Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by dadx4, Aug 17, 2013.
This proves that Obama's base voting constituency would rather vote for their guy because of his heritage. "Numbers don't lie."
So, the question posed is why would these people vote for Obama in such overwhelming #s if they have suffered the most under Obama economically? Easy answer. For some it is:
FOOD STAMPS, OBAMA PHONES, HOUSING VOUCHERS, WELFARE
For the youth vote, they are simply clueless and do not read newspapers anymore. They get their drivel from internet sources which tend to be "publicists" for the regime, not journalists.
Quid pro quo.
And similarly, the voting elders on this board have the American Thinker.
I will trust the voting elder any day over kids that have never made a mortgage payment, made a payroll, or wiped their a$$ without their parent's help. No offense, but all of us are far wiser at age 50 than we were at age 20.
Sure, I can agree that people get wiser, but I just wouldn't go around bashing the biases of other people's media, when sources like the American Thinker, The Blaze, Newsmax seem to supply the worldview for many of our wiser posters. Most of us prefer to live in an echochamber, including those of us that lament the echochambers of others.
So that means even though you are wiser, you still don't have the ability to make decisions
You may want to read one of the publications you criticize. Daily Kos, The Onion, Moveon.org and The Nation aren't exactly bastions of critical thinking and unbiased opinion. I might wipe my hind end with any of them if they were sterilized first.
To be honest, I am not sure what you are getting at. I'm not yet 50, so I don't know if I qualify as wiser (and I am certain that I am not viewed so among you and the other posters on this thread), but I have made at least one decision: I recognize that each of our rationalities is biased, and I have decided not to value my bias over those of others.
Honestly, I have. For example, for a few months, I made a point of reading almost every American Thinker article postered on this thread. Sometimes it is indeed thoughtful, but virtually always it is interested in a particular viewpoint.
I'm not sure how the Onion earned a place on this list, but I absolutely agree that Moveon, mediamatter, etc. suffer from the exact same bias issue to at least the same degree. That you want to wipe your hind with them doesn't seem totally unjustified due to their bias, but your defense of Newsmax and the like suggests that bias isn't necessarily a fatal flaw for all sources.
The young vote dem because of social issues and the environment. Young people start to care more about economic issues when they start to try and move up the economic ladder with a family to support.
Minorities vote dem our of self interest. One can argue whether its healthy self interest, but when they compare the Ryan budget plan with the Patty Murray plan, of course they are going to vote dem.
As for older folks, they have done the best job of any group in the country at getting their interests put into law, the federal government spends 7 times as much on the elderly than on children. So not sure they are the best group to look at for voting for the right reasons.
The voting history of Black folk is proof that Stockholm syndrome is real. Having been held hostage by the Democrat party for generations, Blacks now see poverty, poor education, high unemployment, single welfare mothers and incarceration as normal and acceptable. Why else would they continue to vote en masse for the perpetrators of their plight?
Young voters have been marinated in socialistic tripe for so long it takes gradual doses of personal reality to wean them from the leftist gobbledygook of their formative years. They can't be expected to go cold turkey from the PC nonsense fed to them beginning in grade school. The gradual awakening of passing years filled with working for a living, paying taxes, raising children and learning the value of money and personal responsibility is the best cure for the disease of liberalism and Political Correctness.
One of my closest friends is a black female, now a professor at American University in DC. Obviously she is very smart, but she also has a very strong sense of justice. She has turned down all kinds of affirmative action offers that have come her way. She was offended at a very good job offer from my department at USF, because my boss indicated that he was excited to have her as a role model. I think she would make a great role model, but she was predictably offended. She wants only what she believes she's earned through merit, and she doesn't believe that she's earned her value as a role model.
All this is to say that she embodies very many of the values revered by conservatives. Yet she is terrified by them. She doesn't see how someone like Mitt Romney could ever help her or her black community. Whether or not you agree, she perceives racism as a very strong threat to the prosperity of black people. Romney's sweeping generalizations of "the 47%" indicate to her that he clearly doesn't understand their situation. And your post indicates that you don't understand how she could ever vote democrat, but just because you don't understand her voting behavior, doesn't mean that her viewpoint is comparable to Stockholm syndrome.
How would your friend explain Condi Rice, Tim Scott, JC Watts, Walter Williams and dozens of other AA conservatives and Pub Party representatives. They are embraced by our party. They are celebrated by our party. They are supported by our party. And yet AAs are afraid of conservatism? They ought to be afraid of liberalism, that destroyed their families, kept them in slavery, gave them free cell phones and kept them dependent on government since the war on poverty began.
From your link: "Viewed from a life-cycle perspective, it is not unfair to spend more on the elderly than on children because all individuals progress from being children to working-age adults to elderly adults."
You have a Democrat administration (FDR) to thank for Social Security (1935). You can thank successive Democrat administrations (FDR, HST, JFK and LBJ) for the expansion of Social Security into what it is today.
You can thank LBJ and the Democrats for Medicare and Medicaid (1965).
Having worked tirelessly for over seventyfive years to turn the US into a socialist country Democrats now decry the unfunded liabilities of the programs they created and championed. Hypocrites all.
Now that the Democrats have addicted the elderly to socialist programs and exchanged personal responsibility for the opium of government largess, they whine about unfair distribution of resources.
Look no further than Barack Obama for the latest version of a Democrat socialist. Having massively expanded Medicaid and unemployment (also part of the SS program) we will now be treated to the (yuk yuk) Affordable Care Act. This boondoggle will drive yet another nail into the national coffin.
If the Democrats are aghast at unfunded liabilities for programs for the elderly it begs the question: What were you thinking when you passed all these socialist programs? It is a truism that socialism works only until you run out of other peoples money.
Wargun, excellent post. Spend more time on TH and help us continue to expose the libbie lefty do gooders who wish to do good with our funds, not their own.
Excellent point. Rep.
If you are going to quote it, you should quote the entire passage. This was the line after yours:
My post had nothing to do with which party panders to the old, only that holding them up as a paragon of righteous voting is silly, I was making the point that younger voters are idealistic and as people get older they vote more and more out of rational self interest, be it minorities or the elderly. And the elderly have mastered it every bit as much as those people here who are being decried for their their free phones.
Your characterization of galloping socialism enacted by Democrats as "pandering to the old" tells us everything we need to know about your views on the plight of the elderly.
In a culture of personal responsibility the free market would have given elderly Americans choices for health insurance and retirement funding. That culture was destroyed by socialists and their gargantuan social programs which have left elderly Americans with poor choices for health insurance and an unrealistic dependence on Social Security.
You can be sure that older Americans will continue to vote according to their rational self interest. The "ideals" on which young voters and Blacks base their choices are, unfortunately, the result of many years of leftist brainwashing which takes time to outgrow. Once they attain some degree of economic success and personal responsibility their voting patterns change. Those who fail at life continue to vote for their rational self interest in government handouts. That is to say they vote Democrat.