AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

i imagine the only folks who take polls seriously are the sort of douche bags that get blown in their office by fat interns


oh, yeah, right

I'm saying that folks who cannot spell simple words cannot be trusted to understand the complexities of the modern political debate, yes. Every idiot has an opinion; but who gives a ****?

And there's a big difference between a blog post, which is basically a discussion online, and appearing in public with a sign that you personally made and you know others will be looking at and taking pictures of you with. I wouldn't be caught dead in public with a mis-spelled sign and I doubt you would either.

If you think my posts have significant grammatical and spelling errors - to the point where it would embarrass me - please, let me know. I think we both know that this isn't the case.

Cycloptichorn

!

Employees make that choice by their choice of who they work for . . . are you out of your mind? Do you think getting a job is like drawing cards from a deck?

BEsides, every employer my ex-husband had changed health insurance more often than you change your socks.

If they do or not is not important to me.
I am not overly concerned with spelling or grammar.

My point is would you be willing to hold yourself to the same standard, and say thay any post you have ever made is worthless and meaningless if it has any type of spelling or grammatical error?

That SEEMS to be the standard you are applying to the people with those signs.
If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

Just heard a speaker on NPR . . . seemed to be the employee of a state . . . who used the title Tea Baggers and spoke of their denial of global warming.

Specious argument.

You've been typing to OmSig far too long.

I do believe that the form of a message is important, yes. If you can't take the time to carefully craft your message, why would others take you seriously?

And let's be honest: holding up a home-made sign at a rally is an attempt to send a message. When you can't spell correctly, the message you are sending is 'I am an idiot.'

Cycloptichorn

Did you wish to reply to my post, realjohnboy? Cyclopitchorn seems to think that if a few people( in reality, on both the left wing and right wing side) hold up signs that are misspelled, that makes them idiots--Perhaps--but, and most important--it negates the message of the entire group--an obviously ridiculous conclusion.

There is a real sense that Cyclops is attempting to denigrate an entire group because a few members of that group do not spell words correctly on their posters. My post on African-Americans and Hispanics repeats his argument on a larger scale--since so many African-Americans and Hispanics are illiterate and cannot spell words correctly on their posters( I will find some examples) that means that the Obama philosophy is corrupt or inadequate.

Cyclops really does not know what he is talking about. But being sealed into the Republic of Berkeley, one does become confused.

and there's no slack jawed yokels that fit the same bill?

seems to be more about education than race

just sayin' is all

A 3 word sign is as difficult to spell and grammar check as a 100 word post? Even you can't think that MM.

I thought the person holding the sign was a white Republican. Doesn't that automatically make him a candidate for sainthood?

I think it means they were educated when schools were actually teaching people something, hence their ability to spell.

But the sign was misspelled and it promoted home schooling.

Cycloptichorn, you are wrong again!

Yes, there are some rich folks whose only income comes from their investments, but it is those investments that have enabled those rich folks to sustain and create jobs for other folks. If their incomes were to be reduced via taxes, their spending and additional investments would be reduced and not be available for creating jobs for more folks---rich, poor, and in between.

Most rich folks get their income from working either for themselves or for other people. It is these rich folks that via their work, their spending, and their investing also create jobs for more folks. Reduce their income via taxes and you reduce their spending and additional investments, that would otherwise end up creating more jobs for more folks, rich, poor, and in between.

It makes far more sense to enable the private economy rather than the federal economy to spend and invest far more. What invidious folks do not or refuse to understand is that the rich do far more to improve the economy for everyone than does the federal government. Invidious folks act like they are programmed to prefer equalization of wealth regardless of the pain that will cause everyone but them.

Roosevelt did not end the 1930's depression until the 1940s, when the unemployment rate dropped "like a stone" below 3% from above 15%. He ended it when he had the federal government buy products, commodities, and services from the private economy to support the US's participation in WWII.

Obama should have taken an equivalent approach to end the US's current depression. Yes, he should have advocated that the federal government buy stuff from the private sector, instead of giving away so much federal money like Roosevelt did in the 1930s. Had Obama done that he would have obtained bipartisan support, and the private sector's income and jobs would have climbed back up---and so would have federal revenue from the current tax system.

You might ask, what could Obama's federal government buy from the private sector today that would not constitute give-aways? How about:
(1) greater support for the military to more quickly win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan;
(2) better healthcare for wounded military veterans;
(3) new nuclear power plants to reduce the US's dependency on foreign oil;
(4) better systems for disposing of nuclear wastes;
(5) improvements in the current US's interstate transportation system--land, water, air;
(6) expand and develop new energy production facilities;
(7) expansion and acceleration of NASA's space program?

Alternate history.

Reaganomics and the trickle down failed

As I said - you admit that the lack of a Cap Gains tax means the rich essentially pay no taxes. You just don't care, because that is the ideal social situation for you.

Luckily for us practically nobody in this country agrees with your viewpoint on this issue.



Bullshit. The rich do as much as they can to improve their situation. Some of the crumbs fall down for the poor but that's about it. They certainly didn't get rich out of the goodness of their hearts.

Cycloptichorn

Of course, djjd62. There is more to education than race and slack jawed yokels fit the same bill. But which groups have more illiteracy percentage wise? In a recent National Adult Literacy Survey, the following data is pertinent:

Literacy, Personal Economics, and Welfare

In the 1992 NALS,

31% of welfare women had minimal skills (similar to high school dropouts/NALS Level 1), compared to 13% of non-welfare women;
37% had basic skills (similar to below average high school graduates/NALS Level 2), compared to 25% of non-welfare women;
25% had competent skills (similar to people with some postsecondary education/NALS Level 3), compared to 37% of non-welfare women; and
7% had advanced/superior skills (similar to people with a bachelor's degree or more/NALS Level 4/5), compared to 25% of non-welfare women.
(Carnevale, p12, Figure 3)
*************************************************************