according to the left. In the last 100 years, every Republican president has been a moron, and every Democrat president has been a brilliant leader. I would just like to see the mathematical odds against the possibility of this being true. The more you point out the little tiny flaws in their avowed agenda, the more you will hear them screech this screed. Here is to hearing a lot of noise from lefty in the coming years.
Feb 4, 2009 - 8:22 am 13. Laura:The liberals destroyed Canada. Trudeau introduced socialism, multiculturalism and bilingualism. None of those systems have created anything positive. It’s too late for the conservatives now in power to do anything. The stage has been set. I fear that 4 years of Obama will do the same to America.
Feb 4, 2009 - 8:46 am 14. Kathryn (Join the revolution: Reagan Conservative Petition):This is why we need vocal and articulate Republicans in leadership who will correct the record.
Feb 4, 2009 - 8:58 am 15. rvastar:It’s easy to understand, David.
1) Western cultural institutions and information streams are utterly dominated by Leftists.
2) Leftists never…never…NEVER admit that any of their policies are wrong. They simply fall back on the boilerplate excuse that they always use when trying to explain away their failures, whether it be in welfare, education, crime, jobs, whatever…
3) Westerners are pounded with this refrain ad infinitum, until they buy into it.
The end.
RE Thatcher: yeah right…a lack of govt is at the root of all that’s plaguing a country whose national govt confiscates 40+% of the nation’s GDP each year.
Here’s the ultimate irony about all of this: the Left has become so unhinged in it’s hatred of any level of nationalist, traditionalist sentiment that it is unknowingly working to ensure the resurgence of what it fears most — the far Right. In its desperate refusal to admit any error…to countenance any critique of its dogma…it is slowly driving Western Civilization off of a cliff of moral relativism, cultural decay, geopolitical fecklessness, and unsustainable social spending.
And when the inevitable crash occurs — and I’m really beginning to worry that it may to occur in my lifetime — hundreds of millions of desperate, scared, shell-schocked native Westerners are going to be wondering how things could come to this point in the short span of time since their grandparents stood atop a civilization that absolutely dominated the world. And that sentiment is going to transmute their fear into seething anger.
Enter the BNPs…and the Le Pen’s.
Feb 4, 2009 - 9:25 am 16. Tantor:>The liberals destroyed Canada
canada is in better shape than the usa right now!!!
Feb 4, 2009 - 9:35 am 17. David H:15. You are where I am, totally and if you are under 40 it will definately happen in your lifetime.
Feb 4, 2009 - 10:01 am 18. David S:@12. Jim Baker:
The odds are better than you think, but nobody is arguing that every Republican president has been a moron. Many of them have been less than geniuses, but even the smart ones have been terrible Presidents. Democrats have also made their share of mistakes. On balance, though, it is the simple difference in philosophy that makes all the difference.
Democrats want to move the country forward, and Republicans are eager to take us backwards.
Peace.
DS
PS – Presidential IQ estimates, while controversial, help provide some perspective. Lefties on the whole are more intelligent (this also applies to Lefty voters).
Feb 4, 2009 - 10:03 am 19. Bruce:“Most of the young people I know from the UK refer to her as the “crazy warlord lady” who destroyed a lot of blue collar communities. And everyone on the left here in this country still laugh at anyone who thinks Reagan was a good president. They think he was a moron who destroyed the environment.”
Well, Blackwater, I guess that just goes to show how stupid the Left in this country really is. Regarding youth in the UK, well I don’t believe I need make any further comments that haven’t already been made (few of them complimentary)…
Feb 4, 2009 - 10:05 am 20. Joe Bison:Canada has less than the population of Texas
and New York with bountiful resources. Trudeau
shirked the responsibilities of the Cold War.
Canada rode the giant economically but
avoided the heavy lifting.
It was only with the collapse of the USSR that
Liberals could not play two sides as obviously.
Hatred of all things US burns on in the heart of true liberals and socialists.
Coming back to the article, liberals and
socialists love to throw crap. Through
innuendo, gossip and partisan attacks some
of it sticks in the mind of the uninformed.
The idea is to damage the conservative brand.
In time BS becomes truth and truth BS. The
very idea of conservative becomes distasteful.
The idea is to win elections and stay in power.
Thats why a lot of people don’t vote. They
don’t agree with the liberals on issues.
They basically agree with the conservatives
on the issues but have had an anti-conservative
message drilled into their heads.
All conservative leaders were/are heartless,
Feb 4, 2009 - 10:18 am 21. Marc Malone:stupid, crooked etc. So if I can’t get you to
vote liberal then I’ll influence you not to
vote at all.
#18 David S – I read your links and had to laugh. Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. They based their estimates on education, not intelligence. “Ooh, he uses such big words!” (gush) Bunch of ivory-tower university types who put too much faith in the education system. The Pubs are more plain-spoken, because they want to communicate with the general public. Big words are not the proper coin of a President. It doesn’t mean they’re stupid. Besides, wisdom is more important than intelligence. The Dems have rarely governed well because of this lack.
FDR made the Depression Great. Horrible, horrible.
Kennedy almost got the world incinerated, although I give him props for pulling us back from it. He also was the first Dem tax-cutter. Oh, and didn’t he intiate getting us into ‘Nam, or was that Johnson? Don’t remember. Kennedy also launched the space race, which while a thing of national pride, probably sent us down the wrong track for space exploration. All in all, he was okay.
Johnson was a lousy one-termer, like Carter.
Carter was an unmitigated disaster. The housing bubble started with him. We’re still paying for that idiot’s boneheadedness. His whole term was almost one long recession, nearly a depression. Just awful.
Clinton had a bad first couple years, until the Republican Revolution saved him. He also reinforced the CRA, thus really making the housing bubble possible. He also took military action without prior approval of Congress: an impeachable offense.
Now, we have Obama. That’s just looking so good, so far.
As for the Pubs, Eisenhower was mediocre. Nixon was a crook, but he opened relations with a previously hostile China. Ford was mediocre to poor. Reagan was undoubtedly great. Bush I was average, as was Bush II.
Fact is, most of our presidents were just so-so, but the truly bad ones were Dems: FDR; Johnson; Carter. So tell me again how smart they were.
Feb 4, 2009 - 11:07 am 22. Jim Baker:For a laugh, I encourage everyone here to check out the IQ statistics which David S cites in post #18. Pull your head out, David!
Feb 4, 2009 - 11:09 am 23. newton:Hey, people still badmouth Herbert Hoover (”Hoover-ville”), and almost nobody studies history enough nowadays to understand why he’s still badmouthed in the first place.
Feb 4, 2009 - 11:17 am 24. ashok:Do you think there’s a way of countering this?
BDS is probably effective not just because of left-wing nutjobs, but because too few on the Right are willing to say “Bush was correct about certain things and 99% of the stuff said about him consists of lies.” Perhaps a way of preventing the Democratic party from using Bush as an effective scapegoat is to start talking about a far more positive narrative, rather than the mainly negative or “balanced” one we see. I honestly feel W. can be given credit for trying to bring new voters into the Republican party, and that his efforts failed not merely because he wasn’t conservative enough, but because the party as a whole didn’t feel the need to build anything.
If Bush can be seen as someone who, while mistaken, saw certain problems a mile away, that may be a strong enough narrative to start counterattacking the “he’s responsible for everything bad in the past, present and future” bit we’re expected to believe.
Feb 4, 2009 - 11:31 am 25. David S:@21. Marc Malone:
The Great Depression started in 1929 – under Hoover.
The malaise of the 1970’s was due to Nixon’s policies.
Eisenhower was the one that got us ass deep into Vietnam.
Reagan’s failures are too numerous to mention (Iran/Contra, National Debt, AIDS, etc).
Bush I and II both managed to leave the US economy in tatters.
FDR prevented the fall of the West. Johnson fulfilled the promise of Civil Rights, and Carter began the healing from Vietnam, established diplomatic relations with China, and negotiated Israeli-Egyptian peace.
@22. Jim Baker:
I also find it quite hilarious that the GOP is getting dumber.
Peace.
DS
Feb 4, 2009 - 11:42 am 26. malclave:#18
“PS – Presidential IQ estimates, while controversial, help provide some perspective. Lefties on the whole are more intelligent (this also applies to Lefty voters).”
If lefties are supposedly more intelligent, why are they continuing to advance this hoax?
Are they in reality stupid enough to believe it? Or are they just advancing it because of their innate dishonesty?
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.asp
Feb 4, 2009 - 12:18 pm 27. Yaakov Watkins:David S.
The great depression started under Hoover and continued until WWII pumped us up. The consensus now is that FDR made things worse.
The malaise of the 70s was caused by four things.
1. The bounceback after we stopped spending money on Vietnam
2. Gas prices tripling in August of 1973.
3. Affirmative action in employment sent a whole lot of unskilled women and minorities into jobs they were not ready for and with coworkers who were not ready for them.
4.
Eisenhower got us into Vietnam but it was not a large commitment. It was just a few soldiers and they weren’t allowed to shoot except in self defense. Kennedy changed their rules of engagement.
Reagan did not cause AIDS.
The Iran hostage affair under Carter, especially our failed rescue attempt in April of 1980 under Carter set the stage for our problems with Iran.
Reagan ended the cold war.
Clinton gutted the CIA leaving it unable to provide good intelligence about Saddam. Johnson was responsible for the buildup in Vietnam. School busing was started under Johnson. That started white flight to the suburbs creating transportation problems and making the pollution problems worse. Nixon established relations with China, not Carter. If you look at our aid to Egypt before and after the famous peace accords between Egypt and Israel, you will see that Carter simply bribed Egypt to not shoot at Israel.
ENRON and other similar issues were caused by Clinton’s failure to notice that accounting standards were being gutted. That made it legal for CEOs to lie on the quarterly reports. That blew up just in time for Bush II to take office.
The gutted CIA did not know about 9/11 and that day the world changed forever.
Feb 4, 2009 - 12:40 pm 28. Войска ПВО:David S writes:
“The Great Depression started in 1929 – under Hoover. The malaise of the 1970’s was due to Nixon’s policies. Eisenhower was the one that got us ass deep into Vietnam.”
David S., just because you write something does not make it so. It would be nice to support your assertions.
While your contention about Hoover is technically correct, many have argued that FDR did prolong the recession and that citation is a reference to some UCLA economists’ calculation — arguably not a right-wing think-tank.
Basically, however, your point about Nixon economic policies being the raison d’être for Carter’s malaise is made up out of whole cloth. I wonder if you lived through that era and realize — as a an average citizen — how much worse Carter was at managing the problems of the economy than Nixon was. Things weren’t great under Nixon but they flat sucked under Carter. Here’s a hint, genius: google misery index and see who comes out as the all-time champ despite having his hands on the controls for only four years.
Also, I see you pulled your point about Eisenhower getting us into Viet Nam out of that dark orifice of yours. Kennedy is largely credited with beginning our more serious involvement (i.e., the 1961 white paper that caused Kennedy to send military advisors to the RVN) and Johnson escalated the involvement to over half a million troops in 1968.
..again, just writing it does not make it reality.
Feb 4, 2009 - 1:06 pm 29. Jim Baker:Sheesh. David S, did you say you are a Democrat? Please take my honest advise and look for your information in less agenda driven web sites.
Feb 4, 2009 - 1:30 pm 30. Mongoose:Ike was not mediocre, and just what was it that Nixon stole?
More Liberal propaganda.
Feb 4, 2009 - 2:16 pm 31. Andrew Ian Dodge:David S is so far out it just made me laugh. I know Democrats who don’t believe that pile of dung he is peddling. The Middle East is a mess because of Carter not despite him. And he continues to empower terrorists everywhere he goes.
The rest has been corrected by others.
To quote a friend of mine…
“In 500 years, the cockroaches will chitter “Bush is Hitler!” while racing from rusted refrigerator to rusted refrigerator.”
Feb 4, 2009 - 3:04 pm 32. TexasRacistSexistHomophobe:I think it was Reagan who said, “It is not that our opponents don’t know that is so dangerous; it is the things that they do “know” that simply aren’t true. He must have been thinking of David S. at 18, who provided us with a link to a purported “study of Presidential IQs”.
David, I’m going to type this very slowly, so that even a Leftist can understand. That “study” was a hoax. Major media that fell (and why wouldn’t they, for it was anti-GOP) for it later ran retractions.
Leftwingers are not smarter than rightwingers, unless you count believing bullshit as a sign of high intelligence.
Feb 4, 2009 - 5:09 pm 33. Jim Baker:Don’t worry, our buddy David S will pop up again soon on another thread. He will assert his greatly enlightened knowledge from the same silly sources, and he will sign off with “Peace DS” and I will get caught reading his drivel yet again.
Feb 4, 2009 - 7:28 pm 34. Trid:Thanks to PJM for allowing a wide range of opinions. This is not something you will ever find on DailyKos or HuffingtonPost or any of the other online branches of the Democrat party.
27. Yaakov Watkins:
“Reagan did not cause AIDS.”
You just made my day.
Feb 4, 2009 - 8:00 pm 35. Joe Bison:Truman got us into Korea. Eisenhower got
us out. Johnson escalated Vietnam into a
major war. Nixon got us out.
Johnson created a spending boom. He was a
New Dealer who always increased government
spending and control. His mentor FDR prolonged
the depression and was only saved by WW2.
also David S- I thought Nixon was the one
Feb 4, 2009 - 8:50 pm 36. Marc Malone:who went to China. I think you live in
an alternate leftist universe where fact
and fiction co-exist. You should try for
a career as a writer for certain MSM
newspapers.
#30 Mongoose – Sorry, but as you probably have guessed, I’m no Lib, but I also think rather poorly of Ike. Ike was good at politics and administration, but was deficient in other ways.
People got disenchanted with Ike during the recession of ‘58. It’s one of the reasons a novice like Kennedy got elected. The income tax rate went way up under Eisenhower. Kennedy ran on a platform of cutting taxes to get us out of the slowdown. To his credit, he did that. Sure, he ran against Nixon, but the taxes doomed the Pubs.
Feb 5, 2009 - 12:16 am 37. David S:@etc
Intelligence – I posted one hoax and one real link. As expected, everyone responded pointing “hoax” and nobody noticed that the other link was more important anyway… proving my point that Republicans are less intelligent than Democrats. Again.
Hoover/FDR – I refer you to Standard & Poor’s. You can see that, although the growth was slow, FDR improved things dramatically from the freefall under Hoover.
Eisenhower/Kennedy – On October 26, 1955, Diem declared the new Republic of Vietnam, with himself as president. The Republic of Vietnam was created largely because of the Eisenhower administration’s desire for an anti-communist state in the region.
Nixon/Carter – If you didn’t notice the first time, take a second glance at the GDP chart above. You’ll see that growth under Carter was better than under Nixon. Nixon dropped the gold exchange standard which also contributed to stagflation.
Reagan – GDP growth worse than Carter. Failed to respond sufficiently to AIDS crisis. Left USA with largest debt ever.
You can keep playing the blame game as much as you like. After eight years of Bush, it is obvious: what the GOP has to offer is not what the USA needs.
Peace.
DS
Feb 5, 2009 - 12:17 am 38. stuart Williamson:Anybody who who looks at a list of comparative IQs which includes figures above 145, and doesn’t realize that it is phony has an IQ of around 100. Einsten’s IQ was over 140, and you can be quite sure no president ever approached his intellect. The claim that Obama’s is 145 is ridiculous. It is doubtful if it is 119, shared by JFK and GWB.
But then, we’ll never know. He’ll never release it. It is in a vault somewhere, along with his birth certificate and his college grades.
Feb 5, 2009 - 1:16 am 39. Irish Alex:@37 David S
So you deliberately lied and then expected people to believe that you were not doing so?
“Ha ha! Fooled you! But now I am being completely serious and you should listen to me. I swear I’m not lying this time. Unless I am.”
Which, of course, you were. From the second article:
“higher intelligence scores are associated with Conservative voting on average.”
And the majority of the article is actually about intelligence and proclivity to vote, not who people vote for. So the connection is tenuous at best.
Feb 5, 2009 - 2:51 am 40. TexasRacistSexistHomophobe:David S. at 37., referring to his post at 18., said,
“I posted one hoax and one real link.”
No, David, you posted one hoax and one real link that promoted two more hoaxes.
The first hoax, that you’ve already admitted to, dealt with “Presidential IQs”. The other two hoaxes are contained within the link to the USA Today article that claims that “intelligence is linked to leftwing politics”. The first hoax in the article claims support for the notion that higher IQ voters are more likely to vote Democrat. This “study” was completely debunked by snopes.com. Snopes showed that the real linkage was between state per capita income and Democrat voting — that is, rich people are more likely to vote Democrat (Gee, isn’t that the opposite of what we’ve been told?)
The second hoax is based on a study of UK voters which the USA Today columnist said showed that “voters were 32% more likely to vote for the UK’s more left-wing Liberal party over the Conservative party for every 15 IQ points they scored above average as children.” The problem with this spin is that it fails to take into account that here in America the Marxists — proponents of the most anti-liberal ideology ever — kidnapped the term “liberal” 100 years ago so that “liberal” means the opposite here as it does everywhere else in the world. To find out what “liberal” means to the “smarter UK voters”, this description of the Liberal Democrat Party platform should help:
Liberal Democrats stake out the most explicitly liberal economic policy in a century. The party’s website pledges to get the British government “off the back of businesses” and assures voters that the LibDems “want to cut the red tape that stops businesses from growing.” Press releases during the campaign have excoriated “Labour’s business record” as “complex, interfering and over regulating” and have promised that “Liberal Democrats will set business free.” And though they would shift many of its current powers to other agencies, the LibDems propose abolishing the Department of Trade and Industry, claiming it would constitute “the biggest single act of deregulation in history.”
[Party Leader]Kennedy summons language to explicate his party’s core values that would stir any Classical [that is, non-American, anti-Marxist] Liberal heart: “The first guiding principle is a mindset, I think—a gut philosophical instinct—to see society in terms of the individual, first and foremost, rather than the interests of the state.”
Thus the “liberal” party in the UK is not, as the USA Today columnist mistakenly said, “leftwing” in the American, Marxist style, but rather in American would be closest in ideology to the Libertarian Party which is generally considered “rightwing” here. Therefore, the study shows a correlation between higher IQs and what we in the U.S. would call rightwing voting.
David S., it must be troubling when you learn that so many things that you “know” are lies. Especially when the media, the public schools, the university professors, and Hollywood all promote these hoaxes. Now you have a choice — a decidely libertarian-liberal (anti-Marxist) concept: You can take the red pill or the blue pill.
Feb 5, 2009 - 6:49 am 41. Roy M:I thought I’d have a look at the relations between a few things and voting patterns.
I looked at the relation between proportion the State vote for McCain and each of a) the proportion of State population with a degree, b)the proportion of obese people in the State, c) Oral hygiene (expressed as proportion of age 65+ State population with no teeth).
I found significant relations between all three quantities:
increasing obesity,
lower educational achievement
poorer oral hygiene
were correlated with increasing vote for McCain at the State level. Strangely, these were the first (and only) three potential relations I looked at. Imagine my surprise.
All the data I used is available online, so anyone can check the veracity of it (and look for mistakes in the analysis) if they care to.
Results at http://www.roy.macarthur.com (scroll down a little)
The most shocking thing I discovered while looking at this had nothing to do with voting at all, it was the increase in obesity generally over the last through years. You can find out about that at the CDC site referenced under the obesity/education/voting chart at roy.macarthur.com.
Feb 5, 2009 - 6:55 am 42. TexasRacistSexistHomophobe:41. Roy M. says,
I looked at the relation between proportion the State vote for McCain and each of a) the proportion of State population with a degree, b)the proportion of obese people in the State, c) Oral hygiene (expressed as proportion of age 65+ State population with no teeth).
Since educational levels, obesity, and dental care are all symptons of poverty, you could have saved yourself considerable trouble by just comparing per capita state income with votes.
Since you are a hardworker though, may I suggest you compare McCain’s votes with, oh say per capita charitible contributions as a proportion of income, or per capita number of hours volunteering for community services. That way you could learn that McCain voters are more likely than Obama voters to be both poorer and more charitable and community-minded.
Feb 5, 2009 - 8:36 am 43. paul_unalaska:David S, borrowing a bit from Foxworthy:
If you’re a Poly Sci major and your pony-tailed, ‘Warren Churchill’-like Professor espouses emotionally driven, opinionated garbage and you buy it, ‘You might be a Democrat.’
In all seriousness, pick up a history book on the subjects you’d mentioned, written by non-partisan, bland, white toast type of authors. You’ll learn to form a more balanced, logical and well thought out FACTS to your posts. You may accrue knowledge during which you’ll be the better for. In hopes of sharing this new found ‘freedom’ so to speak, to the masses.
Feb 5, 2009 - 9:29 am 44. paul_unalaska:Secondly, is anyone else growing uncomfortable with Obama’s admin. picks and the media dding, ‘Though the person is very smart and a quick learner…’
I heard that mantra again this morning for Pinetta. A quick learner.. of the CIA. Oh wait. Pinetta did intel briefings and involved with intel spending. Wow great experience, bub.
The greatest nation on earth and we the people are relying on optimism and unfounded platitudes for those to lead, protect us? Oy…
The last time I heard so much, ‘He means well’ or ‘Heart is in the right place’ type of jibberish were excuses made for Carter during the Iran hostage crisis and bungled attempts in resolving it.
He’s a prime example of not having top notch intel folks surrounding you and the country. Now were more than likely getting a paper pusher like Pinetta..?
Being President, you haven’t the comfort to be ‘optimistic’ or ‘wishful’. Only results! And good/ great results at that.
Feb 5, 2009 - 9:38 am 45. Carney:Roy M., liberals love to sneer at Red State social stats, but carefully avoid digging a little deeper into the data.
If they did, they’d find a certain highly conspicuous demographic group with catastrophically awful social statistics being heavily prevalent in the South and which drag down statewide average performance, which group is all but absent in liberal favorite states such as Vermont and Oregon.
Why don’t liberals ever compare, say, the divorce, addiction, murder, graduation, obesity etc., rates of, say, Utah and Idaho with, oh, California and New York?
I think we all know why.
Feb 5, 2009 - 11:18 am 46. LondonTrader:TexasRacistSexistHomophobe: I do not agree with anything that David S has said and agree with almost everything else posted here. However I should point out that despite your quotes from the Lib Dem parties platform that they are considered to be a left wing party. There beliefs are certainly not classically liberal and they are nothing like the liberterians of the US.
Feb 5, 2009 - 12:01 pm 47. Roy M:Degrees(%) Obesity (%) Toothless (65+)
UT 18.1 21.8 13.5
ID 26.1 24.5 22.4
CA 29.4 22.6 13.7
Feb 5, 2009 - 12:29 pm 48. TexasRacistSexistHomophobe:NY 30.5 25.0 16.8
46. I’m not arguing with you, but where do they differ substantially from U.S. libertarians?
Feb 5, 2009 - 12:53 pm 49. David S:@40. TexasRacistSexistHomophobe:
First, I have to say your handle wins points for honesty.
Unfortunately the rest of your post fails to.
The results of the intelligence and voting study in Britain indicate:
Your assertion that the Liberal Democrats of the UK are like US conservatives is simply laughable.
Do you think the GOP is known for ecological sustainability and social liberalism?
Here you simply lie, unabashedly. A study clearly shows intelligence correlated with voting for ecological sustainability and social liberalism, and you conclude that this is what “we in the U.S” would call rightwing voting. Speak for yourself. The GOP is nothing of the sort.
No pills for me, thanks. You might want to lay off the pills yourself. You proved my point about GOP intelligence again. Thanks!
Peace.
DS
Feb 5, 2009 - 6:38 pm 50. Jim Baker:Atta boy, David!
Feb 5, 2009 - 8:33 pm 51. Cadenza:David S., all I can say is Wow. Is it just me, or does everyone with your mindset (closed) really enjoy being illogical and stating random non-referenced “studies?” What exactly are you trying to prove? That people who disagree with you and have reasonable, substantiated arguments are unintelligent–just because they disagree with you? Name-calling and insults do not a rational argument make.
Feb 5, 2009 - 9:11 pm 52. Assistant Village Idiot:David S may be a hoax, a sock puppet, so don’t get too worked up about him. His arguments are generally poor, seizing on snippets that he believes give evidence for his point but often say something quite different.
David…as a past president of the Prometheus Society I know a little bit about IQ’s, distribution, political correlations, etc. While there are certainly those who know more than I, my knowledge of same is well above-average. Let me assure you that you don’t want to go head-to-head on this one – but I’m game. As you have started with the non-existent Lowenstein Institute, you are already down one point for either stupidity or dishonesty. Keep digging.
Feb 6, 2009 - 8:35 am 53. Bilgeman:Mr Dodge:
“I can see Democrats using President Bush for the next quarter of a century, just as they have used McCarthy to quell any criticism levied at any behavior.”
I’m afraid that you’re entirely prescient in this.
Made for Tee-Vee,(or whatever we’re watching then),movies of the future will have themes about noble anti-war homosexual ecowarriors bravely “MoveOn”-ing despite how bad the grub was in the Halliburton-run Labor Camps that BushCo confined them to.
Look at how many free lunches Woodward and Bernstein have noshed on over Watergate, while Ken Starr couldn’t hail a taxi in New York or Hollywood while waving a crisp new $100 bill…
Feb 6, 2009 - 8:48 am 54. David S:@52. AVI,
You are welcome to share your knowledge for the enlightenment of all in attendance. Including an ‘intelligence test’ in my post doesn’t equal stupidity or dishonesty.
What does the past President of the Prometheus Society have to say for the intelligence of our last three Republican Presidents?
Peace.
DS
Feb 6, 2009 - 10:01 am 55. mac:@54. David S.,
“You are welcome to share your knowledge for the enlightenment of all in attendance.”
How kind of you to extend such an invitation! Are you now one of the proprietors of PJM? Or are you only a barely tolerated and clearly unwelcome sockpuppet/troll? Judging from the commentary, I’d say the answer to that rhetorical question is abundantly clear.
“Including an ‘intelligence test’ in my post doesn’t equal stupidity or dishonesty.”
Since the entirety of your befouling “contributions” to this thread are evidence of stupidity and dishonesty, you’re once again wrong in this statement.
“What does the past President of the Prometheus Society have to say for the intelligence of our last three Republican Presidents?”
I won’t presume to guess AVI’s opinion. I will, however, note that all of them are/were considerably more honorable men than their Democrat Party contemporaries.
I don’t recall that either of the Bushes or Reagan had any problems with “bimbo eruptions” or selling military secrets to our enemies, or trashing our country abroad for the benefit of those who had killed Americans.
“Peace.”
I’ve got one for you: MOA.
Feb 7, 2009 - 8:18 am 56. Bob Ferguson:I lived in London in the early 70’s. The English were depressed. Strikes were continuous. Coal, railroads, you name it. Supplies of goods and services were spotty. Most industry was on the brink of bankruptcy and being nationalized.
No one that had a choice avoided the National Health Service.
Average people were liquidating household goods to make ends meet.
Thatcher saved Britton. Period.
Now we have the socialists in America trying duplicate Britton of the 70’s.
Go figure.
Feb 7, 2009 - 5:59 pm 57. Bilgeman:#56 Bob Ferguson:
“I lived in London in the early 70’s. The English were depressed. Strikes were continuous. Coal, railroads, you name it. Supplies of goods and services were spotty. Most industry was on the brink of bankruptcy and being nationalized.”
One of the artifacts of that period, which I think unintentionally captures how dire their straits were is the show:
“Are You Being Served”
While the writing was classic English vaudevilian broad comedy, the set was the real giveaway…how great it would be to work in a…(wait for it!)…DEPARTMENT STORE!
Feb 7, 2009 - 7:12 pm 58. Warrl:#18 David S: Democrats want to move the country forward, and Republicans are eager to take us backwards.
If that is true, I presume that a change of power from one party to the other is routinely accompanied by substantial reversals of policy. (And no, whether US tax funding of family-planning efforts in the third world can or cannot include abortion, is NOT substantial.)
I cannot think of an instance of this happening.
I would say, rather, that Democrats want to move the country forward at 100 MPH, Republicans think that 90 MPH will get us where they want us to go with less risk of the voters rebelling… and neither one is paying attention to the fact that there is, somewhere up ahead, a cliff…
Feb 7, 2009 - 9:24 pm 59. Shef Rogers:No comparison. She won her war in two weeks.
Feb 7, 2009 - 9:44 pm 60. Bob Ferguson:58. Warrl:
I would say, rather, that Democrats want to move the country forward at 100 MPH, Republicans think that 90 MPH will get us where they want us to go with less risk of the voters rebelling… and neither one is paying attention to the fact that there is, somewhere up ahead, a cliff…
We need none of the above on the ballot. I am tired of holding my nose and voting on the one who will do the least damage. Also, I like a split government and a senate split 51 to 49.
Feb 8, 2009 - 2:07 pm 61. David S:@55. mac:
Thanks much for contributing your insightful personal insults to the discussion. Your line about the “honorable men” of the GOP was good for a laugh. Good luck with your selective memory problem.
Peace.
DS
Feb 8, 2009 - 2:25 pm