PDA

View Full Version : Republican Marketing Strategy - Use Fear.



John P Lebens
03-03-2010, 10:21 PM
Many of us have observed Republican fear mongering to control their voting block in recent years. Here's the documentation.




Exclusive: RNC document mocks donors, plays on 'fear'
By: Ben Smith
March 3, 2010 04:23 PM EST

The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on “fear” of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism."

The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how “ego-driven” wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”

The presentation was delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart to top donors and fundraisers at a party retreat in Boca Grande, Florida on February 18, a source at the gathering said.

In neat PowerPoint pages, it lifts the curtain on the often-cynical terms of political marketing, displaying an air of disdain for the party’s donors that is usually confined to the barroom conversations of political operatives.

The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.

"What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?" it asks.

The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!”

Manipulating donors with crude caricatures and playing on their fears is hardly unique to Republicans or to the RNC – Democrats raised millions off George W. Bush in similar terms – but rarely is it practiced in such cartoonish terms.

One page, headed “The Evil Empire,” pictures Obama as the Joker from Batman, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid are depicted as Cruella DeVille and Scooby Doo, respectively.

The document, which two Republican sources said was prepared by the party’s finance staff, comes as Chairman Michael Steele struggles to retain the trust and allegiance of major donors, who can give as much as $30,400 a year to the party.

Under Steele, the RNC has shifted toward a reliance on small donors, but the document reveals extensive, confidential details of the strategy for luring wealthy checkwriters, which range from luxury retreats in California wine country to tickets to a professional fight in Las Vegas.

The 72-page document was provided to POLITICO by a Democrat, who said a hard copy had been left in the hotel hosting the $2,500-a-head retreat, the Gasparilla Inn & Club. Sources at the event said the presentation was delivered by Bickhart and by the RNC Finance Chairman, Peter Terpeluk, a former ambassador to Luxembourg under President George W. Bush.

The RNC reacted with alarm to a question about it Wednesday, emailing major donors to warn them of a reporter’s question, and distancing Steele from its contents.

“The document was used for a fundraising presentation Chairman Steele did not attend, nor had he seen the document,” RNC Communications Director Doug Heye said in an email. “Fundraising documents are often controversial.

“Obviously, the Chairman disagrees with the language and finds the use of such imagery to be unacceptable. It will not be used by the Republican National Committee – in any capacity – in the future,” Heye said.

The most unusual section of the presentation is a set of six slides headed “RNC Marketing 101.” The presentation divides fundraising into two traditional categories, direct marketing and major donors, and lays out the details of how to approach each group.

The small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading “Visceral Giving.” Their motivations are listed as “fear;” “Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;” and “Reactionary.”

Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed “Calculated Giving.”
Their motivations include: “Peer to Peer Pressure”; “access”; and “Ego-Driven.”

The slide also allows that donors may have more honorable motives, including “Patriotic Duty.”

A major Republican donor described the state of the RNC’s relationship with major donors as “disastrous,” with veteran givers beginning to abandon the committee, which is becoming increasingly reliant on small donors.

The party’s average contribution in 2009, according to the document, was just $40, and the shift toward a financial reliance on the grassroots may help explain Steele’s increasingly strident tone toward the Obama Administration.

While the crude portrayal of Obama may be - as Steele ‘s spokesman put it - “unacceptable,” other elements of the presentation may be of equal interest to close political observers.

The RNC plans to raise $8.6 million from major donors alone in 2010, less than 10% of its total 2009 fundraising take, which was primarily from small donors."


The center of that plan is an extensive, and colorful, schedule of events. Along with traditional fundraisers with conservative luminaries including Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes, the party plans to raise $80,000 for a trip to London to meet David Cameron, the British Conservative Party leader, on September 17.

The RNC’s “Young Eagles” – younger major donors and the only group, according to a major donor, continuing to pull its weight financially – are invited to a “professional bull riding event” in October, expected to raise $50,000, and to a no-holds-barred Ultimate Fighting Championship fight in Las Vegas the same month, expected to raise $60,000.

The RNC’s aim, according to one section of the document: “Putting the Fun Back in FUNdraising.”

CORRECTION: The RNC raised a total of $81 million in 2009. An earlier version of this story understated that figure.


2010 Capitol News Company, LLC

stevedwyer
03-04-2010, 12:19 AM
An out-of-control government is always fearful.


What is a pork barrel anyway?

bobbys
03-04-2010, 12:45 AM
I resisted for awhile being as im in the NO party but finally saw the reasoning and wrote a check.:p:D

meuritt
03-04-2010, 10:08 AM
Marketing Fear? you mean like global warming dooming mankind? Or was it population bomb, Y2K. Health Care?

time to get a life I guess, for both sides

TimH
03-04-2010, 10:25 AM
Oh my God!!! Theres a black family in the White House! And its the democrats that put them their. Lets throw a wrench into every single thing they try to do and ensure failure so we can satisfy our inner hypocrite. God help us!

Kaa
03-04-2010, 10:46 AM
I used to think that only idiots could be sucked in by politicians playing the 'fear card'.

I was right :)

:D


Manipulating donors with crude caricatures and playing on their fears is hardly unique to Republicans or to the RNC Democrats raised millions off George W. Bush in similar terms

Kaa

Gerarddm
03-04-2010, 10:48 AM
Nothing new for the modern incarnation of the Know-Nothings. Think Willie Horton, for starters.

John P Lebens
03-04-2010, 11:18 AM
Does it bother anyone here that fear really seems to work as a leadership method in this country? Think of all the things American's are now frightened of, in part because of their political leadership. If you start making a list it is frighteningly long...

Maybe a great recession quote could be

"we have nothing to fear, except the fear mongers themselves."

TomF
03-04-2010, 11:22 AM
Problem is, it works.

Though it breeds cynicism (and thus probably depresses voter turnout) and poisons the political atmosphere, fear and negative campaigning has been more effective at getting your own party's votes out than other approaches.

It works well enough that other politicos 'round the world have taken similar routes, with similar effects. Our Canadian politicians, for instance, who didn't participate in negative advertising in a big way 'till fairly recent years.

pefjr
03-04-2010, 11:26 AM
boo!!!

oznabrag
03-04-2010, 11:40 AM
... If you start making a list it is frighteningly long...

...

Nice one! :)

bobbys
03-04-2010, 11:42 AM
boo!!!.

Thank you.

That pretty much changed my mind on this Topic:D

S.V. Airlie
03-04-2010, 11:58 AM
Oh my God!!! Theres a black family in the White House! And its the democrats that put them their. Lets throw a wrench into every single thing they try to do and ensure failure so we can satisfy our inner hypocrite. God help us!

Not just dems.. could not do it alone.. A lot of Indep. and republicans voted for huim too.
But then again, we voted for the hope that what he said in 2006 and 2007 regarding some of his current actions were true.
ex: in 2006 and 07, he said that a simple majority of one was not the way to pass healthcare. two specific recordings on the news.
During that time he also stated that he would not use reconciliation to pass a healthcare plan because it would demonstrate an inability to govern.
I believed him then.. Now he has given me reasons for never believing him.

He is a Chicago politician

S.V. Airlie
03-04-2010, 12:16 PM
Norma responded with a message on another thread.. Donn found the video which basically states the transcript I posted..So there is the evidence in black and white and video.... So Norman.. stuff it!!!!

Of course I suspect that you will state that this isn't Obama in the video just some republican look alike..

TimH
03-04-2010, 01:06 PM
Its because Repugnicans generally are less educated than Democrats.

John P Lebens
03-04-2010, 01:12 PM
CHANGE you can BELIEVE in!

(Obama says OK, republicans say nope - we are all doing some serious flipping and flopping here)

If the health care bill passes, Americans as a whole will benefit greatly. The Republican fear mongering on health care is primarily to protect their corporate interests and to keep the American middle class confused and yes, fearful. We could have used their help to improve the cost efficiency and coverage of health care in this country.

TimH
03-04-2010, 01:20 PM
Republicans are against the best interest of the country as a whole. How long will everyone put up with it?

pefjr
03-04-2010, 01:44 PM
Its because Republicans generally are less educated than Dimocrats.Been debunked long ago and many times,.........yet some fools still keep pooping their heads up. Some Dems are truly dim. :D

TomF
03-04-2010, 01:56 PM
Been debunked long ago and many times,.........yet some fools still keep pooping their heads up. Some Dems are truly dim. :DWhat did we find, when we went through this in January?

Historically, Reps were better educated and wealthier than Dems.
In the 1970s, things began to shift. While Reps were still the party of choice of those with some college or a Bachelor's degree, Dems began to challenge them among populations with graduate school education.
That pattern has strengthened over time - people with graduate degrees were and remain strikingly more likely to support the Dems ... same with the very poor. And more people with some college, or 1 degree continue to support Reps This pattern has been marked since 2000, and is as current as the polls we reviewed about it last January.
If you want to look at other demographic slices ... race and age, for instance ... you will find that these are better predictors. The Reps' "base" is older white men, with other groups much more subject to either voting Dem, or changing their vote.

TimH
03-04-2010, 01:57 PM
Been debunked long ago and many times,.........yet some fools still keep pooping their heads up. Some Dems are truly dim. :D

And here is proof :D

stevedwyer
03-04-2010, 01:57 PM
The traditional caste of "Republican" is rapidly fading. This, I believe, has been going on for about forty years or more.
Right now, aggravated by partisan bickering, a larger number of voters prefer an independent status.

The last election proved that regardless of the vast amounts of government spending on the horizon, people were moved more by hopes of crafting a better, more progressive society, rather than to be motivated by fear.

I might say that this constant derision of Republicans in broad sweeping generalized terms, does little to further what it's going to take to make positive changes. Seems to me this sort of insulting rhetoric is indeed "fear mongering" and should be avoided.

TimH
03-04-2010, 02:00 PM
Fear worked for Bush. He had every Rep in the country certain that terrorists were going to come after them. It gave him an open ticket to do as he wished.

pefjr
03-04-2010, 02:03 PM
What did we find, when we went through this in January?

Historically, Reps were better educated and wealthier than Dems.
In the 1970s, things began to shift. While Reps were still the party of choice of those with some college or a Bachelor's degree, Dems began to challenge them among populations with graduate school education.
That pattern has strengthened over time - people with graduate degrees were and remain strikingly more likely to support the Dems ... same with the very poor. And more people with some college, or 1 degree continue to support Reps This pattern has been marked since 2000, and is as current as the polls we reviewed about it last January.
If you want to look at other demographic slices ... race and age, for instance ... you will find that these are better predictors. The Reps' "base" is older white men, with other groups much more subject to either voting Dem, or changing their vote.
I don't make this up, it's there if you want to admit it. If you are going to deny this, that's your own deception. I am tired of educating Dims. Its pointless and a waste of my time.

pefjr
03-04-2010, 02:07 PM
And here is proof :D proof is on your TV every day bout 1 to 2 PDT:


Tim, I had an experience yesterday that tells a story of the Demos. I had to go get my wifes windshield repaired and had a hour to kill there at the shop. I went in and 2 ladies were waiting and watching a TV show. I think it was Springer's. The show was about 4 or 5 different life stories. One was 2 mothers yelling and arguing with each other over which of 5 boyfriends was the father of one their children. One had 4 kids, the other had 2. Neither one knew the fathers of any of the kids. One was concerned she would lose her food stamps. Two grandmas were also on the stage yelling and fighting. You get the picture? The other stories were similar, all were doing DNA tests to find out. Sad, this is your democrats. Most all were obese. Don't believe me, tune it in today or any day. You will fine out.

S.V. Airlie
03-04-2010, 02:09 PM
This brings up the definition of education.. For all intents and purposes Lincoln was not educate3d ( book sense ) but he wrote better than most or all of us today... Away with words.

Wilson was probably the most educated.

I'm not even sure whether Truman ever took a college course but I respect him and consider him an educated man of the world.

Education is not a matter of book learning and degrees.. FDR was a lawyer.. Not very snmart but damn it he knew who to pick to be in his cabinet, how to run a war, what generals to pick.. etc. I'd rather have a person like that in office than a well educated man who thinks everyone else is just plain stupid.

TomF
03-04-2010, 02:33 PM
I don't make this up, it's there if you want to admit it. If you are going to deny this, that's your own deception. I am tired of educating Dims. Its pointless and a waste of my time.My own deception?

It seems that the thread where we discussed this last is one of the many which have gone "poof."

A swift look at the Gallup website here (http://www.gallup.com/poll/121199/obama-weekly-job-approval-demographic-groups.aspx)shows that Obama's polling among college graduates is steady at or over 50%. And that the more education one has, the greater the margin of the approval rating ... Galllup's article about that ... tracing this element of his support from his election 'till the article was published in late January is here (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125423/Americans-Postgraduate-Education-Back-Obama.aspx).

If you want to see some statistical modeling based on raw Pew data, look here (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/07/democrats_do_be.html). It confirms that the Dems have the most support among the best educated, and the least educated. The Reps have more support in the middle.

Complain about it and try to discredit it all you like, but what I wrote in my earlier post only states the facts.

pefjr
03-04-2010, 03:03 PM
My own deception?

It seems that the thread where we discussed this last is one of the many which have gone "poof."

A swift look at the Gallup website here (http://www.gallup.com/poll/121199/obama-weekly-job-approval-demographic-groups.aspx)shows that Obama's polling among college graduates is steady at or over 50%. And that the more education one has, the greater the margin of the approval rating ... Galllup's article about that ... tracing this element of his support from his election 'till the article was published in late January is here (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125423/Americans-Postgraduate-Education-Back-Obama.aspx).

If you want to see some statistical modeling based on raw Pew data, look here (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/07/democrats_do_be.html). It confirms that the Dems have the most support among the best educated, and the least educated. The Reps have more support in the middle.

Complain about it and try to discredit it all you like, but what I wrote in my earlier post only states the facts.facts:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Fig_57_-_men_4-yr_college_degrees.JPG/375px-Fig_57_-_men_4-yr_college_degrees.JPG (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/File:Fig_57_-_men_4-yr_college_degrees.JPG) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/File:Fig_57_-_men_4-yr_college_degrees.JPG)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Fig_58_women_with_4-yr_college_degs.JPG/360px-Fig_58_women_with_4-yr_college_degs.JPG (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/File:Fig_58_women_with_4-yr_college_degs.JPG) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/File:Fig_58_women_with_4-yr_college_degs.JPG)



Regarding graduate-level degrees (masters or doctorate), there is a rough parity between Democrats


For the umpteenth time!! Please update your education if you are going to try to push leftist propaganda

Tom, check #19. Tim is not talking about who voted for Obama. Crossover voters were not mentioned in his post.

TimH
03-04-2010, 03:13 PM
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

VOTE BY INCOME
TOTAL Democrat Republican
Under $15,000 (7%) 67% 30%
$15-30,000 (12%) 61% 36%
$30-50,000 (21%) 56% 43%
$50-75,000 (22%) 50% 48%
$75-100,000 (16%) 52% 47%
$100-150,000 (13%) 47% 51%
$150-200,000 (5%) 47% 51%
$200,000 or More (5%) 45% 53%


VOTE BY EDUCATION
TOTAL Democrat Republican
No High School (3%) 64% 35%
H.S. Graduate (21%) 55% 44%
Some College (31%) 51% 47%
College Graduate (27%) 49% 49%
Postgraduate (18%) 58% 41%

TimH
03-04-2010, 03:23 PM
We need to start prequalifying voters. If your IQ isnt above a certain threshold you wont be allowed to vote.

TomF
03-04-2010, 03:41 PM
...
For the umpteenth time!! Please update your education if you are going to try to push leftist propaganda

Tom, check #19. Tim is not talking about who voted for Obama. Cr"For the umpteenth time" yourself, Pefjr.

I grant that the book source you've quoted from (reproduced via Wikipedia) has solid data ... but no more solid than Andrew Gelman, the director of the Applied Statistics Center (http://applied.stat.columbia.edu/) at Columbia University. While he's much better known for writing on the voting habits of different economic strata, here's what he wrote last summer about educational attainment and voting:

Democrats do better among the most and least educated groups

By Andrew Gelman (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman) on July 8, 2009 10:42 PM | 1 Comment (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/07/democrats_do_be.html#comments)

I visited AT&T Labs today--lots of fun, a great group of people, an interesting mix of statistics and machine learning. They showed me some cool visualizations that I'll display soon.
Anyway, while I was there, somebody asked me about voters with different educational levels. In discussing it, we realized we wanted to break this down by ethnicity and age. So I quickly prepared a grid of graphs for him.
On the train ride back, I spent a few minutes making the graphs prettier:
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/mlm/edu.png
These are based on raw Pew data, reweighted to adjust for voter turnout by state, income, and ethnicity. No modeling of vote on age, education, and ethnicity. I think our future estimates based on the 9-way model will be better, but these are basically OK, I think. All but six of the dots in the graph are based on sample sizes greater than 30.So I'm being deceptive, or need my education updated how, precisely? What did I say, that Gelman didn't say first ... and better? Except of course for the bits that Gallup said 6 weeks ago ... after tracking it in their polling for years ...

This isn't "leftist propaganda," Bud, it's statistical data. No less credible than the source you've cited - arguably more credible, considering the reputation of the analyst. So quit calling me "deceptive', or a "Leftist Propagandist;" it's a friggen lie.

BTW ... note that Gelman described characteristics of Dems ... by making reference to people's electoral choices. I've never been a party member ... but my voting behavior matches pretty well with my educational demographic.

pefjr
03-04-2010, 03:52 PM
"For the umpteenth time" yourself, Pefjr.

I grant that the book source you've quoted from (reproduced via Wikipedia) has solid data ... but no more solid than Andrew Gelman, the director of the Applied Statistics Center (http://applied.stat.columbia.edu/) at Columbia University. While he's much better known for writing on the voting habits of different economic strata, here's what he wrote last summer about educational attainment and voting:So I'm being deceptive, or need my education updated how, precisely? What did I say, that Gelman didn't say first ... and better? Or that Gallup didn't say 6 weeks ago ... after tracking it in their polling for years?

This isn't "leftist propaganda," Bud, it's statistical data. No less credible than the source you've cited - arguably more credible, considering the reputation of the analyst. So quit calling me "deceptive', or a "Leftist Propagandist;" it's a friggen lie.My post answers the lie in #19. When you introduce variables into #19, everything changes. New ball game. You responded to my post and introduced variables. A lot of Republicans crossed over in the 2008 election, so? #19 is a simple false statement, that is all I responded to.

TomF
03-04-2010, 04:02 PM
OK.

There are certainly a lot more people with some college, or a single degree than people who've got graduate degrees ... and that typically, more of them vote Rep than Dem. Particularly if they're white, and over 30.

That much I agree is true. But yes, once more variables are introduced - like the amount of education above or below that level, to say nothing of age, or race ... the ball game changes mightily.

Gelman's primary research into voting has mapped voting behaviour by economic group. Unsurprisingly, people with more money are more likely to vote for the party they think will let them keep more of it ... the Reps.

Kaa
03-04-2010, 04:21 PM
Unsurprisingly, people with more money are more likely to vote for the party they think will let them keep more of it ... the Reps.

They do?

Let's check campaign contributions for the 2008 presidential campaign. Wall St. fat cats -- surely they showered money on John McCain!

Goldmans Sachs: $1m to Obama, $230K to McCain
Citigroup: $700K to Obama, $320K to McCain
JPMorgan: $700K to Obama, $230K to McCain
Morgan Stanley: $415K to Obama, $270K to McCain

Hmm...

(source: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638 and http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?id=N00006424&cycle2=2008&goButt2.x=9&goButt2.y=12&goButt2=Submit)

Kaa

pefjr
03-04-2010, 04:28 PM
OK.

There are certainly a lot more people with some college, or a single degree than people who've got graduate degrees ... and that typically, more of them vote Rep than Dem. Particularly if they're white, and over 30.

That much I agree is true. But yes, once more variables are introduced - like the amount of education above or below that level, to say nothing of age, or race ... the ball game changes mightily.

Gelman's primary research into voting has mapped voting behaviour by economic group. Unsurprisingly, people with more money are more likely to vote for the party they think will let them keep more of it ... the Reps.Tom, there is a big difference in voting and registering. When a statement like #19 is made, some facts are needed. I don't know how the voting tabulations are made, but registered voters are easy numbers, and are more likely to be accurate. A Republican President can't win an election without a large # of crossover votes. Registered Demos outnumber Repubs. about 7 to 5. Yet, you can see that makes little difference in the # of recent Presidents.

However, the post Arlie made is true, Truman did not have a college education but made a very good President. Clinton was a lawyer and look at the mess he left:D John Smith will be along in a little while to dispute than claim with 3 long posts.

TomF
03-04-2010, 04:28 PM
I forgot, Kaa. Corporations are people now, aren't they?

Well, though corporations may be people according to the Supreme Court, they haven't yet been given the franchise to vote. When Gelman (and others) have parsed the voting behaviour of what in daily parlance we'd normally call "people," he'd found that higher income groups continue to disproportionately support Reps over Dems.

Kaa
03-04-2010, 04:32 PM
I forgot, Kaa. Corporations are people now, aren't they?

Yes, you forgot. You forgot to go and check out the link which says


The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.

Kaa

Kaa
03-04-2010, 04:36 PM
Corporations are apolitical...

I think I'd better store this umm... surprising viewpoint :D

Kaa

TimH
03-04-2010, 04:36 PM
Clinton was a lawyer and look at the mess he left


Proof again, that you, my friend, havent the slightest clue. :rolleyes:

Someone help me out here. Is Pefjr REALLY that clueless, or is he just stiring the pot?

TomF
03-04-2010, 04:44 PM
Take it up with Gelman, Kaa. He concluded an Aug 31, 2009 post on his blog (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/blog/)by saying
There are some differences between the different measures of ideology, but the take-home point for me is that the patterns are basically consistent: liberal Democrats by any measure are pretty well distributed across the income scale, and conservative Republicans are more concentrated among the upper incomes.This was the second of two blog posts of his on the topic - you can read find both of them, if you're so inclined, by poking the link.

pefjr
03-04-2010, 05:09 PM
Proof again, that you, my friend, havent the slightest clue. :rolleyes:

Someone help me out here. Is Pefjr REALLY that clueless, or is he just stiring the pot?Why do you need any help? Oh, never mind, forgot you are a dimocrat.

Kaa
03-04-2010, 05:17 PM
Why should it be a 'surprising' viewpoint?

:D

I'll remind you about it the next time the talking-point-of-the-day tells you to slam evil corporations channeling money to Republicans and promote "real people" giving money to Democrats.

Kaa

TimH
03-04-2010, 05:23 PM
Why do you need any help? Oh, never mind, forgot you are a dimocrat.

I just find it kind of incredulous - never seen anythng like it, hard to believe anyone could see things in such a twisted fashion, cant believe my eyes, etc.

And no, I am not a Democrat. The two party system is BS as far as I am concerned.

David G
03-04-2010, 05:51 PM
jr.

There you go again.

First - you are correct in post #22 - no question. Post #19 is incorrect on the face of it. One can't say simply that "Republicans are generally less educated than Democrats".

As Tom F points out in #23, it's more complex than that. He cites data - which I have no reason to disbelieve (as it matches my understanding) - and I see no one disputing. This data says -- to simplify it - Dems have the top and bottom and Reps the middle. So, I suppose the liberals could parse this data in various ways and make the argument that "on average" Dems are smarter. Or, they could suggest that - because they have the top education tier - they are smarter. But that is all just a bunch of hair-splitting. The fact remains that Tim's comment was incorrect as stated.

You, OTOH, took what was simply a careless statement... this very mild swipe at Republicans... and treated it as if it was part of some ongoing disinformation campaign by your opponents, and furthermore that he had personally insulted your sainted granny. You leaped on it like a starving mongrel on a much-boiled soup bone. You were more than slightly snarky about it. All that was necessary was to point out the error, and back it up with some true data (as Tom F did).

Then... having scored a small point... you've proceeded thru the rest of this thread to argue and rant in a fashion both stubborn and incoherent. What the heck WERE you trying to say in #27???? Were you agreeing, disagreeing, or veering off somewhere else?

I find that, while I sometimes agree with you on certain matters, it almost embarrasses me to say so. It's painful to watch you interact with those who disagree with you. Your ineptitude, your surliness, and your pathetic squirming and flailing when cornered in an unsupportable position (which happens often), your inability to effectively argue even a valid point -- are all just cringe-inducing.

I strongly suggest you step up your game: reason more closely; write more carefully; research more widely; and get the chip off your shoulder. If you're not willing or able to do these things, I'd personally request that you don't subject the rest of us to your dysfunction any more. There are people who will agree with you on any given issue, and can carry the argument forward in a much more credible fashion.

Remember also that one does not have to be In Crisis to talk to their minister. One does not have to have an emotional meltdown to see a counselor.

pefjr
03-04-2010, 06:10 PM
jr.

There you go again.

First - you are correct in post #22 - no question. Post #19 is incorrect on the face of it. One can't say simply that "Republicans are generally less educated than Democrats".

As Tom F points out in #23, it's more complex than that. He cites data - which I have no reason to disbelieve (as it matches my understanding) - and I see no one disputing. This data says -- to simplify it - Dems have the top and bottom and Reps the middle. So, I suppose the liberals could parse this data in various ways and make the argument that "on average" Dems are smarter. Or, they could suggest that - because they have the top education tier - they are smarter. But that is all just a bunch of hair-splitting. The fact remains that Tim's comment was incorrect as stated.

You, OTOH, took what was simply a careless statement... this very mild swipe at Republicans... and treated it as if it was part of some ongoing disinformation campaign by your opponents, and furthermore that he had personally insulted your sainted granny. You were more than slightly snarky about it. All that was necessary was to point out the error, and back it up with some true data (as Tom F did).

Then... having scored a small point... you've proceeded thru the rest of this thread to argue and rant in a fashion both stubborn and incoherent. What the heck WERE you trying to say in #27???? Were you agreeing, disagreeing, or veering off somewhere else?

I find that, while I sometimes agree with you on certain matters, it almost embarrasses me to say so. It's painful to watch you interact with those who disagree with you. Your ineptitude, your surliness and pathetic squirming when cornered in an unsupportable position (which happens often), your inability to effectively argue even a valid point -- are all just cringe-inducing.

I strongly suggest you step up your game: reason more closely; write more carefully; research more widely; and get the chip off your shoulder. If you're not willing or able to do these things, I'd personally request that you don't subject the rest of us to your dysfunction any more. There are people who will agree with you on any given issue, and can carry the argument forward in a much more credible fashion.

Remember also that one does not have to be In Crisis to talk to their minister. One does not have to have an emotional meltdown to see a counselor.Shorten that critique up and dumb it down for me DavidG. It tires my eyes to read such a long winded post. :D Maybe you impressed your self though. Kinda like standing in front of the mirror, huh?

pefjr
03-04-2010, 06:15 PM
That might be hard to do, in ten words of a single syllable each.Well, DavidG did impress someone, huh Norman?, wait til he gets started on the Oregon Ducks come August.:D

pefjr
03-04-2010, 06:41 PM
I just find it kind of incredulous - never seen anythng like it, hard to believe anyone could see things in such a twisted fashion, cant believe my eyes, etc.

And no, I am not a Democrat. The two party system is BS as far as I am concerned.Then you are registered Repub? Why you scoundrel, you low life, you uneducated fool.:)

David G
03-04-2010, 06:49 PM
jr,

You can duck, dodge, deflect, and attack me by way of avoiding the substance of my post - if you think that's the most appropriate thing to do.

But - in the end - everywhere you go... There You Are.

If my comments were - to any small degree - useful to you, then use them with my good wishes. If not - then maybe I am wrong (partially or totally). Or maybe you're just not ready to pick up what I'm laying down. In any case, there's no sense disputing with me about it. It was, after all, just one man's opinion.

You can do better. Reach for the stars, junior!

pefjr
03-04-2010, 06:57 PM
jr,

You can duck, dodge, deflect, and attack me by way of avoiding the substance of my post - if you think that's the most appropriate thing to do.

But - in the end - everywhere you go... There You Are.

If my comments were - to any small degree - useful to you, then use them with my good wishes. If not - then maybe I am wrong (partially or totally). Or maybe you're just not ready to pick up what I'm laying down. In any case, there's no sense disputing with me about it. It was, after all, just one man's opinion.

You can do better. Reach for the stars, junior!Thank you there DavidG, I am actually looking forward to your August thread/post per Ducks. Just funning with ya.:)

oznabrag
03-04-2010, 07:06 PM
Corporations are apolitical... all they care about is attempting to influence the winner. The direction of the money simply shows they were betting on Obama.


I think I'd better store this umm... surprising viewpoint :D

Kaa

So are sharks. Mother Nature doesn't give a rat-fornication who you voted for, either, so.....?

oznabrag
03-04-2010, 07:08 PM
...Reach for the stars, junior!

Ad astra per aspera, you ninny.

David G
03-04-2010, 07:46 PM
oz,

Sorry, I'm not from Kansas.

MiddleAgesMan
03-04-2010, 08:25 PM
They do?

Let's check campaign contributions for the 2008 presidential campaign. Wall St. fat cats -- surely they showered money on John McCain!

Goldmans Sachs: $1m to Obama, $230K to McCain
Citigroup: $700K to Obama, $320K to McCain
JPMorgan: $700K to Obama, $230K to McCain
Morgan Stanley: $415K to Obama, $270K to McCain

Hmm...

(source: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638 and http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?id=N00006424&cycle2=2008&goButt2.x=9&goButt2.y=12&goButt2=Submit)

Kaa

Since corporations have recently been certified as having the same rights as human citizens of the USA can we assume they will be able to back up their donations with votes, in November? ;)

oznabrag
03-05-2010, 12:07 PM
oz,

Sorry, I'm not from Kansas.

No sir, I know that you are not, and I hope you understand that neither could I ever refer to you as a ninny!

I do, however, think the ninny Pefster's gonna wake up one fine morning to the realization that he's not in Kansas anymore! ;)

TomF
03-05-2010, 12:17 PM
That might be hard to do, in ten words of a single syllable each.Do your prep, fight hard, but don't be an @ss.

If I were Dr. Seuss, it would rhyme.

Kaa
03-05-2010, 12:21 PM
Since corporations have recently been certified as having the same rights as human citizens of the USA can we assume they will be able to back up their donations with votes, in November? ;)

So you read post #38, but didn't read either #40 or #42 :-)

Kaa

Kaa
03-05-2010, 12:22 PM
Mother Nature doesn't give a rat-fornication who you voted for, either, so.....?

LOL. I yield to your superior rat fornication knowledge... :D

Kaa

pefjr
03-05-2010, 12:44 PM
LOL. I yield to your superior rat fornication knowledge... :D

KaaRazor keen :D

David G
03-06-2010, 08:05 PM
Do your prep, fight hard, but don't be an @ss.

If I were Dr. Seuss, it would rhyme.

Just a reminder.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-06-2010, 08:16 PM
Does it bother anyone here that fear really seems to work as a leadership method in this country? Think of all the things American's are now frightened of, in part because of their political leadership. If you start making a list it is frighteningly long...

Maybe a great recession quote could be

"we have nothing to fear, except the fear mongers themselves."

Yes, I think it bothers people around the globe, particularly because of the concentration of military power in a country that is continuing to implode inward politically, socially and economically.

John P Lebens
03-07-2010, 01:35 AM
While we are calling each other names... Read this brilliant Op Ed by Thomas Friedman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07friedman.html?hp

This country still has so many opportunities. And because it offers nothing positive, the Republican fear mongering is reprehensible. Democrats who have been bought off by their corporate funders are slimy. The anti-government paranoids running around right now are clowns. There is a kind of insanity in politics right now and it is not helping us to succeed as a country.

Let's pull it together, people! We need to do something other than try to scare or intimidate each other.

What is wrong with us that we can't have a health care system that is typical in cost and effectiveness of every other industrialized country? What's wrong with us that we can't recognize the value in a cleaner environment. What's wrong that we can't have a simpler and fairer tax system? Why can't we pay our bills? Why are we slipping into third world status with our infrastructure. Why is it that we have let our middle class go flatline in real income over the past 30 years, while the richest among us just get richer?