18 Feb

How Conservatives can win in a world of “Low Information Voters”

                                       

How did Barack Obama win reelection despite 8 million fewer people working and a doubling of gas prices since he took office? Despite a flatlining GDP, $6 trillion in new debt, and the disastrous Benghazi? How is it possible that given his abject failure voters could give Barack Obama a second term? Easy… Republicans hate everyone.

This point was crystallized this week when Mary Katherine Ham got into a dustup with Juan Williams over the issue of gun control. Ham made the cogent point that Chicago, with some of the strongest gun control laws in the country is anything but a “promise land” of tranquility. Williams responded with the absurd notion that because Virginia has much weaker gun regulations than DC, the lives of people who live in DC are somehow less valuable.

As nonsensical as William’s argument (if you can call it that) was, its demonizing of Virginians as not valuing the lives of DC residents was not unusual. That is exactly how Barack Obama won reelection and how we’ve gotten ourselves into this quagmire of a bloated mommy state with trillions of dollars flowing to the “needy” and tens of thousands of pages of regulations seeking to “protect” citizens.

Conservatives and the GOP have been participating in different conversations than liberals for decades. While conservatives seek to engage in conversations about finding solutions for problems, liberals ignore them and steam ahead building their progressive utopia, regardless of the impact on the actual problems themselves.

The conversation between Ham and Williams provides a clear demonstration of the tactic. Data clearly show that jurisdictions with the most restrictive gun laws not only don’t show lower rates of gun violence, but typically have more gun violence. The conclusion that one might draw from this is that fewer gun laws mean more saved lives. You can disagree with the conclusion or argue about a lack of causation or you can suggest some other alternative explanation for the data. But that’s rarely what liberals do. Instead they suggest that if you’re against more gun laws you don’t want to protect children.

The same construct holds true for virtually every issue in politics:

  • You oppose Barack Obama you’re a racist.
  • You oppose increasing spending on education you don’t’ care about children.
  • You oppose wind farms and electric cars you don’t care about the environment.
  • You want borders enforced you hate Hispanics.
  • You want lower taxes you hate poor people.
  • You don’t support gay marriage you’re a homophobe.
  • You want Obamacare repealed you’re a greedy SOB who doesn’t care about children with cancer or the elderly needing medicines.
  • If you oppose increasing the minimum wage you don’t care about the poor.

And the list goes on. This is the liberal modus operandi: Demagoguery. Rather than engage in thoughtful discussions on the goals and efficacy of government regulations, they seek to demonize their opponents and in the process marginalize then sideline them.

Mitt Romney was just the latest causality of this Democratic pseudo defamation machine… He’s rich and wants lower taxes, therefore he hates poor people. Nevermind he created thousands of entry level jobs that gave poor people an income.

Before him Rudy Giuliani was called racist because of his crackdown on crime in New York City. Nevermind that he saved the lives of thousands of young black men by making the streets safer for everyone.

Ronald Reagan was constantly pilloried for everything from wanting to starve children to being a war monger. Nevermind he created a staggering level of economic growth that provided incomes to parents of millions of children, and that he won the Cold War.

The worst part of this liberal tactic is that it’s almost impossible to refute. Data rarely works to sway the argument. You saw that in William’s rejoinder to Ham. He had no interest in engaging on the facts. You also see it in the painting of the Tea Party movement as racist. Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 for proof of the claim that Tea Partiers had spit on black members of congress. Despite thousands of phone cameras rolling nobody came forward. Nonetheless the meme of Tea Party racism continues, even in the face of explicit proof to the opposite. Once the left makes an assertion and the sycophants in the media get hold of it, it’s almost impossible to reverse.

Liberals have been seeking to delegitimize conservatives for half a century. Unfortunately it’s been a largely successful strategy, as can be seen by the growth of government regulation and spending under both Democrat and GOP administrations. As such, liberals have no intention of abandoning it any time soon.

Given that playing field, in order to achieve success conservatives are going to have to face those falsehoods head on. At the most basic level they must make the point, repeatedly, that their policies of limited government and fiscal restraint seek to help all Americans, not just particular groups. More importantly however, conservatives must be willing to go toe to toe with Democrats who seek to delegitimize them as haters of one sort or another. They must be willing to stand up and state clearly “I reject the basic premise of your argument” and clearly articulate that opposition to Democrat’s nanny state policies does not suggest that they hate anybody. Rather, by reducing government entanglement in our lives, conservative policies seek to help everyone and anyone succeed.

In a universe of “low information voters” the only recipe for success is for conservatives to stay laser focused on the idea that limited government helps drive prosperity, which helps everyone. Period. That’s it. There’s nothing else.  In a cacophony of issues we must narrow the focus to the only ones that count: freedom and prosperity, because once they’re gone, nothing else matters.  Conservatives must learn to compellingly deflect the “hate” label and focus attention on how freedom drives prosperity and prosperity makes everything else possible. By explicitly refuting those “hate” labels they can narrow the spectrum of discussion to the consequences of government policies. They should be under no illusion that doing so will change the votes of dyed in the wool liberals. It may however catch the attention of a sufficient number of those “low information voters” to sway the next two elections red and save the country from our impending Greece like collapse.

About Vince

The product of a military family, growing up in Naples, Italy and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and being stationed in Germany for two years while in the Army, Vince spent half of his first quarter century seeing the US from outside of its own borders. That perspective, along with a French wife and two decades as a struggling entrepreneur have only fueled an appreciation for freedom and the fundamental greatness of the gifts our forefathers left us.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Monday, February 18th, 2013 at 6:24 am
| 1,714 views

90 Responses to How Conservatives can win in a world of “Low Information Voters”

  1. Poppa_T says: 51

    @retire05: #45

    “…Then [sic] President of the United States does not need U.N. permission to declare war And if he did seek that, it would be an abdication of his duties as POTUS. He needed a Congressional resolution to send military troops into Iraq…”

    ???

    My friend that is not what our Constitution says. Congress must be the ones to declare that a state of war exists then the POTUS puts on his CiC hat and sends the troops where they are needed. You’ve got it exactly backwards.

    Why can’t Republicans/Conservatives stick to the Constitution?

    ReplyReply
  2. Poppa_T says: 52

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #27

    Ms. Bees could you please show me who the last President that actually REDUCED the size of Government was? Either by the number of federal employees or agencies. I think you might be in for a surprise.

    ReplyReply
  3. Diane R says: 53

    Thank you Daxton for picking up the slack and all the great info on your site. I guess your summary of the economic situation was not understood, even within the context of the related discussion.

    Thank you ilovebeeswarzone for sticking up for freedom and helping others in need.

    Thank you retireo5 for picking up the slack on WMD and Bush.

    With regard to the ‘so-called’ WMD, I guess looking at a page from a declassified intelligence report that describes them flies in the face of someones own reality. I would also like to remind us all that two or three countries sold WMD to Saddam (Germany, France and ??), and I assume that they told Bush that the quantities they sold were not likely to have been used up by Saddam during his murderous rampages, so much should still remain. But this information would not likely be made news because of the embarrassment it would cause them. It was also reported that chemicals were dumped in the Euphrates and or Tigris River during the occupation. And it was reported that Saddam’s military abandoned the fight because they were sure that he would use WMD on invading troops; that’s part of the reason that they reached Baghdad so quickly. His generals also said that he had them.

    Paraphrasing Carl Sagan, the absence of evidence does not prove they don’t exist … George Bush made a decision based on: 1) Saddam allowing terrorists camps in his country, making threats against the US, and paying families of suicide bombers; 2) reports from countries that supplied WMD; 3) reports that inspectors were not allowed to go where they wanted to go to find them; 4) various intelligence reports; 5) popular support in Congress. (Link also provided above) It matters little what we know now or that Bush concedes to some lessor position – it’s only what he knew then that matters.

    (Due to vision problems that cannot be fixed, I apologize in advance for any grammatical or spelling errors.)

    ReplyReply
  4. Gomez
    I said 6 thousands, did I forgot to say, and still counting?
    hey, did you forget the LAW OFFICER AND FIREFIGHTERS WHO LOST THEIR LIVES AND GOT SICK
    SO SICK THAT THEY ARE TODAY OR DISABLED OR DEAD,?
    THEY SURE COUNT, BECAUSE THEY SUFFER AND DIED, SOME STUCK IN TERE UNDER THE RABLES
    BURNING ALIVE, OTHER THROWN DOWN THE COLLAPSING FLOOR TO THEIR DEATH AND SO ON
    I DID NOT FORGET THEM, THEY WHERE THE BRAVES OF THIS NATION PAST, THEY ARE THE BRAVES OF THIS NATION STILL ALIVE STRUGGLING WITH SICKNESS, THEY ARE SILENT KEEPING TO THEMSELF NOT BRAGGING FOR BEING THE TOP MOST NEEDED IN DISASTER TIMES OF THIS NATION,
    YES WE COUNT THEM IN AND STILL COUNTING AS THEY PAST.

    ReplyReply
  5. Diane R
    you gave so much infos, from that WAR, some of it , we didn’t know,
    imagine just learning after so long , after so many blood shed from the bravest who went there
    it make us remember that we must not take FREEDOM FOR A CHEAP PLUS ASSET FROM AMERICA,
    NO , IT IS VERY COSTLY TO BE FREE, AND SOME WHO WANT TO BREAK THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMENDMENTS MUST BE DEALT WITH SEVERELY BY THE SO TOLERANT PEOPLE, WITH ACTIONS TO NEWTER THEIR INTENT FOREVER, SO THEY WIL NEVER FORGET ,
    THAT YOU DON’T MESS WITH AMERICA,
    BE YOU IN THIS COUNTRY LEADERSHIP OR IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES ,
    YOU WILL NOT BE SAVE FROM THE PUNISHMENT TO COME SWIFTLY,

    ReplyReply
  6. Poppa_T
    HI,
    WHAT I KNOW, is what is going now, and our smart CONSERVATIVES are worry,
    they tell of abusive legistlations more than ever decided on the spur of the moment without due exploring the repercusion in the futur,
    meaning there are a lot of nuts deciding on your life and on your pocket book,
    and they get away with it, being cover by MEDIAS INDOCTRINATIONS OF THE IGNORANT PEOPLE,
    WHAT IS GOING ON IS ENOUGH, WE DON’T NEED TO GO BACK AND SIFT INTO THE PAST,
    BECAUSE TODAY IS EVEN MORE DEPRESSING FOR THOSE 23 MILLIONS LOOKING
    FOR VANISHING JOBS MORE AS WE SEE IT COMING.
    THE DESCENT IN HELL

    ReplyReply
  7. Poppa_T says: 57

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    Hi Ms. Bees. Yes Ma’am I know what the “smart conservatives” are saying, that they are worried about and I know about all the abusive legislation. The trouble is that it is all a lie. When the “R’s” are in power the government grows, unconstitutional legislation gets passed and the “D’s” bitch about it. When the “D’s” are in power the government grows, unconstitutional legislation gets passed and the “R’s” bitch about it.

    We cannot ignore the past, we must look at the past and remember the lessons that have been taught to us. BOTH parties are liars who care about nothing more than retaining and expanding their power. Big mammon and big government will continue to rule until both conservatives and liberals wake up and realize that the ONLY way out of the mess we are in is to return to the original intent of the Constitution, freedom, individual responsibility, limited governance and respect for the beliefs of others. Liberals must agree to end the entitlement society and conservatives must agree to disband Pax Americana. IMHO

    ReplyReply
  8. Diane R says: 58

    @Poppa_T: Amen! Poppa_T Amen!

    ReplyReply
  9. Poppa_T
    YES, YOU ARE RIGHT ON,
    the DEMOCRATS WON’T AGREE TO DISBAND THEIR LONG ARMS ENTITELMENTS,
    AND I have confidences the CONSERVATIVES HAVE LEARNED AND HAVE MORE LOVE FOR AMERICA,
    THEY WOULD LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE AND THEY ARE ALREADY FOR FREEDOM,
    NOT HOLDING THE PEOPLE HOSTAGE LIKE OBAMA IS DOING IN PUBLIC SAYING TO CONGRESS, IF YOU DON’T DO MY WAY, ALL THE LIST OF HURTING THE MILITARY AND BUSYNESS AND VETERAN AND WELFARE RECIPIENTS IS COLLAPSING, WILL FOR SURE BECOME MY SIGNATUREBY EXECUTIVE POWER I HOLD OVER YOUR HEAD,
    IS THAT HELPING TO BOOST GOOD FEELING? NO WAY,
    BUT IT IS A THREAT TO THE TOLERANT PEOPLE OF THIS GREAT NATION,
    THEY ARE USED FROM CENTURIES LEARNED TO LOOK UP TO THEIR PRESIDENT,
    AND THIS THREAT IS DEMOLISHING THE SPIRIT OF AMERICANS,
    THEY GET DISCOURAGED AND CANNOT COMPREHEND HOW A 47% HAS PUT HIM IN POWER AGAIN,
    THIS IS MORE THAN THE MIND CAN TAKE AND KEEP HOPING FOR A BETTER SITUATION ,
    AND INSTEAD SLOWLY BLAME THE CITIZEN WHO ARE THE MAKER OF THIS AWFUL MESS
    THEY ARE IN., THIS BRING A DIVIDE OF A NATION, AND DECADENCE ENTER TO WORSEN THE SITUATION,
    HERE I REFER TO MAYBE YOUR ANGER ON THE UNFORGOTTEN MISTAKE DONE BY THE REPUBLICANS TO MAKE SURE THEY WOULD WIN THE LAST ELECTION,
    THAT IS ,THE CHANGE IN THE RIGHT OF DELEGATES, I know you where angry like many other and justme95 in our exchanges, but they had a situation extreme for excusing the mistake, PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES UNDER THE STRESS GIVEN TO THEM,
    but it has left some hard to swallow memories for a long time and they sure don’t have a clue how to repair and make up for it.
    but compare to THE OBAMA PLAN , IT’S A DROP IN THE BUCKET,
    THE PROBLEMS AND AGENDA IN OBAMA IS HUMONGOUS FOR THE PEOPLE TO LIVE UNDER,
    UNTENABLE AND A MUST BE STOP, AND THERE WE MUST FOCUS ON TO DISMANTLE HIS CONTINUOUS DRIVE TOWARD THE CLIFF, AND THAT CLIFF HAS NO BOTTOM.
    BEST TO YOU

    ReplyReply
  10. Richard Wheeler says: 60

    Daxton No knock on you and your obviously studied prognosis of economics.
    My initial response was to Diane’s “it’s all about Obama” meme. Don’t buy it.
    Truthfully, I’ll never forget what I learned as a 25 year old Merrill Lynch stockbroker in 1970.
    A monkey throwing darts at the WSJ consistently outperformed a majority of highly paid stock analysts.

    Keep up your good work. I’ll certainly take a look at it.

    ReplyReply
  11. ON FOX NEWS THEY INTERPRETED WHAT OBAMA IS SAYING TO REPUBLICANS,
    ABOUT HIS SEQUESTER
    IT SOUND TO ME LIKE
    LUCIFER SAYING; YOU CAN HAVE ALL MY TREASURES IF YOU GIVE ME YOUR SOUL,

    ReplyReply
  12. Gomez says: 62

    @Poppa_T:

    You might have taken that out of context. The U.N. resolutions were for two purposes. First, the use of diplomatic channels.

    Second, was to obtain a coalition of international forces which the U.N. would not authorize with the information that was available, or lacking, at the time.

    You are correct that we do not need the U.N. to declare war.

    ReplyReply
  13. retire05 says: 63

    @Poppa_T:

    He needed a Congressional resolution to send military troops into Iraq…”

    ???

    My friend that is not what our Constitution says. Congress must be the ones to declare that a state of war exists then the POTUS puts on his CiC hat and sends the troops where they are needed. You’ve got it exactly backwards.

    Why can’t Republicans/Conservatives stick to the Constitution?

    Wow!!! Does all that spin make you dizzy?

    The President can declare war against another nation, using the “advise and consent” from Congress as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. That is exactly what Bush did, no matter how you Paulbots try to spin it. HR 114.

    So tell me, did FDR (the president) announce the declaration of war against Japan, or did the Congress stick their faces in front of the cameras to do that? Congress passes any resolution for war, the POTUS then announces that resolution.

    Get back to me when you decide to learn the Constitution not Ron Paul’s defination of it.

    ReplyReply
  14. Poppa_T says: 64

    @retire05:

    My friend maybe you interpret the Constitution differently than I do. So let’s look at this together okay? As I read the Constitution Article 1, that portion of the Constitution that deals with the Legislative branch, Section 8, which describes its powers, clause 11 appears to say the “Congress shall have the power to declare War…”
    And Article 2, that portion of the Constitution that deals with the Executive branch, Section 2 appears to say “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” now to me that part that says “when called into the actual Service” means after Congress has declared War.

    So if you would be so kind, please show me I am misunderstanding what it appears to say.

    As for WWII and FDR I respectfully ask that you read or listen to the Day of Infamy speech before you bring it up. FDR clearly does not declare War, he asks congress to.

    ReplyReply
  15. retire05 says: 65

    @Poppa_T:

    You’re not wrong, just misunderstanding what my point was.

    Congress has the sole authority to pass a resolution for a declaration of war. The POTUS then announces that. The Congress, supported by the likes of Reid, Clinton, John Kerry and Chuck Schumer, all agreed to the Resolution to Use Military Force against Iraq. Bush then acted on that resolution. Bush did not, as has been inferred here, act on sending troops to Iraq unilaterally.

    But we have fought a [non] declared war simply on presidential orders. The war against the North Vietnamese was never declared by Congress, yet 58,000 American military lives were lost based on a “police action.” Unlike Bush, who sought Congressional approval, JFK did not.

    It was only after the war became unpopular, due to the photos of flagged draped coffins returning from Iraq, and John Kerry wanting to be president, did the Democrats distance themselves from that vote. It’s like the kid who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar, declaring he didn’t steal a cookie, only because the jar was empty.

    ReplyReply
  16. retire05 says: 66

    @Poppa_T:

    As for WWII and FDR I respectfully ask that you read or listen to the Day of Infamy speech before you bring it up. FDR clearly does not declare War, he asks congress to.

    FDR asked for that declaration because, as he put it, “a state of war exists” [already]. FDR has also already acted on the attack on Pearl Harbor, actions that should have required a declaration of war to be granted by Congress. If you want to use FDR, who usurpted the U.S. Constitution on so many levels that you can’t count them, you are not on strong ground.

    ReplyReply
  17. Poppa_T says: 67

    @retire05:
    My friend IMHO the entire “War on Terror” has been a “cluster-f**k” from beginning to never ending end. After 9/11 Congress should have issued letters of marque and reprisal because a precise declaration of war against a defined enemy was impossible. We were going after a branch of a religion not a government and we ended up using sledge hammers to kill flies when all we needed were fly swatters.

    If you’re going to invade a Nation and destroy them then you should have at least do it right and Declare WAR instead of whatever “use of force” meant. It was BS then and it’s BS now. Also, just because we have done things like this before (Vietnam) it doesn’t mean it was right then either. I’m just glad I got out before all that mess started.

    As for FDR, I didn’t bring him up. As far as I’m concerned that POS can forever roast in Infamy. In Day of Deceit, Robert Stinnett conclusively proves that FDR had ample warning of the attack on Pearl Harbor and that a plan to push Japan into war was initiated at the highest levels of the U.S. government, just as the Gulf of Tonkin incident drew us into Vietnam. Just as WMD’s drew us into Iraq.

    As United States Marine Corps Major General and two time Medal of Honor recipient Smedley D. Butler said “War is a Racket” read it if you get the chance.

    Semper Fi

    ReplyReply
  18. Vince
    I’m sure you’re right in saying it ,
    we must expose their lies, as they come out from any place any campaigning, any democrats anywhere in their MEDIAS and from their MEDIAS ,
    and as fast as they express it,
    I just look at FOX NEWS , showing a bunch of people carrying banners against the KEYSTONE project,
    and a MAN walking by , telling a reporter, what do they want?
    a line of UNEMPLOYED, OR A LINE OF TRAFFIC,
    that was brilliant

    ReplyReply
  19. another vet says: 69

    @Diane R: You are correct. As stated here numerous times before, I served two tours in Iraq and will go my grave believing Saddam had WMD and I mean more than what was admitted to in the document you cited. Given that our stated mission was accomplished there, you would think we would call the Iraq War a victory but the left has managed to hijack the narrative on that one as well.

    ReplyReply
  20. another vet says: 70

    @Richard Wheeler: Out of curiosity, are you trying to insinuate that food costs less than it did 5 years ago?

    ReplyReply
  21. Richard Wheeler says: 71

    A.V. I buy more food in less expensive stores (like 99cent). I eat less meat and have become more of a shopper,partly because I have more time to do so.
    Does food cost less?? It does for me.

    ReplyReply
  22. another vet
    hi,
    tomorrow is the WASHINGTON BIRTHDAY,
    I just saw that on my calendar,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  23. another vet says: 73

    @Richard Wheeler: That’s what I thought you meant but it was kind of worded to imply food costs less than what it did 5 years ago. We have Aldi’s by me. That has helped. Jewels and Dominicks are way out of line with their prices. Generic brands also help. If I could afford it I’d be eating fish, in particular salmon, almost everyday along with fresh fruits and veggies. No pastas or breads.

    ReplyReply
  24. another vet says: 74

    @ilovebeeswarzone: Thanks for the heads up. George Washington, one of the Founding Fathers who in the eyes of the left would be classified as an extremist for believing in the Constitution.

    ReplyReply
  25. Richard Wheeler says: 75

    A.V. Totally agree fish more expensive and wish I could afford it more often. Exercise keeps me sane and truly delays the aging process.
    I believe in the Constitution. I also believe strongly in Civil Rights, Human Rights,Freedom of Speech,Freedom to practice any Religion or no Religion. Protection of the Environment ranks high and I got a real soft spot for animals.nuf about me Thanks for your service —Semper Fi

    As a student of the Civil War your thoughts on “Lincoln”

    ReplyReply
  26. another vet
    yes thank you for the info,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  27. Aye says: 77

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    Washington’s birthday is actually not until Friday the 22nd.

    ReplyReply
  28. AYE
    YES, SORRY ,IT’S MY ERROR, I WAS LATE AFTER MIDNIGHT AND MISCALCULATE THE DAYS ON MY CALENDAR,
    OOPS, THANK’S FOR THE CORRECTION

    ReplyReply
  29. sometimes it come not as fast as I would like,
    but as long as it come,
    meaning that an observation came to my mind about
    how CONSERVATIVES CAN WIN, IN A WORLD OF LOW INFORMATION VOTERS,
    we know that there is a big difference between the DEMOCRATS
    AND THE CONSERVATIVES REPUBLICANS,
    THAT IS THE FACT THAT THE DEMOCRATS WILL COVER THE SINS OF THEIR PEERS,
    no matter how corrupt, no matter how liar they are,
    they will continue as if nothing is the matter and keep them on the people’s payroll as long as
    it’s not discovered and expose to the PEOPLE,
    THE DIFFERENCE IS GREAT IS IN IT? WE HAVE SEEN IT.
    BUT THE CONSERVATIVES ARE SHOWING INDIVIDUALTY OF EACH ONE AND DEBATE THEIR CONTRA DICTION AMONG THEMSELVES , WITHOUT TOUCHING THE OVERAL TOTAL VALUES OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY THEY ARE UNIFY WITH IT BUT KEEPING THEIR OWN CORE OF ONE EACH
    AS A RIGHT TO TELL HIS OR HER OPINION CONCERNING MANY SUBJECTS MORE THAN THE DEMOCRATS FOLLOWING ONE LINE WHICH IS OF THE LEADER NO MATTER HOW THE FAILURES
    OR THE DOWNFALL IT BRING THE PEOPLE TO BE HURT,
    THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE A BETTER BRAIN POOL TO SOLVE PROBLEMS IN AMERICA ON ALL FRONT, BECAUSE OF THEIR MANY PEOPLE INTERESTED IN THE PROBLEM SOLVING,
    COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO DEMOCRATS FOLLOWING THE LEADER AGENDA EVEN IF
    THEY KNOW TO SINK AMERICA,
    BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A ROUND TABLE OF CONSERVATIVES IN THIS BLOG FOR EXAMPLE, DISCUSSING A PROBLEM ON GOVERNMENT ISSUES,
    IT GIVE THE PEOPLE A SOLID BASE TO MAKE THEIR MIND
    EASIER TO JUDGE WHERE THE RESOLUTION IS RIGHT OR WRONG,
    AS OPPOSE TO THE DEMOCRATS NON DEBATES, BUT ACCEPTING THE LEADER FAILURES AS RIGHT JUST BECAUSE HE CAMPAIGN ON IT

    ReplyReply
  30. another vet says: 80

    @Richard Wheeler: I didn’t see the movie if that’s what you are referring to. I stopped going to see mainstream movies a long time ago. If “Lincoln” was made in the vain of an Oliver Stone movie or most Hollywood movies for that matter that try to pass themselves as being historical dramas, then it must not be very historically accurate most likely leaving out details or misrepresenting facts in order to promote a certain theme. Having not seen the movie though, I can’t comment as to its accuracy either way. Perhaps it was a rare bird that was fairly historically accurate.

    If the main theme was that Lincoln went to war was free the slaves then it is historically inaccurate. The main reason Lincoln went to war was to preserve the Union not to end slavery. Lincoln believed slavery was evil and preferred it didn’t exist but he also believed blacks were inferior to whites. His main reason for signing the Emancipation Proclamation was military in nature. He knew the only way to win was total war and that meant freeing the slaves not only to end the institution of slavery as a divisive issue but because he would need their manpower. Prior to issuing the EP, he made one last gesture to the South telling them they could keep the slaves they had if they returned to the Union. If none of that was brought out in the movie, then it left out historical facts in order to promote a certain theme.

    Ditto on exercise and animals especially man’s best friend.

    ReplyReply
  31. Richard Wheeler says: 81

    Another Vet Based on your comments I think you’d truly enjoy Lincoln. Directed by Spielberg with an incredible performance from Daniel Day Lewis. Nothing “Oliver Stone” about it. Also rec. Argo, Zero Dark Thirty and Pi.
    You know I don’t personally buy into this blame the MSM for everything meme. I believe First Amendment every bit as important as the 2nd. Some great movies along with many bad ones on which I won’t waste time or money.
    I believe you’ll love Lincoln. Let me know.

    BTW I know Retire05 won’t approve but my wife and I most always catch 2 movies when we go to multi-plex. Talk about inflation 9-14 bucks per person. They should be glad we come at all.lol

    Semper Fi

    ReplyReply
  32. retire05 says: 82

    @Richard Wheeler:

    I know Retire05 won’t approve but my wife and I most always catch 2 movies when we go to multi-plex. Talk about inflation 9-14 bucks per person. They should be glad we come at all.lol

    If you pay for both tickets, why should I have a problem with that? If you don’t, and only pay for one ticket, but then see another movie that you had not paid for, in my state that is called “theft of services” and you could be arrested for it.

    ReplyReply
  33. Richard Wheeler
    they are coming for you,
    you don’t know where, you don’t know when,
    but as sure as the SUN RISE, they are coming.
    oh and bring your laptop, so you will have something to do,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  34. Richard Wheeler says: 84

    Dang Bees Are they coming to take my discount entertainment book? My 2 for one movie booklet?
    Should I get me an AR-15 and a truckload of ammo?
    Will they be wearing 10 gallon hats and cowboy boots?
    Thanks for the heads up pal.

    ReplyReply
  35. another vet says: 85

    @Richard Wheeler: I have zero use for the MSM. They have an agenda and it’s to promote left wing ideals. They have given a pass to Obama for things they would have crucified Bush for. Since the election the only news I’ve listened to has been when I’m somewhere else and someone else has it on and then I try to block out the garbage spewing from their mouths as best as possible. Not into propaganda and never have been. I haven’t been to any of the online news sites either- FOX, Newsmax, CNN etc. since the election. The last news related site was Dick Morris’s where I blogged him the day after the election to essentially tell him he was full of shit and that I wouldn’t be back given his disastrous election predictions. It’s actually been quite pleasant not having to listen to or read the crap that is out there.

    ReplyReply
  36. Pingback: Friday morning links - Maggie's Farm

  37. another vet
    hi,
    I strongly think that DICK MORRIS HAD IT RIGHT, BUT HE NEVER COULD THINK OF THE SCOPE OF CORRUPTION AND LIES BE APLYED TO WIN THE ELECTION BY OBAMA,
    HE HAD SAID HE MUST WIN AND HE WILL DO ANYTHING, AND HE WENT TO MAKE A PACT WITH THE DEVIL TO WIN.
    ANYONE WITH A DECENT MIND COULD HAVE SUSPECTED IT,
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  38. Liberal1 (Objectivity) says: 87

    Conservatives are low information voters—just look at the debt incurred by George Bush’s War in Iraq and Afghanistan for questionable reasons and misinformation.

    ReplyReply
  39. another vet says: 88

    @ilovebeeswarzone: Obama’s approval rating, which is the best indicator of the percentage of the popular vote an incumbent president will receive, on election day was a tad over 50% which is about what he received in the popular vote. Despite that, Dick Morris was still claiming a landslide victory for Romney. As I told him on his site, he has no more credibility with me. That’s not to say his criticisms of this administration are without merit, he is right on in that regard, but he tried playing people for fools with his predictions. Once someone does that to me, it’s bye, bye.

    ReplyReply
  40. another vet
    I think you turned your anger on the wrong man,
    I STILL THINK HE HAD FIGURED IT RIGHT, DO YOU THINK HE WOULD PUT HIS REPUTATION ON THE LINE BY TELLING FALSE COMPUTATIONS PUBLICLY? SURELY NOT,
    AND WE JUST ARE GETTING SOME FALSIFICATION OF THE VOTES
    FRAUDULENTLY REPEATED EVEN BY ONE COUNTING BALLATS,
    THAT IS ONE OF HOW MANY? THIS ONE VOTE TWICE SHE SAID ARROGANTLY,
    AND SHE VOTE ON THE NAMES OF OTHERS,
    AND WHAT OF WHAT THEY DISCOVERED OF DEAD DEMOCRATS VOTED IN AND MORE COMING,
    SLOWLY BUT SURELY.
    and your 50% will melt radicaly as much as it inflate.
    bye

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>