conservatives are better than liberals, facts...

I got into a debate the other week that turned race related and I just wanted to address this on my blog for the record. I am a generally happy person, I love my life and where I am currently. I am employed at a great "fast food" (Jimmy Johns)
restaurant where I work 5-6 days a week. I currently am about one year short of a Bachelors of Arts degree at the U of M with a double major in political science and history but I am in no rush to get back. I want to possibly move up the corporate ladder by working my ass off, you know the old-fashioned way. I do not expect the world to hand me things on a fucking silver platter but I know being involved in politics and such that its not how MUCH you know but really WHO you know. And I know some relatively powerful people who I have built up a nice stack of IOU's for the future and I have to decide when to cash them in. Is this fair how the world works? Hell no, but I already knew that. Shit I knew that at 14 when one of my classmates asked and I quote, "My dad makes $100,000 a year, thats not that much is it?". Yeah I went to private school to get a good education but in some ways I wish I had went to a public school to get a real world education. Because the world doesn't operate the way it does at OLG or Benilde-St.Margarets. It operates like it does at Normandale Community College (which I did graduate from, I do have an AA degree) and to a lesser extent, the University of Minnesota. I have started to question the validity of a college degree and I'm not the only one, everyone should not go to college, some people aren't cut out for the work. EVERYONE though should AT LEAST go to a trade school. My upper-class friends may not know this but you know a plumber/carpenter/car mechanic and other skilled "blue-collar" jobs can earn you a lot of money. You can make very good money (and im talking like 100K, 200K and above) doing those jobs. The jobs that college "prepares" you for, 40-70K usually at most. And were running out of skilled labor jobs because my generation thinks it's "beneath" them to do those jobs. But would you rather be a lawyer making 45K a year paying of law school/college loans for 15 years or a carpenter making 80K a year right out of school? Note to my generation, the world has ENOUGH lawyers. But I digress, that was a bit of a tangent, but my point still stands that I am happy with my life and in 5-10 years hope to have a nice job, a wife, and hopefully (at least) a few kids. Thats all I need to be happy, and people don't control my happiness I do. The saying "Life is 10% of what happens to you and 90% of how you deal with it" is so true. I was bored with college so I mailed it in last semester and "quit". I'm now working a minimum wage job 25-30 hours a week and frankly I'm happier than I ever was at school. I busted my ass for a month to get a $7.25 an hour job and it was so worth it. But back to my point, studies have shown that conservatives/tea-partiers are... better informed, better educated and more successful at life, are generally happier, more generous and even better in the sack than big-government advocates, liberals, progressives and any followers of the -ism (environmentalism, feminism, activism in general)

But this pales in comparison to the main point I wanted to make, that we as conservatives are, are NOT RACIST. not only are we not racist but a whole lot less than the left. To anyone who is on the right this is no surprise, to those on the left, this has to be devastating. From SITD...

social scientists usually measure traditional racism against African Americans by looking at the survey responses of white Americans only. Among whites in the latest General Social Survey (2008), only 4.5% of small-government advocates express the view that “most Blacks/African-Americans have less in-born ability to learn,” compared to 12.3% of those who favor bigger government or take a middle position expressing this racist view (Figure 2). We social scientists sometimes like to express things in relative odds, especially for small percentages. Here the odds of small government whites not expressing racist views (21-to-1 odds) is three times higher than the odds of big-government whites not being racist (7-to-1 odds).

…but that we long-abused white male small-government are, empirically, the least-racist subgroup of all, by a whopping margin:

Figure 3 shows that, among whites, Republican advocates of smaller government are even less racist (1.3% believing that blacks have less in-born ability) than the rest of the general public (11.3% expressing racist views). Thus, in 2008 Republicans who believe that the government in Washington does too much have 10 times higher odds of not expressing racist views on the in-born ability question than the rest of the population (79-to-1 odds v. 7.9-to-1 odds).
How social conservatives who aren’t necessarily small-government – stereotypically southern? Yep – still half as likely to be a racist as a typical American:



In 2008, only 5.4% of white conservative Republicans expressed racist views on the in-born ability question, compared to 10.3% of the rest of the white population.

An aberration – perhaps caused by all that messianic hopey-changey twaddle?
Nope:


Quite clearly, the legacy of Nixon’s “southern strategy” – which was never especially racist in its own right – is long dead.

The Dems’ “racism of low expectations” is, in fact, just racism.

Maybe we need some sort of outreach program to, I dunno, judge people by the contents of their hearts rather than the color of their skin.

Bite me libs, turns out the reason you call us racist so much is not because its true but you are projecting your deep-seeded racism!

What do you call a conservative beating a liberal in a debate?

Simple, a racist. Listen to this crazy ass logic done by someone on a lefty blog named Alec Timmerman...

It goes like this: You say something completely and obviously racist, even if you aren't a racist-->We call you on the racist thing you said--> you refuse to examine your racist statements and make the lame excuse that the left will just call everything you said racist.


Obama may have done a lot of things you don't like. That is great to discuss. However, NOTHING he has done is unprecendented. Nothing he has done is socialist or communist or traitorous. The only unprecedented thing Obama has done as a President is be black. You say a lot of racist things Ben, even though you may not be a racist yourself.

First off I, to my knowledge, have not said anything racist about Obama unless you consider saying he sucks is somehow racist. Obama has done the stimulus package and healthcare "reform" those are pretty unprecedented things Alec. I want to know about the "completely and obviously racist" statements I've made. Behold the perfect example of liberal logic (or lackthereof). Go ahead and search my blog and my comments, I challenge you. You have made a serious allegation with little to no factual basis.

Michelle Obama's trip, that no one in the MSM bothered to cover...

Can you imagine if Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, or Nancy Reagan did anything close to this? And if they did the media would be outraged (and I would be with them, honestly). But since Queen Michelle "Marie Antionette" Obama took her insanely lavish vacation its okay. Because she is black and the wife of a black President and could get away with murder if she so pleased. The article from the NY Post, done well by a liberal.
A foolish trip
Michelle Obama's PR disaster

The first lady's well-publicized, expensive vacation in southern Spain last week was a PR gift to her husband's opposition. After all, we're in the middle of a major recession, with many Americans suffering terribly. President Obama himself, in discussing American economic woes with George Stephanopolous in January, said, "Everybody's going to have to [sacrifice]. Everybody's going to have to have some skin in the game."
"Sacrifice for thee but not for me" is not a great campaign slogan. Plus, Obama's worst political weakness has been with white-working class voters, who've viewed him with suspicion at least since the 2008 primaries. Mrs. Obama's jaunt through an expensive resort town in a one-shouldered Jean Paul Gaultier top won't help on that front.

It also plays into a favorite right-wing attack: branding Democrats as elitists who can't relate to average Americans' struggles.

In 2004, Citizens United ran a 30-second ad that called the Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, "another rich liberal elitist from Massachusetts who claims he's a man of the people." And no one will forget the famous wind-surfing ad.

In 2008, Obama himself fed it with his comment about voters' "clinging to guns and religion." Media elements used "Joe the Plumber" to "prove" that the candidate hated the middle class. Meanwhile, John McCain -- whose father and grandfather were Navy admirals -- managed to avoid this tarnish despite being married to an heiress worth more than $100 million. George W. Bush, the Ivy-educated scion of a wealthy political family, managed to come off as just plain folks -- despite once joking to rich supporters, "Here we have the haves and the have mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base." Man of the people, indeed. Yet the facts don't matter much. Earlier this year, Sean Hannity branded Obama as an elitist for putting Dijon mustard ("a very special condiment") on his burger. (The monitors at Media Matters dubbed it "Dijon Derangement Syndrome.") The Drudge Report recently linked to a story about Michelle Obama's commissioning a London designer to make her a coat. Clearly, no issue is too trivial to support the "Obama doesn't care about you" meme. But if the right will try to use mustard as a political weapon, it's foolish to hand them a lavish foreign vacation, too. Yes, the initial reports of Michelle Obama's traveling with a 40-person posse were wrong; it's actually two friends and four of their daughters, a couple of aides and advance staff members. But at this point, it hardly matters; the damage has been done. Better to take a pointer from Laura Bush -- who, as first lady, continued her 15-year tradition of vacationing for a week with four girlfriends at Washington State's Olympic National Park, where they stayed in the Lake Crescent Lodge and went hiking. Some argue that Michelle should be able to travel wherever she wants if she's paying for it herself. This is naive. She is the first lady at a time when Americans are experiencing great economic pain. There are endless great locations here at home that she could put on the map with a visit -- American hotels and restaurants that would be grateful for the business generated by such a high-profile visitor. If it's a huge sacrifice for her, so be it. Sacrifice is actually a noble trait, last I checked. Plus, if she keeps this up, she will be able to vacation anywhere she wants in about two years.

And now everyone the comments...

It also plays into a favorite right-wing attack: branding Democrats as elitists who can't relate to average Americans' struggles.

Well, the reason rightwingers choose this "attack" is because it's true. Democrats talk the talk about the little guy, but they certainly don't walk the walk. Sure they throw working people a few bones, but this is done in the hopes people don't notice how much money Democrats are shoving into their pockets. Democrats are elitists and snobs at heart and it's the reason the Hollywood set favors them over Republicans. Michelle Obama shows her arrogance, because she thought she wouldn't be called on this trip, because she knows Democrats get a pass by the so-called "mainstream news media". She may have miscalculated this time.


Kristin still seems to be blinkered as to why this is so grating to so many Americans. This wasn't a one-off moment of indulgence, this is their MO. The Spanish fly-over was Michelle's SEVENTH summer vacation, from which she had to hurry home to prepare for her EIGHTH summer vacation. And, oh dear, will it conflict with those star-studded Wednesday night galas at the White House? Will her daily hectoring of Americans about what they eat interfere with her ice cream runs? Initially the galas, jaunts, and midnight French fry requests were billed as one-time indulgences, but it's become glaringly apparent that this is the norm at Chez Obama. Personally, I don't care if they want to fawn over Spain as it crashes and burns beneath the weight of it's bloated nanny state, and I don't care if they eat burgers until their arteries turn to glass -- I just don't want to pay for Michelle's delusions of grandeur or listen to either of them lecturing the rest of us on the evils of capitalism. Apparently, the high life is only contemptible if you earned the money to pay for it yourself. If you live like a cheap segment of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous on the backs of taxpayers struggling to make ends meet -- no problem!

And that's all for tonight folks, check back tomorrow for my DFL governors primary prediction before the exit polls are released.

Left in full meltdown mode...

You KNOW things are bad when KEITH FUCKING OLBERMANN LEAVES DAILY KOS!. I mean wow. More posting next week. I had it toned down because I now work for a congressional candidate. I choose to not say who now but if you know me you probably know who it is.

Obama trouble...

I haven't read newsweek consistantly since about probably 2003 when my parents stopped their subscription to it. At first I was mad but as I read more and more of their online articles I realized how left they had become, almost to the point where they are shameless about it (last year they proclaimed "Were all socialists now" about a month before the tea parties, so um good call on that one guys) which makes this column by Howard Fineman (Obama shill) that much more amazing. I will also be posting some bright, and not so bright, comments that are at the bottom of the article. I have found that you can learn a lot about a writer online by the kind of comments he/she elicits from online readers.

The Numbers Don't Lie
Howard Fineman
A Democratic senator I can't name, who reluctantly voted for the health-care bill out of loyalty to his party and his admiration for Barack Obama, privately complained to me that the measure was political folly, in part because of the way it goes into effect: some taxes first, most benefits later, and rate hikes by insurance companies in between.
Besides that, this Democrat said, people who already have coverage will feel threatened and resentful about helping to cover the uninsured—an emotion they will sanitize for the polltakers into a concern about federal spending and debt.
On the day the president signed into law the "fix-it" addendum to the massive health-care measure, two new polls show just how fearful and skeptical Americans are about the entire enterprise. If the numbers stay where they are—and it's not clear why they will change much between now and November—then the Democrats really are in danger of colossal losses at the polls.
I say this even though I was one of those who always said that Obama would get a bill passed—and that, politically, he personally had no choice but to get it done if he wanted to have a successful presidency. But his reputation as a can-do guy was purchased at a very high political cost.
The first week of salesmanship by the Democrats and the president hasn't done any good. According to the new Rasmussen poll, only 41 percent of Americans think the law is "good for the country," compared with 50 percent who see it as "bad for the country." Last week the ratio was 41–49 percent. Sixty percent think the measure is "likely to increase the deficit"—also a figure unchanged from last week.
Some polling experts suggest Rasmussen's "house effect" tilts slightly conservative. But if you don't want to take Scott Rasmussen's word for it, you're not going to get much solace from Gallup, still the biggest brand in the business.
In Gallup's new poll, Americans by narrow margins agree that the new health-care law will improve coverage (44–40 percent) and the "overall health of Americans" (40–35 percent). In a way, it's astonishing that sizable minorities could disagree with those two statements, since everyone agrees the law will provide medical coverage to 32 million more Americans.
But that's where support, however ambivalent, ends. Americans think the law will harm the U.S. economy (44–34 percent), the overall quality of health care in the U.S. (55–29 percent), and the federal balance sheet (61–23 percent).
It's almost as bad when you ask voters how the law will affect them personally. There is lots of doubt and some considerable belief (or hope) that the new law won't affect them at all. But respondents who said the measure would affect them generally fear what that change would be. They think the measure would adversely affect "the health-care coverage you and your family receive" (34–24 percent); "the quality of health care you and your family receive" (35–21 percent); and the "costs you and your family pay for health care: (50–21 percent).
I know that the president and his advisers want to "pivot" to other topics—economic development, jobs, energy, and foreign policy. They're content, for now, to focus on solidifying their Democratic base. I'm sure that Obama, who plays a deep and patient game, figures that the country—including independents, who won it for him in 2008—will eventually come back, at least by 2012.
But he's dug himself a partisan hole with this big bill, and it'll be interesting to see him try to dig his way out.

Now for the fun, interesting and funny (and sometimes dumb) comments I have highlighted

intelligent one:
Reading between the lines here,it would be my guess that when Mr.Fineman expected his "can do" guy to get the Bill passed, he hadn't considered that he would torpedo his own presidency and turn his party into roadkill to do it. Actually Obama's signature achievement has not been this toxic mess that the anonymous Democrat voted for out of "admiration", but rather that he has reminded the American public why it required Ross Perot to put a Democrat into the Oval office after Jimmy Carter embarrassed himself in the place so badly.Not even its Copperhead tendencies during the Civil War managed to kill this party, but Obama probably has. An outstanding legacy indeed and one that can only inure to the benefit of our Country

To be fair this is unusual for any column, this is probably in the top 1% to 5% of posts put up. This person clearly knows what they are talking about

This next one I swear to GOD I did not make up, because I couldn't. This is almost too perfect and very laughable and sad and infuriating all at the same time

The numbers may not lie, but quite frankly I blame those pole results on the ignorance of the general public who, when asked, don't really have a clue about health care issues in general and know even less about what's in the bill. Hell, half of those I talk to don't even understand how their own insurance works!! But, they continue to form uneducated opinions without knowledge or facts. They run on hype supplied by conservatives, all republicans since they have banded together to form a do nothing party and way too many in the media!
Feed the country the facts only and if any of the doom and gloom does turn into a fact - then and only then, should you feel free to hype it up! You know this bill is only the beginning. It had to get done!

Ok, first off pole results?!? BHAHAHAHAHA really?!!!!! Leaving that fact aside this comment sums up the left and its view of the American people perfectly. The plan isn't wrong its the people who don't understand it, you people are too dumb to think for yourselves and we know whats best for you. If one Democrat ran on this platform I would be happy because at least that would be truthful.

Special Ed has a slip...

Seriously if they didn't have the audio of this moronic rant I wouldn't have believed even Ed Schultz could say something so fucking stupid. Liberals are their own worst enemy, to a certain extent I wish more of them would talk like this as opposed to just think and act while saying they believe in capitalism. Hey Ed, I heard Michael Moore needs a new intern.

Second to last MA-Senate post....

My final post will be Jon Stewart shredding the dems about how they handled this election. He did a great job at it. My favorite line from this, "It's not like the Democrats are playing checkers while Republicans are playing chess; its like the Republicans are playing chess while the Democrats are in the nurses office because once again they glued their balls to their thighs." This is from PPP yesterday...

Raleigh, N.C. – Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 51-46 in Public Policy Polling’s final survey of the Massachusetts Senate special election, an advantage within the poll’s margin of error.

Brown’s lead comes thanks to an overwhelming advantage with independents and the
ability to pick off a decent number of Democrats. He’s getting the support of 19% of
voters in Coakley’s party, while she is winning just 8% of the Republican vote. The lead with independents is 64-32. Each candidate has seen a large decline in their favorability numbers as the campaign has taken on an increasingly negative tone. Brown’s +19 at 56/37, down 13 points from his +32 (57/25) standing a week ago. Coakley’s now in negative territory at 44/51 after being at a positive 50/42 previously, a 15 point net decline.

Republicans continue to show much more enthusiasm about the election than Democrats,
with 89% of them saying they’re ‘very excited’ to go vote compared to 63% of Dems
who express that sentiment. Brown has a 59-40 lead among voters in that category.
The likely electorate for Tuesday’s election continues to express skepticism about the Democratic health care plan with 48% saying they’re opposed to 40% who support it. President Obama’s approval stands at 44/43. “Brown has a small advantage right now but special elections are unusually volatile and Martha Coakley is certainly still in this,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “She just needs to get more Democrats out to the polls.”

PPP surveyed 1,231 likely Massachusetts voters from January 16th to 17th. The margin
of error is +/-2.8%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.

I was going to post the polls but here is a summary: Brown +9,+10,+5,+7, and tied. One of them was a Daily Kos poll, take a wild guess at which one... Now for my prediction. I believe Brown will win 57-41 (2% goes to the losertarian candidate). Polls almost always, and I mean always underclock the support of Republicans, Brown is averaged at 52% or so according to the last polls taken and Coakley around 43% so I just add 5% for Brown (due to increased turnout) and Coakley stays where she is. So there you have it 57-41 Brown. Brown wins by 16, 15 minimum.