Why are American Conservatives so stupid?

Denerick

Cheering and jeering and yapping on about nazi communist Obama. And something about death panels in the UK. Not to mention confusing Slovakia with South Africa.

Can't we just agree to send all of these people onto an island somewhere and leave them there?

Was watching this: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/right-america-feeling-wronged/

orourkeda

Denerick wrote: »

Cheering and jeering and yapping on about nazi communist Obama. And something about death panels in the UK. Not to mention confusing Slovakia with South Africa.

Can't we just agree to send all of these people onto an island somewhere and leave them there?

Was watching this: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/right-america-feeling-wronged/

Whats wrong with questioning the president?

I agree that Conservatives in the U.S aren't the brightest but neither are the liberals sometimes

Denerick

orourkeda wrote: »

Whats wrong with questioning the president?

I agree that Conservatives in the U.S aren't the brightest but neither are the liberals sometimes

Liberals are annoying too (Maybe its just an American thing) but some of the crap you see the tea partiers coming out with. Idiots with no idea about what socialism is, confusing it with facism, and all round general idiocy.

lalee17

Personally I find a lot of Americans, not just Conservatives, of a low intelligence.

orourkeda

lalee17 wrote: »

Personally I find a lot of Americans, not just Conservatives, of a low intelligence.

Poorly informed yes but of low intelligence is perhaps a little harsh

Riddle101

orourkeda wrote: »

Whats wrong with questioning the president?

I agree that Conservatives in the U.S aren't the brightest but neither are the liberals sometimes

Agreed. But then again, Americans don't really have much to choose from when it comes to political parties. It's either one or the other.

orourkeda

Denerick wrote: »

Liberals are annoying too (Maybe its just an American thing) but some of the crap you see the tea partiers coming out with. Idiots with no idea about what socialism is, confusing it with facism, and all round general idiocy.

True but perhaps it's down to them being poorly informed than anything else

orourkeda

Riddle101 wrote: »

Agreed. But then again, Americans don't really have much to choose from when it comes to political parties. It's either one or the other.

Thats a big part of the problem. It would be difficult to blame any american voter for not voting given the lack of any real choice at election time.

mojesius

Denerick wrote: »

Cheering and jeering and yapping on about nazi communist Obama. And something about death panels in the UK. Not to mention confusing Slovakia with South Africa.

Can't we just agree to send all of these people onto an island somewhere and leave them there?

Was watching this: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/right-america-feeling-wronged/

Their recent choice of candidates hasn't helped their cause much.

M5

lalee17 wrote: »

Personally I find a lot of Americans, not just Conservatives, of a low intelligence.

Watch fox news for an hour, if you survive with your faculties intact you will realise why.

sock puppet

Riddle101 wrote: »

Agreed. But then again, Americans don't really have much to choose from when it comes to political parties. It's either one or the other.

True but then there isn't the same uniformity within the parties as there is over here.

tony1kenobi

Denerick wrote: »

Can't we just agree to send all of these people onto an island somewhere and leave them there?

We already did and they've done very well for themselves.Fair play to them.

mojesius

M5 wrote: »

Watch fox news for an hour, if you survive with your faculties intact you will see why.

Or just the O'Reilly Factor. F*cking lunatic.

Bloody Nipples

They're so petty it hurts. They unanimously voted against the medicare bill (that extended insurance cover to millions of low income americans and prevented insurance companies from deciding whether to pay out on a policy almost on a whim) because it was politically (and that's a direct quote of theirs)damaging to the Republican party. Politics before people is disgusting.

Their suspicion of big government extends into rabid paranoia against the Democrats.

Biggins

M5 wrote: »

Watch fox news for an hour, if you survive with your faculties intact you will realise why.

What chance does a nation stand with that clearly twisted one view news tripe. Pure evil garbage.

Mrmoe

mojesius wrote: »

Or just the O'Reilly Factor. F*cking lunatic.

Ah come on now, leave poor Bill out of this, he is not that bad. Now, if you want some lunacy then tune in to Sean Hannity, logic and facts have no place on his show.

M5

Biggins wrote: »

What chance does a nation stand with that clearly twisted one view news tripe. Pure evil garbage.

Fear being the instrument of control (think that may be for another day (thread))

thebaz

the healthcare reform was going to help the majority - yet the Bush elite WASP minority managed to convice/scare mid America that it was communism in disguise or the first step to Cuba - :eek: - which resulted in rascism - it's not till you live in the States or even after a long stay that you get to see beyond this - and that most Americans are sound

feck - maybe they ask the same questions about us, why we continue to vote in known corrupt politicians , and let our financial institutions be run and controlled by mainly idiots

LeBash

Riddle101 wrote: »

Agreed. But then again, Americans don't really have much to choose from when it comes to political parties. It's either one or the other.

Americans have plenty of people to vote for. In the last election Ralph Nader got onto the ballot in 40 odd states, they have Socialists, Communists, Authoritarian, Libraterian, 2 Green parties and alot more.

One problem is these other parties, or independants such as Ross Perot, Ralph Nader etc cant get on the ballot in every state and cant get into the national debates.

I can understand why people think its one or the other, but if you didnt need a majority vote here we would (over my lifetime) only have had 2 different parties controlling the country.

As for conservitives being stupid, well thats just a silly statement to make, when you see videos of conservitive idiots, they are a minority. Kinda like PD voters.

M5

thebaz wrote: »

the healthcare reform was going to help the majority - yet the Bush elite WASP minority managed to convice/scare mid America that it was communism in disguise or the first step to Cuba - :eek: - which resulted in rascism - it's not till you live in the States or even after a long stay that you get to see beyond this - and that most Americans are sound

feck - maybe they ask the same questions about us, why we continue to vote in known corrupt politicians , and let our financial institutions be run and controlled by mainly idiots

When your target audience believes the earth is flat is doesn't take much convincing :P

Risteard

To be fair, I'm sure there are conservatives in America that aren't dribbling morons, but like with lot of other things, it's normally the wackos that make the most noise and then get everyone labelling the entire group of people like that.

orourkeda

Risteard wrote: »

To be fair, I'm sure there are conservatives in America that aren't dribbling morons, but like with lot of other things, it's normally the wackos that make the most noise and then get everyone labelling the entire group of people like that.

Of course there are reasonable conservatives. There has to be. As you say it's the nutbags that grab the limelight.

An unfortunate fact is that a lot of these loons work in the media and distort matters.

RayM

Risteard wrote: »

To be fair, I'm sure there are conservatives in America that aren't dribbling morons

There are, but would it be equally fair to say that there aren't many dribbling morons in America who aren't conservative?

LeBash

orourkeda wrote: »

Of course there are reasonable conservatives. There has to be. As you say it's the nutbags that grab the limelight.

An unfortunate fact is that a lot of these loons work in the media and distort matters.

Exactly, ever hear that clown Michael Graham that George Hook has on a Friday?

A couple of weeks ago he was spitting bullets about someone saying salt should be banned from resturants then was quoting "Studies" that huge amounts of salt has no direct link to high blood pressure.

Its a wonder that kind of clown passes the birth cert.

sock puppet

LeBash wrote: »

Exactly, ever hear that clown Michael Graham that George Hook has on a Friday?

A couple of weeks ago he was spitting bullets about someone saying salt should be banned from resturants then was quoting "Studies" that huge amounts of salt has no direct link to high blood pressure.

Its a wonder that kind of clown passes the birth cert.

In fairness, the ban on salt is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. There's no way it'll ever become law.

ballsymchugh

LeBash wrote: »

Exactly, ever hear that clown Michael Graham that George Hook has on a Friday?

A couple of weeks ago he was spitting bullets about someone saying salt should be banned from resturants then was quoting "Studies" that huge amounts of salt has no direct link to high blood pressure.

Its a wonder that kind of clown passes the birth cert.

that, my friend, is one quality line. i shall use it.

but michael graham is just a media whore, like most of them, from glenn beck to bill o'reilly. his main tactic is just shouting. hook is too old and just laughs him off, but the only one who dealt with him was david norris, who kept calling him honey. that interview was the first time i heard dead air in that slot on a friday afternoon.
which now sounds very dodgy!:eek:

ballsymchugh

sock puppet wrote: »

In fairness, the ban on salt is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. There's no way it'll ever become law.

given the extreme obesity levels and the amount of salt that's already in the american diet, it is a viable option when it comes to reducing heart disease.
probably won't happen, but i'm sure whoever proposed the first smoking ban in new york all them years ago got a similar reaction.

LeBash

sock puppet wrote: »

In fairness, the ban on salt is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. There's no way it'll ever become law.

Its far from stupid. I wouldnt like it, and would be pissed if they brought it in, but the US has just got medical care and that law would reduce the amount of people in there.

Also, when people have strokes, which is what happens when you salt your pepperoni and curry pizza keep people in the hospital for long periods and has huge costs.

Why should people have to pay for that when clearly a large number of Americans have no self control when it comes to eatting badly.

sock puppet

LeBash wrote: »

Its far from stupid. I wouldnt like it, and would be pissed if they brought it in, but the US has just got medical care and that law would reduce the amount of people in there.

Also, when people have strokes, which is what happens when you salt your pepperoni and curry pizza keep people in the hospital for long periods and has huge costs.

Why should people have to pay for that when clearly a large number of Americans have no self control when it comes to eatting badly.

Why not ban all unhealthy foods then? The New York politicians should emphasise the dangers of too much salt (which they're already doing), but banning it is ridiculous.

K-9

It isn't that far away from political discussion in Ireland.

Still, absolute madness. A NHS lite type system is not socialism!

LeBash

sock puppet wrote: »

Why not ban all unhealthy foods then? The New York politicians should emphasise the dangers of too much salt (which they're already doing), but banning it is ridiculous.

Id totally agree with taxing alot of them to the ying yang and that means while the person in question is taking up a bed in hospital and consuming 1000's in drugs every day, they have also paid for before they got there.

People say junkies shouldnt be treated in hospitals, well, its not as anti social to consumer huge amounts of salt and fast food, its still draining a ****ty healthcare system thats on its knees without either problem.

Its well off topic there, but back too it, I remember seeing that doc "supersize me" and it was red states that had the most overweight people. Maybe there is sometime to look into that.

imported_guy

K-9 wrote: »

It isn't that far away from political discussion in Ireland.

Still, absolute madness. A NHS lite type system is not socialism!

read up on what socialism means and their belifs. NHS is as socialistic as it gets (nothing wrong with that).

this guy is a true conservative, everyone on fox news and 90% of the republican party are neo-cons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8

imported_guy

LeBash wrote: »

Id totally agree with taxing alot of them to the ying yang and that means while the person in question is taking up a bed in hospital and consuming 1000's in drugs every day, they have also paid for before they got there.

People say junkies shouldnt be treated in hospitals, well, its not as anti social to consumer huge amounts of salt and fast food, its still draining a ****ty healthcare system thats on its knees without either problem.

Its well off topic there, but back too it, I remember seeing that doc "supersize me" and it was red states that had the most overweight people. Maybe there is sometime to look into that.

oh come on, tax?, last time i checked tax in america was un constitutional, and IRS is just another organized crime gang run by the government which extorts the little guy for money, if people want to be fat let them be fat, wheres the personal liberty and american value here?

artielange

lalee17 wrote: »

Personally I find a lot of Americans, not just Conservatives, of a low intelligence.

Who would have thought?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#National_IQ_estimates

grenache

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

They're so petty it hurts. They unanimously voted against the medicare bill (that extended insurance cover to millions of low income americans and prevented insurance companies from deciding whether to pay out on a policy almost on a whim) because it was politically (and that's a direct quote of theirs)damaging to the Republican party. Politics before people is disgusting.

Their suspicion of big government extends into rabid paranoia against the Democrats.

Nail on the head. Republicans are still so fearful anything that even seems 'social' that they would rather see their own people die for lack of health insurance, than benefit greatly from the medicare bill. Backward idiots to the extreme.

imported_guy

grenache wrote: »

Nail on the head. Republicans are still so fearful anything that even seems 'social' that they would rather see their own people die for lack of health insurance, than benefit greatly from the medicare bill. Backward idiots to the extreme.

wait i can now call up the insurance company and get insured cuz' i just got cancer from smoking 20 fags a day for 50 years....


but

i cant call up the insurance company after my house catches on fire to insure my house, because thats not how insurance works


makes perfect sense :rolleyes:

K-9

imported_guy wrote: »

read up on what socialism means and their belifs. NHS is as socialistic as it gets (nothing wrong with that).

this guy is a true conservative, everyone on fox news and 90% of the republican party are neo-cons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8

They haven't got a NHS system though, nor will have, but neo cons think its socialism.

PS. I love Fox News so no need for the video.

grenache

imported_guy wrote: »

i cant call up the insurance company after my house catches on fire to insure my house, because thats not how insurance works

Well i think insuring your house is a given.

K-9

imported_guy wrote: »

wait i can now call up the insurance company and get insured cuz' i just got cancer from smoking 20 fags a day for 50 years....


but

i cant call up the insurance company after my house catches on fire to insure my house, because thats not how insurance works


makes perfect sense :rolleyes:

Grand, good point and I agree with it, but some nut will say that isn't enough and will go after people who gave up smoking. Its what neo cons do. They take a reasonable point and go mad with it.

Neo Cons would go after people who light a fire.

imported_guy

grenache wrote: »

Well i think insuring your house is a given.

i can choose not to have it insured if i want, why can i not choose to NOT have health insurance? why must i be forced to pay a tax fine to the IRS thugs?

if i want to die let me die, the government is infringing upon the people's personal liberty, and violating the constitution.

K-9 wrote: »

Grand, good point and I agree with it, but some nut will say that isn't enough and will go after people who gave up smoking. Its what neo cons do. They take a reasonable point and go mad with it.

Neo Cons would go after people who light a fire.

ah but you know thats sort of missing the point really, the point (both libertarian conservatives and typical bill o rielly type) belive that nationalized healthcare wont work, just like medicare and medicaid dont work, they contribute MASSIVELY to the deficit and the debt, obama increased the national debt by 2 trillion dollars in his first year... the country is already bankrupt, why the hell are you increasing the size of the government?, the spending should be CUT not increased, its just retarded and doesnt make sense.

bleg

American conservatives are very smart. Why do you think they get into power so often?

M5

bleg wrote: »

American conservatives are very smart. Why do you think they get into power so often?

have you seen the alternative???

K-9

imported_guy wrote: »

i can choose not to have it insured if i want, why can i not choose to NOT have health insurance? why must i be forced to pay a tax fine to the IRS thugs?

if i want to die let me die, the government is infringing upon the people's personal liberty, and violating the constitution.



ah but you know thats sort of missing the point really, the point (both libertarian conservatives and typical bill o rielly type) belive that nationalized healthcare wont work, just like medicare and medicaid dont work, they contribute MASSIVELY to the deficit and the debt, obama increased the national debt by 2 trillion dollars in his first year... the country is already bankrupt, why the hell are you increasing the size of the government?, the spending should be CUT not increased, its just retarded and doesnt make sense.

Yes, but would having a Universal Health system maybe save money in the long run? False economy and all that?

I'm not up on the reasons for the increase in the debt but the reforms in the Health system are hardly the main reason for the increase in the debt?

imported_guy

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, but would having a Universal Health system maybe save money in the long run? False economy and all that?

I'm not up on the reasons for the increase in the debt but the reforms in the Health system are hardly the main reason for the increase in the debt?

its going to cost a minimum of 1-1.5 trillion in the next 10 years

http://article.nationalreview.com/397212/the-high-cost-of-obamacare/lawrence-a-hunter

and

At its inception in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion a year. At that time, the Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives projected “conservatively” that the program would cost approximately $12 billion a year by 1990. In 1990, the cost of Medicare was actually $107 billion — nine times greater than the Ways and Means estimate.

so by looking at the past trends, its going to cost atleast 9 trillion in the next 10 years.

K-9

imported_guy wrote: »

its going to cost a minimum of 1-1.5 trillion in the next 10 years

http://article.nationalreview.com/397212/the-high-cost-of-obamacare/lawrence-a-hunter

and



so by looking at the past trends, its going to cost atleast 9 trillion in the next 10 years.

Ah, you didn't answer my question.

If anything you reinforced my point. You say it will cost 1-1.5 trillion over 10 years minimum, but the debt is 2 trillion a this year.

Even 9 trillion, is less than a trillion a year.

So, I ask again, where is the rest going?

red herring

Too conservative, lack of sex makes them stupid.:D

imported_guy

K-9 wrote: »

Ah, you didn't answer my question.

If anything you reinforced my point. You say it will cost 1-1.5 trillion over 10 years minimum, but the debt is 2 trillion a this year.

Even 9 trillion, is less than a trillion a year.

So, I ask again, where is the rest going?

the 2 trillion was last years figure, it included everything not just healthcare (i.e bank bailouts, iraq war etc) it was the total deficit, what im talking about (the 9 trillion figure, is just the healthcare cost, it does not include iraq war, future bank bailouts, etc)

Mark200

imported_guy wrote: »

read up on what socialism means and their belifs. NHS is as socialistic as it gets (nothing wrong with that).

My problem isn't with the fact that they described the NHS as a somewhat socialist healthcare system, my problem is that the NHS was even brought into the debate. No one ever proposed anything like Government-run healthcare like the UK, nor anything like Single Payer as seen in Canada. Yet the UK and Canada were over and over used by Conservatives as reasons to oppose the bill.

imported_guy wrote: »

wait i can now call up the insurance company and get insured cuz' i just got cancer from smoking 20 fags a day for 50 years....


but

i cant call up the insurance company after my house catches on fire to insure my house, because thats not how insurance works


makes perfect sense :rolleyes:

The problem is that (to continue the comparison), the way the health insurance industry was at was that if your house has been on fire before... then if it goes on fire again, the insurance company won't pay out. As well as that, if your house is particularly prone to problems (eg flooding), you can always move house. But if your body is particularly prone to get cancer... you can't change bodies.

Also, it's worth noting that asthma, pregnancy and domestic abuse are also considered 'pre-existing conditions' by insurance companies.

imported_guy wrote: »

i can choose not to have it insured if i want, why can i not choose to NOT have health insurance? why must i be forced to pay a tax fine to the IRS thugs?

if i want to die let me die, the government is infringing upon the people's personal liberty, and violating the constitution.

The point is that the people who do not have health insurance just go to the emergency room instead in the case of an emergency, where they have to be treated. This ends up being far more expensive in the long run to insurance companies and hospitals than if the person had just been insured in the first place.

Also, one of the key goals was that discrimination against pre-existing conditions must be eliminated. So if the bill eliminates discrimination against them, what would be stopping someone from not getting health insurance until they get sick, and then getting health insurance? Nothing. That's the point of the mandate.

imported_guy wrote: »

its going to cost a minimum of 1-1.5 trillion in the next 10 years

It's all paid for in the bill, it will reduce the deficit.

imported_guy wrote: »

so by looking at the past trends, its going to cost atleast 9 trillion in the next 10 years.

using one example doesn't count as "looking at past trends"

tricky D

IQ and votes

http://www.gulbransen.net/images/blog/2004ElectionIQ.png

imported_guy

Mark200 wrote: »

My problem isn't with the fact that they described the NHS as a somewhat socialist healthcare system, my problem is that the NHS was even brought into the debate. No one ever proposed anything like Government-run healthcare like the UK, nor anything like Single Payer as seen in Canada. Yet the UK and Canada were over and over used by Conservatives as reasons to oppose the bill.

the point im trying to make is why are the people being FORCED to buy health insurance?

you shouldn't be able to FORCE someone to do anything, and this is highly un-constitutional, it infringes upon the right to choose

Mark200

imported_guy wrote: »

the point im trying to make is why are the people being FORCED to buy health insurance?

you shouldn't be able to FORCE someone to do anything, and this is highly un-constitutional, it infringes upon the right to choose

I explained exactly why people are being FORCED to buy health insurance:

The point is that the people who do not have health insurance just go to the emergency room instead in the case of an emergency, where they have to be treated. This ends up being far more expensive in the long run to insurance companies and hospitals than if the person had just been insured in the first place.

Also, one of the key goals was that discrimination against pre-existing conditions must be eliminated. So if the bill eliminates discrimination against them, what would be stopping someone from not getting health insurance until they get sick, and then getting health insurance? Nothing. That's the point of the mandate.

And I'm not sure where exactly the "right to choose" exists in the US constitution. Many US states have a health insurance mandate already.