On Jan 4, 1:59*pm, (Richard Casady) wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 12:47:02 -0500, HK wrote:
Obama carried every group except white
evangelicals. Every group includes the smartest Americans

As I said, the Alaskan bimbo cost the votes of the top half of the IQ
scale.

Casady

So another one who believes anyone that does not subscribe to his
ideology has a low IQ.. That is the type of anti-democratic elitism
half the country is afraid of...

wrote:
On Jan 4, 1:59 pm, (Richard Casady) wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 12:47:02 -0500, HK wrote:
Obama carried every group except white
evangelicals. Every group includes the smartest Americans
As I said, the Alaskan bimbo cost the votes of the top half of the IQ
scale.

Casady

So another one who believes anyone that does not subscribe to his
ideology has a low IQ.. That is the type of anti-democratic elitism
half the country is afraid of...


My opinion of Palin's IQ has nothing to do with her ideology. There are
plenty of smart conservatives on the national scene. She isn't one of them.

The world is not as simple as you would like it to be, Scotty.

On Jan 4, 6:41*pm, hk wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 4, 1:59 pm, (Richard Casady) wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 12:47:02 -0500, HK wrote:
Obama carried every group except white
evangelicals. Every group includes the smartest Americans
As I said, the Alaskan bimbo cost the votes of the top half of the IQ
scale.

Casady

So another one who believes anyone that does not subscribe to his
ideology has a low IQ.. That is the type of anti-democratic elitism
half the country is afraid of...

My opinion of Palin's IQ has nothing to do with her ideology. There are
plenty of smart conservatives on the national scene.

Ok, as long as you understand that.. I have had my fill over the years
with ones who only get their information from NPR, New York Lies, and
Jon Stewart telling me conservatives are simply "uninformed"... or
refering to half of America as "fly over states". Carry on...

She isn't one of them.

The world is not as simple as you would like it to be, Scotty.

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:31:35 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:



So another one who believes anyone that does not subscribe to his
ideology has a low IQ.. That is the type of anti-democratic elitism half
the country is afraid of...

While I understand, and I'm sympathetic to your point, I just wanted to
point out that "anti-democratic elitism" was built into the Constitution
by our founding fathers. It's why we are a republic, not a true
democracy. It's a tough question really. While I think I would prefer a
more democratic approach. There are dangers, populist rabble-rousers,
fascist movements, etc. The founding fathers may have been right. After
all, we haven't been doing our democratic duty of holding our leader's
feet to the fire.

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:59:18 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:31:35 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:



So another one who believes anyone that does not subscribe to his
ideology has a low IQ.. That is the type of anti-democratic elitism half
the country is afraid of...

While I understand, and I'm sympathetic to your point, I just wanted to
point out that "anti-democratic elitism" was built into the Constitution
by our founding fathers. It's why we are a republic, not a true
democracy. It's a tough question really. While I think I would prefer a
more democratic approach. There are dangers, populist rabble-rousers,
fascist movements, etc. The founding fathers may have been right. After
all, we haven't been doing our democratic duty of holding our leader's
feet to the fire.

And it's a point that a lot of people don't understand - the
democratic republic vs democracy. The states are set up as popular
democracies and the Federal government is set up as a functional
republic.

Personally, I think the system works fine just as it is with one
exception. We need to break up the big states into smaller states.
There is way too much ordinate political power in the larger states
what overwhelms the smaller, more conservative states.

I think the field needs to be evened out a little to bring balance
back into our legislatures, Congress and the Presidency.


--

"Far better it is to dare mighty things,
to win glorious triumphs even though
checkered by failure, than to rank with
those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor
suffer much because they live in the gray
twilight that knows neither victory nor
defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:59:18 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:31:35 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:


So another one who believes anyone that does not subscribe to his
ideology has a low IQ.. That is the type of anti-democratic elitism half
the country is afraid of...
While I understand, and I'm sympathetic to your point, I just wanted to
point out that "anti-democratic elitism" was built into the Constitution
by our founding fathers. It's why we are a republic, not a true
democracy. It's a tough question really. While I think I would prefer a
more democratic approach. There are dangers, populist rabble-rousers,
fascist movements, etc. The founding fathers may have been right. After
all, we haven't been doing our democratic duty of holding our leader's
feet to the fire.

And it's a point that a lot of people don't understand - the
democratic republic vs democracy. The states are set up as popular
democracies and the Federal government is set up as a functional
republic.

Personally, I think the system works fine just as it is with one
exception. We need to break up the big states into smaller states.
There is way too much ordinate political power in the larger states
what overwhelms the smaller, more conservative states.

I think the field needs to be evened out a little to bring balance
back into our legislatures, Congress and the Presidency.


--

"Far better it is to dare mighty things,
to win glorious triumphs even though
checkered by failure, than to rank with
those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor
suffer much because they live in the gray
twilight that knows neither victory nor
defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt


The smaller states are Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. They are
progressive. Perhaps you mean the flyover states, like South Carolina,
Mississippi, and Idaho.

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 19:56:33 -0500, hk wrote:

The smaller states are Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. They are
progressive. Perhaps you mean the flyover states, like South Carolina,
Mississippi, and Idaho.

For the record, CT, much like Rhode Island and Delaware is actually
two states. In CT, it's East of the River and West of the river. East
is much more conservative than West of the River. The only reason
Courtney was reelected to his Congressional seat was because of the
Hispanic vote in Norwich and New London - the rest of his district
voted Republican.

In fact, there was a movement a few years ago to suceed from CT and
join Western Rhode Island which is actually a city state rather than
being a pure state and the western part of the state resents the power
of Providence.

Delaware is another example of two states in one.

--

"Every normal man must be tempted at times
to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag,
and begin to slit throats."

H. L. Mencken

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:40:15 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


Delaware is another example of two states in one.

Add New Jersey to the list. North Jersey is New York centered. South
Jersey is Philadelphia centered, and, the politics are different.

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...


For the record, CT, much like Rhode Island and Delaware is actually
two states. In CT, it's East of the River and West of the river. East
is much more conservative than West of the River. The only reason
Courtney was reelected to his Congressional seat was because of the
Hispanic vote in Norwich and New London - the rest of his district
voted Republican.


Similar situation here in MA. Most of the state is filled with left wing
liberals, but here on the south shore there are at least 3 or 4 of us that
tend to be more conservative.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...


For the record, CT, much like Rhode Island and Delaware is actually
two states. In CT, it's East of the River and West of the river. East
is much more conservative than West of the River. The only reason
Courtney was reelected to his Congressional seat was because of the
Hispanic vote in Norwich and New London - the rest of his district
voted Republican.


Similar situation here in MA. Most of the state is filled with left
wing liberals, but here on the south shore there are at least 3 or 4 of
us that tend to be more conservative.

Eisboch


It's evolution in action. More and more voters are realizing that the
modern day Republican Party has little more than greed and selfishness
underpinning it. This was demonstrated clearly by the last eight years
of the "conservative" Bush Administration and was a sub rosa theme of
the McCain campaign. That and the party demonstrating over and again
that it was mostly for "white folks" is what is doing it in.