About Me

Name: Juwar74
Email: dawsmark@aol.com
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

How to Debate Against Same Sex Marriage Part I

Posted by Juwar74 on Monday, May 04, 2009 12:10:35 PM
Conservatives are horrible at debating this issue.  If only they would use their heads.  Many times, they believe same-sex marriage is a religious/traditional issue rather than a civil rights issue, and therefore, argue from that prism.  First of all, seeing same-sex marriage as a religious issue only weakens their position because religion in itself, agree or disagree, is not based in any scientific or universal acceptance or truth.  I mean Christianity, Islam, and Judaism is not practiced by everyone, so as soon as someone starts spouting Bible, Koran or whatever, they have already allowed their opponent to dismiss their point of view as lunacy or demagoguery. 

So how can they win this debate.  Well, first of all, they are not paying attention to what gays and lesbians are doing to gain support for the issue.  It seems to me that the reason why gays and lesbians are winning the debate in the public forum is because they use what has been used before--by painting themselves as victims or a group that is so egregiously oppressed.  Now, I for one don't think they have been oppressed in the truest sense.  Maybe repressed, not oppressed.  There has never been written law that explicitly denied gays/lesbians from basic rights like minorities or women, even though they try to align their struggle of marriage with something like say, the voting rights of the aforementioned groups.  Besides, other than the same-sex marriage issue, what else do gays/lesbians really have to complain about?  I guess they feel that if same-sex marriage was legal then that it would imply that people would have to live with the idea that homosexual behavior is acceptable.  I don't know about this.  And I don't think so.

There will be some who will accept homosexual behavior, some that don't and some who don't give a rat's behind as long as it isn't around them or anyone they know.  That is democracy. 

Gays and lesbians want the public to ultimately perceive their behavior as a natural occurrence.  I believe homosexuality is a natural occurrence.  I have read the science and believe it is a result of a chemical imbalance in the hypothalamus area of the brain during fetal development in the womb.  I think the science is convincing.  I mean, during fetal development, some kids are born blind, deaf, with many types of diseases, genetic or otherwise.  Any biologists will tell you that biology is never 100%.  There are all kinds of defects.  (Don't misinterpret the last line as me saying homosexuality is a defect.)  Biology is a science of evolution, which means that everything sometimes comes out alright and sometimes they don't. 

So the way to win the same-sex marriage debate in the public-sphere is to first find a segment of the populace and make them a victim in some way.  I noticed that gays/lesbians usually get their support from women.  They are always being flaunted on women-friendly shows, mainly because women are generally more sympathetic to their causes.  And, secretly, they are protective of gays/lesbians (particular gay men) because it is a possibility that they may have a gay son.  Whatever their reasons are, it doesn't really matter though.  So, the strategy to attack same-sex marriage must be shaped in order to get sympathy from women without demonizing gays or lesbians. 

Therefore, opponents should use the current cultural trends and turn it on its head.  One way is to create the victim group.  One group is of course children.  Then, the opponent would need to show that children are being victimized in the current cultural trends.  And if the victimization is repeated over and over again, it will eventually receive sympathy and therefore support.  One group that I see as being victimized in the past 15 years or so are young boys without fathers.  Many of these boys are growing up around single mothers, some irresponsible, but all overworked.    Statistics are constantly showing boys with single mothers are more likely to go to jail, use drugs, experiment with sex, are overly attracted to violence, etc, etc...  We all know the stats.  So I'm not going to repeat them. 



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Out of the Wilderness, Into the Swamps

Posted by Juwar74 on Sunday, March 01, 2009 8:26:57 PM
After only a little more than five weeks of Obama being in office, the conservatives are desperately creating the illusion that America is outrage at the direction the country is headed.  They are once again spouting the same tired old rhetoric that made the electorate vote against many of the things they stood for in the November election.  And it sure is sad to watch them take up the banner for a futile cause in this time in our history.  Their shouts at CPAC remind me of what Beneatha Younger said in 'A Raisin in the Sun.'  She mocked her brother Walter Lee's idealism with the comment: "Well, there are all those prophets who'll lead us out of the wilderness and into the swamps." 

The conservatives are blindly looking for their own "Messiah", since many of their Republican leaders have basically used them for their voting bloc, while favoring corporate bigwigs who essentially wiped out the life savings, 401k and stocks of many of these conservatives.  Even with Reagonomics proving itself to be ineffective, they still cling to textbook philosophy rather than economic reality.

These people are just stupid.  They are emotional.  They just don't have the facts.  If any of them actually looked at the numbers, there is no way they could disagree with what economists already know.  U.S. is nearly on the verge of a monetary collapse, yet these fools are still yelling,  "trickle down economics" under the guise of the words "freedom", "liberty", and "free markets."



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Vultures They Are

Posted by Juwar74 on Friday, January 23, 2009 10:08:19 AM
No doubt, Obama is a political phenom.  Of course, his popularity could be attributed to the electorate's disgust with George Bush.  I mean, let's get real.  Obama's rise was a direct result of George Bush's incompetence, and you could hear the relief of millions during the inauguration when Bush left Washington in a helicopter and the people below could be heard cheering. 
 
Obama has made some very bold promises during his campaign, and now that he's president, the vultures (conservative and mainstream media) are basically on a feeding frenzy to trip him up.  This country loves a good story, and one of the most American stories people like to see is the rise and fall of a pop star.  With only three days in office, everyone is nitpicking in an effort for them to say, "See, he's not all that."  In a competitive society like America, competition breeds envy, the type of visceral response that makes some folks look at Obama and say, "Just who does he think he is.  He needs to be taken down a peg or two."
 
It's sad, but its true.  Conservatives are waiting in the wings.  If Obama the Great doesn't perform a magic trick in the next few weeks, they are going to call him ineffective, not realizing that in order to clean up what Bush has done to this country for the past eight years would take probably eight years or more. 
 
It goes to the heart of America culture today.  They want a quick solution.  Sort of like a magic pill.  Americans like pills.  Lipitor, Plaxis, Xanacs...
 
See where we are coming to.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Creepy Smile of John McCain

Posted by Juwar74 on Saturday, October 18, 2008 11:02:20 PM
It's scary.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Americans: Kool-Aid Drinkers?

Posted by Juwar74 on Friday, October 17, 2008 7:17:38 PM
In the conservative mind, anyone who votes for Obama is a kool-aid drinker.  So I suspect that, as of the latest national polls, 51% are drunk on Obama. 

The desperate McCain/Palin camp are providing the rocks to throw at their rallies.  And yet, after twenty months of getting to know Obama, there are still those who believe, come hell or highwater, that Obama is a  "Marxist, socialist, and left-wing loon" who hangs out with "former terrorists, and America-hating Revs."  Neo-cons like to whisper, "There's still some things we don't know about him."  Usually, it is those who refused to know him personally who make such statements.  They would rather feel comfortable believing the rumors, the innuendos, and the suspicions that Obama's ultimate goal is to destroy America with Left-Wing Radicalism.

I capitalized "left-wing radicalism" to evoke a sense of omnipresent force of nature--like a Greek god.  Neo-cons love gods, or God, that they see any idea different from them as such.

However, this characterization of Obama as the destroyer of America if elected president is somehow rather inconsistent.  Why would someone who hates or wants to destroy America run for president?  To even run for President, you must love it with all your heart.  Are they suggesting that Obama loves the country so much he is willing to destroy it?

And why would Democrats in the primaries, as well as the growing number of American voters in the general election season would lean toward such a radical?  American voters are not that stupid.  They can recognize a phoney when they see one.  They can also recognize a left-wing nut when they see one too.  I don't think people see Obama that way.  If they had, he would have been swept under the rug in the primaries, as John Edwards had been, or Christopher Dodd and others, long before the general election.  But yet, they chose him, and realistically, all those people can't be kool-aid drinkers.  It wouldn't make much sense. 

And now, with only 19 days left, that would also mean that 51% of the electorate is totally  brainwashed.

The neo-con would say, "Yep."

Well, I don't think there is that much kool-aid to go around.





Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sliding Scale

Posted by Juwar74 on Monday, October 13, 2008 7:53:08 PM
Today, gas fell under $3.00 in my area to $2.99. 

What's the deal?  Did we find some extra barrels of oil somewhere in the world?  No.
Did we do what the Republicans have been begging us to do since early in the year--"Drill, baby, drill!..."   No.
So it seems to me, what happened today, was what I had expected all along.  We were being screwed by price manipulators of the market.  Now, some of them would justify prices falling because of an increase in unemployment, but that just proves my point even stronger.

Either production of oil was being scaled back in order to bleed us dry, or there was an actual shortage of oil supply.  I suspect the former rather than the latter.  However, I do not want anyone who reads this to walk away thinking that I advocate the continuation of the consumption of fossil fuels and not transition to renewable energy.  I'm all for getting off the oil teat, but I hate the idea of traders and oil producers behaving so greedily just to improve their bottom line.  I mean, what was special about the oil supply that it was 4.15 just two months ago and now 2.99 today. 

This is a bunch of BS! 


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Attack! Attack! Attack!

Posted by Juwar74 on Sunday, October 12, 2008 10:01:21 AM
There is no time left.  The election is upon us, and the Id of the nation is unfolding.  Like the pet wolf with its back in a corner, the conservatives are on the attack, resulting to fiery and destructive diatribes at McCain rallies, on McCain flyers, and under the dark music of a McCain TV ad.  They are becoming red in the face, their eyes are changing to black, and their incisors are growing larger.  However, when they pounce, McCain pulls on the chain.  Back, Fang, back!

But it might be that the attack animal could turn on its owner for not letting him loose.  The steak is only a few feet away. However, the steak is an illusion, rather a picture torn from a bistro magazine.  Still, the animal doesn't  know the difference.  It is hope that keeps him lurching forward.

The steak is the ridiculous innuendos and rumors surrounding Obama, whom the conservatives, in a desperate attempt to suggest that there is a "there there," have become active buffoons on the campaign trail.  Their antics are being viewed by the world and they are proving in a clear light, how illiterate they are, how irrational they are, how racist they are, how small-minded they are, and how stupid they are.  It is no surprise why these conservatives are attracted to Sarah Palin.  Some have said that she is a reflection of them, which is quite telling.  Any leader and his or her voters who are adverse to reading or higher education attainment, like Palin and her supporters have to some extent proven, should be nowhere near the White House.

So what's the deal?  Why are these voters so visceral?

They are not visceral because these people are inherently mean.  They are visceral because they are seeing that their hopes and their children's hopes, or their neighbors hopes to be anything more than what they are is based on a false assumption:  All you have to be is "well liked," as Willy Loman believed in 'Death of a Salesman.'  Because Middle America is not considered a bastion of "intellectual supremacy", and because many of them who live there know that, their hopes of ever making it in America has to be rooted solely in their personality while mocking those who are genuinely smart like Obama, or some Democratic Leaders, or some Republicans for that matter.

Over time, these stupid people become cynical, which is the worst trait to have in a democracy.  Unfortunately, there are politicians, mostly Republicans, who exploit this, by feeding the flames, then stepping back and acting as if they had nothing to do with it.  They like to throw rocks and hide their hands.  With a cynical electorate, not too many people will vote, and this is good for the Republicans.  Republicans generally win when there is low voter turn out.

Man, four more weeks to go.  I just hope that McCain, to save his integrity and his political career, keeps his pet wolf on the leash before someone actually gets hurt by the stupid people.


 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Muddy the Waters--Part V

Posted by Juwar74 on Sunday, September 14, 2008 7:39:40 AM
For conservative talking heads to gain credibility among its audience, they must be at least three times as smart as them.  And three times more deceptive.  Because they know that the majority of their audience base their logic on their ideology, regardless of whether it is sound or supported by the facts, the conservative media big-wigs argue on the fallacy of relativism.

The Nizkor Project notes that relativist fallacy is committed "when a person rejects an argument by asserting that the argument might be true for others but is not for him or her.  In this context, relativism is the view that truth and facts are relative.  This is not the view that the argument will be true at different times or of different people, but the view that an argument could be true for one person and  false for another at the same time."

The Nizkor Project also notes, in many cases, "when people say 'that X is true for me' what they really mean is 'I believe X' or 'X is true about me.'  It is important to be quite clear about the distinction between being true about a person and being true for a person.  A claim is true about a person if the claim is a statement that describes the person correctly.  For example, 'Bill has blue eyes' is true of Bill if Bill has blue eyes.  To make a claim such as 'X is true for Bill' is to say that the claim is true for Bill and that it need not be true for others. For example: '1 + 1=23 is true for Bill' would mean that, for Bill, 1+1 actually does equal 23, not that he merely believes that 1+1=23 (that would be 'It is true of Bill that he believes 1+1=23').  Another example would be 'The claim that the earth is flat is true for Bill' would mean that the earth really is flat for Bill (in other words, Bill would be in a different world than the rest of the human race).  Since these situations (1+1 being 23 and the earth being flat for Bill) are extremely strange, it certainly seems that truth is not relative to individuals (although beliefs are)."

Contemplating the definition, conservative media takes advantage of this fallacy that is prevalent among its viewers.  For example, conservative media knows that a good size of its audience fallaciously brand Obama a muslim, so they play on it. 

Many times on news shows and radio programs, some right wingers will say "I'm not voting for Obama, he's a muslim."  When the moderator will challenge such a claim or even provide evidence that Obama is not, the right-winger will get frustrated at the pressing and just throw up their hands and cry, "Well, he's a muslim to me."

Fox Business News, for example, also likes to use relativist fallacy when talking about economic issues.  Listening to FBN, you would get the impression that Obama's or any Democratic economic plan will tax all middle class Americans, eventhough that is untrue. It all has to do with what FBN believes to be the middle class.  To FBN, middle class is relative, which includes those Americans who generally make over $200,000 a year, when in actuality, middle class Americans generally fall between $37,000 to $100,000.

FBN knows that the majority of its uninformed audience do not distinguish between those who make over $200,000 a year (who benefit greatly from Republican tax cuts) and those who are actually middle class (who do not benefit from Republican tax cuts.).  So instead of FBN making the distinction, they would just say "middle class," without actually defining their definition of "middle class", and hoping that the term alone would be taken to mean what most Americans regard as middle class ($37,000 to $100,000). 

Not only does Fox do this on their business reporting, they do it with their reporting on politics, entertainment, the world and science.
The relativist fallacy is what allows FOX and many other conservative outlets to slide into propaganda, which is detrimental to the quality and standards to the rules of journalism.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Muddy the Waters--Part IV

Posted by Juwar74 on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:05:35 PM
One rhetorical technique that conservative talking heads use to muddy an argument is something called "straw man."   It is the technique of con-men.  Fox News base a good portion of its reporting style on it.

Straw man is considered one of the most subtle of logical fallacies.  It is so subtle that the average person would not be able to detect its rhetorical absurdity.   But to the more focused mind, a straw man can be seen a mile away. 

See if you can find the flaw in Sean Hannity's argument in this imaginary discussion between himself and a weak and self-proclaimed liberal, the type of liberal he seems to always have on either of his shows.

Weak Liberal:  We should make marijuana legal.  It has been proven to...
Hannity:  Hold it, hold it, I'm going to have to stop you right there.  First of all, any society with unrestricted access to drugs loses its work ethic.  Second, what is it saying to our youth?  That it's okay to go for instant gratification.
Weak Liberal:  That's just ridiculous.
Hannity:  It's not ridiculous.  Look at all the crime associated with these drugs.  In the inner city, in Appalachia, in our suburbs, and on and on and on.
Weak Liberal:  You're focusing on the negative.  What about the positives?  Marijuana has been proven to help with glaucoma, help relieve pain in cancer victims?
Hannity:  So what!  Cocaine has positive effects too!  Does that mean we should make that legal?  The drug problem in this country is already out of control, and just because marijuana benefits the few does not negate the fact that its overall effects is detrimental to families and society at large.
Weak Liberal:  Well, uh, uh...You're not, uh, uh, thinking things through...
Hannity:  You're not thinking things through!  You just want my America to be a "feel good, do good, anything goes."  And I won't have it.  But thanks for coming in though...Up next..."

I guess I could tell you why Hannity's argument is absurd.  But I rather not.  I rather leave it up to a game.  Tell me why Hannity's argument is so full of holes.  Leave your answer in the comments.   ; )
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Muddy the Waters--Part III

Posted by Juwar74 on Saturday, September 06, 2008 6:03:27 PM
So what are these techniques that conservatives use to muddy an argument in order to make their stance appear legitimate?  Well, because the list is quite lengthy, I'll have to break it up in subsequent blogs.  I'll just focus on one at a time. 

The first is ad hominem.

An ad hominem is a fallacy in which an argument is rejected based on some irrelevant fact about the person making the argument.  It has two steps.  First, an attack is made against the person's character, values, circumstances or actions.  Second, this attack is taken as proof against the argument the person in question is presenting.  It has the following form:

Democrat makes a fact.
Republican attacks Democrat's character.
Therefore, Democrat's claim is false.

Rush Limbaugh does this a lot, and he does it with sarcasm, which makes him entertaining.  Here is an imaginary example of Rush Limbaugh debating Al Gore on global warming...

Al:  "Come on Rush, global warming is real.  The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 C during the 100 years ending in 2005.  Even the IPCC concludes that most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in man-made green house gas concentrations.  This view has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries...And while there maybe individual scientists who have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions."

Rush:  "And how much publicity have you gotten with this garbage?  You've got more publicity than you could buy!  More publicity that they had to give you an Academy award!  Everyone knows you made that film to make money from the environmentalists!  They donated big bucks to your presidential campaign, how could you pander to them with this nonsense?  Can't find another job after Washington?  You liberal freak..."

Al:  No, no, no..

Rush:  Yes, yes, yes!  You're nothing but a Big Government hack trying to take over our lives!..

Al:  No, I'm just stating the facts...

Rush:  Facts, shmacks.  You're just a liberal nut job.  Well, the American people can see through your lies and I for one won't stand for it! Get out of my station!  And take your big money green movement with ya!

Notice how Rush never addresses the fact that temperatures have increased and that scientists have come to the consensus that the increase was likely caused by man-made emissions.  Instead, he attacked Gore's circumstances--his publicity, his awards, and the donations he received, things that are irrelevant to the core of Al Gore's argument. 

Someone who has a less intellectual mind, i.e. low class right wingers, conservative ideologues, the uneducated, and some people on this web site would have felt Rush had just won this argument because it made them laugh or made them feel good because of their despise of Al Gore personally.




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Muddy the Water--Part II

Posted by Juwar74 on Saturday, September 06, 2008 7:18:09 AM
I remember a television show Rush Limbaugh had briefly in the nineties.  It came on around 1 p.m. in my area.  On one episode, he showed a video of Bill Clinton coming out of a funeral laughing and joking.  About ten seconds into the video, Clinton saw, out the corner of his eye, the television camera.  When he realized that he was being filmed, he immediately went into grief mode.  Clinton starting wiping his eyes and heaving from the somber event as Rush's audience laughed out loud at the hypocrisy.

The story illustrates an interesting trend that conservative media began to perfect in the nineties.  Many conservative pundits and their followers figured they couldn't win against the elite academics on the facts on shows like Meet the Press, Face the Nation, and McLaughlin Group, so, starting in the nineties, they began a strengthening of their own media movement in magazines, books and talk radio.  Because they knew many of their arguments were  seriously filled with holes, where an intellectual would be ready to pounce and pick apart their logic until it crumbled, they pretty much avoided situations where they would be challenged in a network televised public forum.  They instead focused on building an audience, not on the facts of issues, but on opponent character assassination, satire, and sarcasm.

It was always strange to me in the nineties that Rush Limbaugh, who became the most influential voice of the conservative view, and  clones like him had never been on network political shows to defend and debate serious issues against the academics.  He and his clones played it safe.  They stayed in their bubble, on talk radio and other conservative outlets, and tried to legitimize their viewpoint by keeping a count of the number of people who listened to them.  The thinking essentially was "I have millions and millions of listeners, therefore my viewpoint, the conservative viewpoint, is equally true."  Even though it wasn't.  You are either right on the facts or wrong.  The conservative viewpoint was mostly flawed on the facts, but not so on ideologue. 

Also strange during the nineties, the conservative media began to play the victim, taking a strategy that liberal interest groups used for years since the sixties in order to get sympathy from its audience.  The conservative media big-dogs of radio, magazine and books planted into the minds of their followers that mainstream media was beating up on them, were discriminatory.  They were developing a psychosis that all victims have.  The problem was Him not me, so much so that they began to write his name with a capital letter--The Mainstream Media, a perceived and fictitious boogeyman...

The mainstream media, of course, never refused a conservative voice.  It has been the platform for serious journalism to have both sides. I'm sure mainstream media had invited big conservative personalities that were growing in the nineties.  But when these conservative big-dogs found out that they will be on a panel with some hotshot from Harvard or Yale, they essentially said no thanks, or whined, "Why do we conservatives have to always be on a show with them eggheads, why can't it just be us?  You guys are so bias!"  So they went back to their little bubble and do what all victims do--complain.  And in that bubble, they began to argue like a victim, and pass off their logical fallacies as legitimate facts.
  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Muddy the Waters--Part I

Posted by Juwar74 on Friday, September 05, 2008 7:44:07 PM
This is the first part of a series on how conservative media convince its listeners, readers, and viewers that they are a legitimate news source by using an old rhetorical trick--mudding an argument.  This series will also analyze the demographics of the conservative audience: how they are easily persuaded, what types of comments they make on blogs, and what influence they have on each other.  So let's begin.  Any comments are welcome.
 
 
Before I dig deeper, it is always important to understand where conservatives are coming from with respect to their relationship with mainstream media.  Since the 60's and 70's when the social fabric of America changed dramatically, many conservatives and Republicans felt as if their voices were being stifled by ABC, NBC, and CBS at the time.  The key word is "felt".  They didn't feel their voices were stifled, per se. What really happened was that they became bitter and upset when they constantly saw on network television debating shows conservatives being eviscerated by either a liberal or an independent strictly on the facts of an argument rather than ideologue.  (This squarely happened in the eighties when I was younger.   During this time, Republicans and conservatives were lumped as one, just as liberals and Democrats are lumped as one.  Now we know people are not cut out precisely as such when it comes to political views.)
 
But it should also be pointed out that the person who usually represented the conservative point of view were, in essence, on the far-right religious fringe:  they were strict ideologues, and after hearing that particular conservative viewpoint awhile, it appeared to the general audience that the conservative view in general was outdated, racist, anti-semitic and intolerable.  On top of that, the eighties introduced sitcoms and television programming that heavily promoted liberal viewpoints, particularly in the areas of child rearing (it's not okay to smack Johnny if he backtalks, whereas in previous decades it would have been okay), sex education (It's typically okay for teens to have sex, as long as they have condoms), race relations (if you are white and criticize the behavior of certain blacks you were branded a Klansman), gender equality (Women were being held back in society because their drunk husbands and boyfriends victimized them by giving them a punch in the pie-hole), and attitudes coming out of the public schools (think Fast times at Ridgemont High, the Breakfast Club, etc...).  To the conservative living in America during this time, you definitely would have felt irrelevant, the punchline at parties, or trailer trash if you didn't espouse to these mainstream ideas and values.

Even in the eighties, with the rise of the religious right, and Reagan in power, conservative values were pretty much dismissed by the media world.  Some felt Hollywood celebrities were setting the standard for moral behavior with many of them having children out of wedlock, having three to four marriages and divorcing at the drop of  a hat.  These conservatives were starting to see that their daughters wanted to be these people, and that was a serious problem...

The mainstream media during this time was about dollars (and still is).  They put on television what most Americans wanted to watch.  Unfortunately, that was sex, violence, and more sex. 

So where was the conservative to turn?  To talk radio, and that was the beginning of the decline of the intellectual debate in America...

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Republican House is Burning

Posted by Juwar74 on Thursday, September 04, 2008 1:05:41 PM

It's on now!  After Sarah Palin eviscerated Obama and the Democrats, the media is now going to expose her for the fraud she is.  Because she was just introduced to the nation a little more than a week ago, we don't quite know that much about the hockey-puck from Wasilla.  After doing some careful research and a quick call to my military friend in Alaska (isn't it a small world?) I was able to find some very damaging things about this "trophy vice."  Now I won't go into the rants, but I think it's important for the nation to analyze one claim in her speech.

Palin claimed that she will fight for the parents of children with disability.  She told them they would now have a voice in Washington.  That is a complete pander and doesn't measure up with her record.  In fact, as governor of Alaska she cut funding for special needs children by 62%.  This is clearly "actions speak louder than words."  In fact, talk about empty words.  Hers are loaded with hyperbole, sarcasm, and down right meaness, and all those people who appreciate that type of talk coming out of the mouths of our leaders need to be pushed to the back of the line.  We don't need that type of "small town weilding" when interacting with foreign countries.  She will definitely get us blown up with her rhetoric...
 
By the way, did anyone notice all the red on stage at the RNC convention.  They really need to change their color.  It looked more like a rally for Commies.  Republicans are always calling Democrats "commy-socialists" but their color scheme looks scary.  It looks like they are ready to burn down the nation instead of building it.
 
Her speech was nothing more than a bash session.  She didn't mention anything about the issues that concern voters.  She hoped that people will vote for her because she successfully caricatured the Dems.  How pathetic.  She is unprofessional.  She is treating this race as if it is a high school election--throwing dirt and hoping that the other guy will give up and cry.  
 
It's so sad that her supporters like to hear that stuff.  That's says a lot about the types of people they lead.  And that can not be good for this country.  Her supporters are the low-lifes, the sheltered, the uninformed, the thick-headed, the racists, the fire-breathers, the uneducated, the finger-pointers, the complainers, the gun-toters, the war-mongers, the outsiders, the loners, and the depressed who for some reason or another measure strength in a candidate on how much trash and anger they speak.  These people really need to be put on a couch and allowed to release their "psychological air."
 
After her speech last night, there is no way independent voters will shift to the Republicans.  She may have excited the base, but not average America.  I am an independent, and I was about to give her the benefit of the doubt.  So I listened.  It is clear to me and other independents I know that the Republican house is burning to the ground the more they open their mouths.  And Fox News can not save them any longer. 
 
I have been reading a host of non-partisan forums where I read comments about Palin's speech, and it doesn't look too good for the GOP.  Conservatives and Republicans can continue to delude themselves about what actual Amercans think by continually reading their conservative media, commentators, and blogs but I know people have now made up their mind about the direction of this country, and going backwards, an aura the Republicans are giving off, is not one of them.
 
They are done.  And I'm done.
 
Oh!  Obama's going to be on O'Reilly tonight.  Gotta see that.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fast Times at the Palin House

Posted by Juwar74 on Wednesday, September 03, 2008 3:29:10 PM
I hate to bring this up, but I think it needs mentioning. Many right-wingers and Republicans are praising--no wait, praising is not the right word--accepting--yeah that's it!--the news of Sarah Palin's daughter carrying her baby to term and shot-gun marrying her boyfriend (while implying that anyone not a conservative teenager in the same position would have driven straight to the abortion clinic.)  They are also ready to castigate any media outlet who even dares try to bring it up as an issue, accusing them of participating in partisan politics or a Republican witch hunt...And geez, I think how two-faced these people are. 
This all-of-a-sudden sympathy and hands-off approach by some of these right-wingers shows that they are willing to turn a blind's eye in a hot presidential political season, whereas in other times they would haved burned Palin and her daughter at the stake for having exhibited such moral ineptitude.  I would have respected these right-wingers more if they had stuck to their standards, but it indicates that right-wingers are willing to throw them out when it suits their needs.  This recent acceptance is not only political, but I have to say has a racial dimension as well.
 
Christian conservatives like James Dobson and others sit on television and complain about the degradation of America's young girls and their irresponsible mothers.  Generally, when they do so they refer mainly to inner city black girls and Hispanics whom they feel are disproportionately contributing to the teen pregnancy problem in America and believe that teen pregnancy is one of the main reasons why blacks and Hispanics have such high poverty rates.  They also suggest that the reason teen pregnancy rates are so high in these groups as compared to others is because both live in a culture that encourage or accept such wreckless behavior, which is why they feel girls like them shouldn't be given any support from the government, or sympathy from others.  They are constantly blaming the mothers who also had babies at similar ages and should have took more classes on how to raise their kid.
 
So why shouldn't they have the same analysis and probing of Palin and her daughter.  Why isn't this "liberal" media asking the tough questions?  Why is this woman getting a pass?  She is trying to slide to the vice-presidency without being vetted or put under a microscope. Who is this woman?  If she wants to possibly run our country if McCain is elected and dies, why couldn't she stop her fast daughter from going out and opening her d*mn legs for every Tom, Dick and Harry at 17?   How could she be such an irresponsible mother?  Why didn't she take her nasty daughter to Jesus more?  Why couldn't she at least discuss birth control with her somewhat-slutty daughter?
 
Of course I don't care about these questions.  I'm just behaving in the same manner that right-wingers and jealous Hillary supporters were behaving toward Obama and Edwards and any other Democrat whom they feel are a threat to their conservative hold on America.  But if they expect Palin and her family not to have to put their feet to the fire, then they are just kidding themselves.  And I wish they would accuse me of sexism.  Oh, oh, you can't say that about her, she's a woman, why're you beating up on a woman.  No, she's a politician.  And whether man or woman she should be held to the same dirty politics as the men.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Right Wing Economic Theory--Based in Rhetoric not Reality

Posted by Juwar74 on Wednesday, September 03, 2008 10:00:56 AM

I have a small business.  I make good money, which is why I have some time during the day to blog.  I read a lot of right wing blogs because I just need to vent.  I am convince that the conservative bloggers on this site who discuss economic matters do not use basic mathematics and common sense.  They are so steep in ideologue and shady philosophy that it clouds their judgment.

I was reading a blog where one neocon attack Obama's economic plan, calling it a Marxist, radical, socialist, blah, blah, blah...He said so much crap I just had to ask where he got his degree in economics from.  Anyway, his rhetoric was basically that government will steal from the rich and give to the poor, although he used more erudite phrases to give the impression that he was educated instead of just regurgitating right wing talking points--"redistribution of resources" "socialist hijacking".  It was sad.

As a business owner, I have no problem paying my taxes.  I believe if I don't pay my fair share, in the long term, things will get ugly for the country.  This doesn't mean that I'm a bleeding heart.  I have fired people who were incompetent, but in the grander scheme of things if I didn't pay my share, many citizens will suffer. 
 
When I hear neocons say things like "why should businesses and the wealthy shell out all this money for taxes" I think, do they really understand where the money is coming from?  Do they really think how some businesses and the wealthy got their money?  They didn't get it out of the sky.  They got it from their customers.  I did.
 
As a business person who depends heavily customers, I am always concern about unemployment rates.  If people have no money to spend, then I don't make money at all.  If I don't make money, I am a very unhappy man. 
 
As a business person, I also don't care where people get their money from, whether they get it from rebate checks from the government, their jobs, their entitlements, their savings, or whereever, which is why a Democratic president or a Republican president doesn't scare me.  I will always make my money as long as I am good at what I do.
 
So I am voting for Obama this year, mainly because the Republicans have destroy the middle class's disposable income.  This is definitely bad for my business.  I need people to spend their money so I can make it.  I have to honestly say that I have lost customers due to Bush-Republican economics.  I almost went out of business at one point. 
 
I say so what if Obama takes a little more from me for taxes.  I see in the long run that this money will be given to the people who are more willing to spend it, and if they spend money, I am happy.   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »