We have the blue-collar vote, we have the social conservative vote, we have the feminist vote, and a host of other "votes."
Most of these voting blocks are pretty predictable as to whether they'll vote for John McCain or Barack Obama.
Presidential debates like the one tonight seldom sway these voting blocks; after all, debates these days seldom reach any depth or substance, and most of the voters in these blocks are informed enough to already know who they're voting for, and a shallow debate isn't going to affect that greatly.
But did you know there is apparently a "self-centered-and-brain-dead" voting block?
Rich Lowry has a post at the National Review which questions what issue will make a difference with voters this year.
Lowry doesn't seem to think Barack Obama's association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers will do it, and he doesn't think corruption and fraud at ACORN will do it.
But he points to a post from Ben Smith at The Politico which should shock the socks off any reasonable person.
Smith tells of an email he received from a Republican consultant who conducted a focus group viewing of an ad to an independent group of "Reagan Dems and Independents. Call them blue-collar plus." He showed them a no-holds-barred ad which attacked Barack Obama.
The good news: they believed it.
The bad news: it didn't matter.
Smith mentions two unreal moments during that session when he received feedback from this "independent" group. I'll point you to his post to read one of them, but I'll copy here the one that slapped me in the face the hardest:
The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack."
How do you respond to this level of self-centeredness? In the woman's own words, she actually believes Obama (not to merely be associated with a terrorist, but) to have actually been in a terrorist group...but by golly, she'll vote for him if it means getting somebody else to pay for her health insurance!
No wonder liberals insist on continuing to prop up the exercise in academic ineptitude we know as "public education" and fight any attempt to allow children to escape it with vouchers and homeschooling: it's producing Democrat voters for them!
I may be proven wrong on November 4, but for now, I refuse to believe that 50.1% or more of Americans are that stupid, self-centered and morally bankrupt.
15 comments:
"I may be proven wrong on November 4, but for now, I refuse to believe that 50.1% or more of Americans are that stupid, self-centered and morally bankrupt."
Your problem is that your conclusion is based on a faulty premise. You imply that you actually believe that a lot of Obama voters buy the claim that he worked with the Weathermen terrorists. That's absolutely ludicrous. There's not even many Republicans that are THAT stupid.
Merge Divide, you either can't read...or you belong in that focus group.
I don't know of a single person (other than this moonbat woman in the focus group) who has ever claimed Obama worked with the Weathermen.
Please, do us a favor and tune in to reality before you vote. Voting without information is like waving around a loaded gun.
A sad commentary, indeed. Ultimately, I believe we all vote for our own self-interest, but most, I hope, have interests of greater import and significance than a selfish desire to shift responsibility to others for that which individuals should provide for.
I fear we have come to the fate predicted by Alexis de Tocqueville:
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
The issue has nothing to do with my reading skills, but rather everything to do with your inability to communicate your point.
Why don't you clarify your conclusion then... where are you getting the 50.1% number? I assumed that you were referring to a majority that gives Obama the win. What other reasons do you have for believing that folks who vote for Obama are "that stupid, self-centered and morally bankrupt", besides the reason you mentioned earlier in your blog?
I have to wonder whether you proofread what you write before you post it. This is a terribly written entry.
It just requires analytical thinking, Merge Divide--another quality which is scarce on the Left.
Yes, with the 50.1% figure I am referring to the majority required to give Obama a win.
As to why I think folks who vote for Obama are either that stupid, self-centered or morally bankrupt is because people who declare their support for Obama demonstrate it continually. Their reasons for supporting him always fall into one (or more) of those three categories.
In this woman's case, she fell into all three categories. She declared her moral bankruptcy and her self-centeredness because she prizes material gain more than a stand against the kind of immorality Ayers has demonstrated and that Obama apparently doesn't have a big problem with. And she demonstrated her stupidity by failing to glean the fact that Obama has never been a member of the Weathermen and--to the best of my knowledge--no one has ever said that he was.
Others demonstrate their moral bankruptcy by supporting a candidate (Obama) who has pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and push the legitimization of homosexuality on our society--he has basically declared war on marriage and the family.
Still others demonstrate their self-centeredness by supporting a candidate (Obama) who they trust will use the power of government to take the fruits of labor earned by one person and give it to them. Incidentally, that is theft, so it would also qualify as moral bankruptcy.
I hope that explains things. Sorry if I assumed too much capability for analytical thought and discernment.
"Sorry if I assumed too much capability for analytical thought and discernment."
No need to apologize... I'm just impressed you managed to gain a more objective assessment of your lack of communication skills.
As far as your logic, it's particularly abhorrent.
You accuse a woman of being more interested in material gain than the "immorality" demonstrated by a tenuous connection between Obama and Ayers. Yet if you applied a similar standard to McCain's associations, you'd be completely unable to support him.
Apparently you prize your own material gain over the future prosperity of America. How do you think a $10 trillion debt (that's expanding rapidly is going to be paid down without a raise in taxes? If you voted for Dubya in either 2000 or 2004, you are even more hypocritical. He's doubled the debt in eight years.
The "Defense of Marriage Act" is a sham. It's completely illogical. How does a marriage between two people of the same gender reflect on your marriage, or your kinds' marriages, or anyone's marriage? Are you seriously asserting that because gays get married, straight people are going to take it less seriously? That ridiculous. The divorce rate hovers around 50% as it is. Heterosexuals are doing just fine on their own making a mockery out of the institution.
How the hell are two gay people joined together by some ceremony going to effect your family? If anything, they'll move into your neighborhood and the property values will go up.
Your arguments are truly idiotic (and I don't use that term lightly).
I knew it was only a matter of time until all doubt was removed as to why you had a hard time following me: you're one of the morally bankrupt!
President Bush didn't double the debt by himself. If you remember anything at all from school, you might remember that it's Congress that passes spending bills. And yes, the blame falls on both Democrats and Republicans--but all liberals, regardless of party.
The best way to reduce that $10 trillion in debt is to stop spending about $2 trillion or more of the $3 trillion dollar annual budget we spend every year. More than 50% of our budget is completely unauthorized and illegal according to the Constitution.
And ironically, Obama wants to increase that percentage with his Marxist wealth redistribution schemes--the kind that idiot lady likes so much.
And since you're morally bankrupt, I'll take a stab (though I'm not holding my breath that you'll get it) at explaining how the concept of homosexual "marriage" harms the real institution of marriage. The harm to children and other people aside (which are important, but so obvious I shouldn't have to spell them out even to you), it does so in the same way that counterfeiting a $20 bill harms genuine currency. If you don't get that, think about it a while. And if you still don't get it, think about it until you do.
Sorry if I've been too blunt, but I'm really out of patience right now for dealing with people living in the most free, most prosperous nation that provides the greatest access to knowledge the world has ever seen...and yet are so morally, logically and intellectually blind that it boggles the mind.
The founders of our nation would be apoplectic beyond description to see the pathetic excuse for intelligent thought displayed by this focus group and by you. They would be unable to fathom how the incredible legacy they bought us had been so epically squandered.
It's always amusing to see self-righteous folks who are convinced that their faith-based arguments make logical sense.
You know nothing about my country.
If you live in another country, I may know less about it than you do.
If you are an American and believe your distorted opinions are even the remotest reflection of reality, well, they really should have had you in that focus group. It was truly incomplete without you.
Have you figured out that counterfeit marriage thing yet?
"Have you figured out that counterfeit marriage thing yet?"
Once again... there's no "figuring out" a faith-based position.
Gee, the last I checked, the value of U.S. currency wasn't a faith-based position gleaned from the Bible.
Figured it out yet?
Well Bob...
First of all, the value of US currency is obviously faith-based, as demonstrated irrevocably from the current financial crisis.
Aside from that, do you realize how irrelevant and unfounded your fears are, regarding Barack Obama's potential rise to the presidency? He has clearly stated that he opposes gay marriage. I don't know why, but he has. He does, however, support civil unions for homosexuals. What do you have against gays, that you would deny them the tax benefits that straight couples derive from their unions?
Only the profoundly ignorant or profoundly gullible would fall for Obama's profession that he's not for the concept of homosexual "marriage." He has, after all, on his own campaign website stated his intent to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). There is no other reason to do that than to pave the way for the concept of homosexual "marriage."
What do you have against marriage, that you so vehemently want to counterfeit it? What do you have against children that you would so adamantly desire to undermine the institution they so desperately need to grow up healthy: the family? Why are you so intent on making war on morality, normality, nature, and the most fundamental institution of any society? What drives your heart to such darkness?
But back to my question about money, so you're saying that counterfeiting U.S. currency is an acceptable practice?
Alright... if you don't want to answer the questions, and continue to repeat nonsense like, "But back to my question about money, so you're saying that counterfeiting U.S. currency is an acceptable practice?"... then there is nothing further I have to say to you.
"Comments should be on-topic"
This is your rule, and you can't even manage to stay on topic.
Have a good day.
It is as on-topic as we can possibly be at this point. You asked how and why Obama and his disciples were morally bankrupt and one of the reasons I listed was their acceptance or embrace of homosexuality and the concept of homosexual "marriage."
I gave you a chance to shine by figuring out a pretty simple question (How does counterfeiting a $20 bill harm genuine currency?). If you answer that, you will have one important reason why this lunacy is harmful to real marriage.
Got it figured out yet?
Post a Comment