If It's Bad for America, It's Good for Democrats

Thread starter #1

Howard Roark

Retired Moderator
If It's Bad for America, It's Good for Democrats
Townhall.com ^ | August 14, 2007 | Dennis Prager

One of the two major political parties of the United States has linked all its electoral hopes on domestic pathologies, economic downturns and foreign failure.

It is actually difficult to name any positive development for America that would benefit the Democratic Party's chances in a national election.

Name almost any subject, and this unhealthy pattern can be discerned.

If African Americans come to believe that America is a land of opportunity in which racism has been largely conquered, it would be catastrophic for the Democrats. The day that most black Americans see America in positive terms will be the day Democrats lose any hope of winning a national election. Whatever one believes about the extent of racism in America, one cannot deny that the Democrats need black Americans to feel victimized by racism. Contented black Americans spell disaster for the Democratic Party.

If women marry, it is bad for the Democratic Party. Single women are an essential component of any Democratic victory. Unmarried women voted for Kerry by a 25-point margin (62 percent to 37 percent), while married women voted for President Bush by an 11-point margin (55 percent to 44 percent). According to a pro-Democrat website, The Emerging Democratic Majority, "the 25-point margin Kerry posted among unmarried women represented one of the high water marks for the Senator among all demographic groups."

After women marry, they are more likely to abandon leftist views and to vote Republican. And if they then have children, they will vote Republican in even more lopsided numbers. The bottom line is that when Americans marry, it is bad for the Democratic Party; when they marry and make families, it is disastrous for the party.

If immigrants assimilate, it is not good for Democrats. The Democratic Party has invested in Latino separatism. The more that Hispanic immigrants come to feel fully American, the less likely they are to vote Democrat. The liberal notion of multiculturalism helps Democrats, while adoption of the American ideal of e pluribus unum (out of many, one) helps Republicans. That is one reason Democrats support bilingual education -- it hurts Hispanic children, but it keeps them from full assimilation -- and oppose making English America's official language.

Concerning the economy, the same rule applies. The better Americans feel they are doing, the worse it is for Democrats. By almost every economic measure (the current housing crisis excepted), Americans are doing well. The unemployment rate has been at historically low levels and inflation has been held in check, something that rarely accompanies low unemployment rates. Nevertheless, Democrats regularly appeal to class resentment, knowing that sowing seeds of economic resentment increases their chances of being elected.

The most obvious area in which this rule currently applies is the war in Iraq. The Democrats have put themselves in the position of needing failure in Iraq in order to win the next election. And again, perceptions matter more than reality. Even if America is doing better in the war, what matters most for the Democrats are Americans' perceptions of the war. The worse the stories from Iraq, the better for Democrats.

That helps to explain why the mainstream media, who ache for a Democratic victory, feature stories of wounded American soldiers, grieving families of killed soldiers and atrocity stories -- such as the apparently fictitious story printed in the New Republic. But they almost never feature stories about military heroism and altruism. Americans read and watch far more stories about soldiers who commit atrocities than about soldiers who commit heroic actions and who show love to Iraqi civilians.

The list is almost endless. Thus, when pro-American foreign leaders -- such as Nicolas Sarkozy in France -- are elected, even that is not good for the Democrats. The more the Democrats can show that America is hated, the more the Democrats can argue that we need them in order to be loved abroad.

Undoubtedly, some Democrats might respond that the same thesis could be written if a Democrat were in the White House and the Republicans were out of power. But that is not at all the case. First, there is no equivalent list of bad things happening to America that benefits Republicans. Second, everything written here about the Democrats -- except about the Iraq War, which was not taking place then -- could have been written when Democrat Bill Clinton was president.

I am not saying that in their hearts all Democrats want black America to regard America as a racist society, or want Hispanics to remain unassimilated, or Americans to feel economically discontented, or fewer families to be formed, or America to lose in Iraq, or foreign nations to hate us.

But what most Democrats want in their hearts is not the issue. The issue is that if Democrats want to win, they can do so only if bad things happen to America.
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
And there solutions usually begin, "You can't expect people to be ___________". Fill in the blank, Capable enough,-Sophisticated Enough- knowlegeable enough, to understand what is best for them. Once we put it in terms they can understand they will know our policies are in their best intrest.
 

SBG

Senior Member
If It's Bad for America, It's Good for Democrats

I am not saying that in their hearts all Democrats want black America to regard America as a racist society, or want Hispanics to remain unassimilated, or Americans to feel economically discontented, or fewer families to be formed, or America to lose in Iraq, or foreign nations to hate us.
No, that would only be the 10%ers, whose entire motivation is that they hate their country, and most of all, hate George Bush. The spongy middle 45-50% are ignorant and only base their decisions on what they hear on the news.

Don't forget for a second that the vast majority of print and airwave journalism is ate up with 10%ers.
 

drhunter1

Senior Member
If anyone can dispute this information, I sure would like to hear it. Good post Howard, so true.
Don't get your hopes up Ranger. Linwood, AAADawg, Dbone and any other liberal won't show their face on this one because they know it's true. There is too much evidence to support what we already know.
 
If It's Bad for America, It's Good for Democrats
Townhall.com ^ | August 14, 2007 | Dennis Prager

One of the two major political parties of the United States has linked all its electoral hopes on domestic pathologies, economic downturns and foreign failure.

It is actually difficult to name any positive development for America that would benefit the Democratic Party's chances in a national election.

Name almost any subject, and this unhealthy pattern can be discerned.

If African Americans come to believe that America is a land of opportunity in which racism has been largely conquered, it would be catastrophic for the Democrats. The day that most black Americans see America in positive terms will be the day Democrats lose any hope of winning a national election. Whatever one believes about the extent of racism in America, one cannot deny that the Democrats need black Americans to feel victimized by racism. Contented black Americans spell disaster for the Democratic Party.

If women marry, it is bad for the Democratic Party. Single women are an essential component of any Democratic victory. Unmarried women voted for Kerry by a 25-point margin (62 percent to 37 percent), while married women voted for President Bush by an 11-point margin (55 percent to 44 percent). According to a pro-Democrat website, The Emerging Democratic Majority, "the 25-point margin Kerry posted among unmarried women represented one of the high water marks for the Senator among all demographic groups."

After women marry, they are more likely to abandon leftist views and to vote Republican. And if they then have children, they will vote Republican in even more lopsided numbers. The bottom line is that when Americans marry, it is bad for the Democratic Party; when they marry and make families, it is disastrous for the party.

If immigrants assimilate, it is not good for Democrats. The Democratic Party has invested in Latino separatism. The more that Hispanic immigrants come to feel fully American, the less likely they are to vote Democrat. The liberal notion of multiculturalism helps Democrats, while adoption of the American ideal of e pluribus unum (out of many, one) helps Republicans. That is one reason Democrats support bilingual education -- it hurts Hispanic children, but it keeps them from full assimilation -- and oppose making English America's official language.

Concerning the economy, the same rule applies. The better Americans feel they are doing, the worse it is for Democrats. By almost every economic measure (the current housing crisis excepted), Americans are doing well. The unemployment rate has been at historically low levels and inflation has been held in check, something that rarely accompanies low unemployment rates. Nevertheless, Democrats regularly appeal to class resentment, knowing that sowing seeds of economic resentment increases their chances of being elected.

The most obvious area in which this rule currently applies is the war in Iraq. The Democrats have put themselves in the position of needing failure in Iraq in order to win the next election. And again, perceptions matter more than reality. Even if America is doing better in the war, what matters most for the Democrats are Americans' perceptions of the war. The worse the stories from Iraq, the better for Democrats.

That helps to explain why the mainstream media, who ache for a Democratic victory, feature stories of wounded American soldiers, grieving families of killed soldiers and atrocity stories -- such as the apparently fictitious story printed in the New Republic. But they almost never feature stories about military heroism and altruism. Americans read and watch far more stories about soldiers who commit atrocities than about soldiers who commit heroic actions and who show love to Iraqi civilians.

The list is almost endless. Thus, when pro-American foreign leaders -- such as Nicolas Sarkozy in France -- are elected, even that is not good for the Democrats. The more the Democrats can show that America is hated, the more the Democrats can argue that we need them in order to be loved abroad.

Undoubtedly, some Democrats might respond that the same thesis could be written if a Democrat were in the White House and the Republicans were out of power. But that is not at all the case. First, there is no equivalent list of bad things happening to America that benefits Republicans. Second, everything written here about the Democrats -- except about the Iraq War, which was not taking place then -- could have been written when Democrat Bill Clinton was president.

I am not saying that in their hearts all Democrats want black America to regard America as a racist society, or want Hispanics to remain unassimilated, or Americans to feel economically discontented, or fewer families to be formed, or America to lose in Iraq, or foreign nations to hate us.

But what most Democrats want in their hearts is not the issue. The issue is that if Democrats want to win, they can do so only if bad things happen to America.
Don't get your hopes up Ranger. Linwood, AAADawg, Dbone and any other liberal won't show their face on this one because they know it's true. There is too much evidence to support what we already know.
I have to laugh at your mention of the word "evidence" with this article. The author offered no evidence to support his claim that "contented" Blacks will be a disaster for the Democratic Party. I gusess it's just "common sense." :rolleyes:

On the "issue" of women voting for Kerry, we are supposed to believe that because single women voted for Kerry over Bush in the last elextion that this will hold for all elections? Where's the evidence? Not to mention that there is no explanation of why woman remaing single is "bad" for America.

The same on the assimilation of immigrants. No evidence, believe it because the author said it is true.

The economy? He fails to explain why the country overwhelmingly voted Democratic last year while in the midst of the booming Bush economy. Never mind reality, he did manage to get in a shot at the Democrats on class warfare. LOL.

I will let the author's foolishness on Iraq speak for itself.

I can see why this type of "analysis" appeals to you guys. You don't have to think, just swallow the red meat.
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
I have to laugh at your mention of the word "evidence" with this article. The author offered no evidence to support his claim that "contented" Blacks will be a disaster for the Democratic Party. I gusess it's just "common sense." :rolleyes:

On the "issue" of women voting for Kerry, we are supposed to believe that because single women voted for Kerry over Bush in the last elextion that this will hold for all elections? Where's the evidence? Not to mention that there is no explanation of why woman remaing single is "bad" for America.

The same on the assimilation of immigrants. No evidence, believe it because the author said it is true.

The economy? He fails to explain why the country overwhelmingly voted Democratic last year while in the midst of the booming Bush economy. Never mind reality, he did manage to get in a shot at the Democrats on class warfare. LOL.

I will let the author's foolishness on Iraq speak for itself.

I can see why this type of "analysis" appeals to you guys. You don't have to think, just swallow the red meat.
What you fail to comprehend is that just because you are a conservative does not mean you want to hold any person, or people down or back. To the contrary, as a conservative I try to help others progress and succeed.
I do so by giving them opportunities, advice and support.
I realize that hand outs are not a hand up.

As a conservative, I understand that I can not save people from themselves no matter how much money you throw at them.

With that approach you only create those who live off the system and those that live off the those that live off the system.

That is the thesis of the article.
 
What you fail to comprehend is that just because you are a conservative does not mean you want to hold any person, or people down or back. To the contrary, as a conservative I try to help others progress and succeed.
I do so by giving them opportunities, advice and support.
I realize that hand outs are not a hand up.

As a conservative, I understand that I can not save people from themselves no matter how much money you throw at them.

With that approach you only create those who live off the system and those that live off the those that live off the system.

That is the thesis of the article.
I think he stated his thesis in the first sentence. How would the thesis you identified apply to the author's discussion of Iraq, single women, or the economy?
 

dixie

Senior Member
I think he stated his thesis in the first sentence. How would the thesis you identified apply to the author's discussion of Iraq, single women, or the economy?
easy, the same as the socialist do, throw more money at it, remember what billery had to say about katrina, they need money and money and more money
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo4116
What you fail to comprehend is that just because you are a conservative does not mean you want to hold any person, or people down or back. To the contrary, as a conservative I try to help others progress and succeed.
I do so by giving them opportunities, advice and support.
I realize that hand outs are not a hand up.

As a conservative, I understand that I can not save people from themselves no matter how much money you throw at them.

With that approach you only create those who live off the system and those that live off the those that live off the system.
That is the thesis of the article.

_______________________________________


I think he stated his thesis in the first sentence. How would the thesis you identified apply to the author's discussion of Iraq, single women, or the economy?
_______________________________________
To Linwood,

And I restated it in the next to last sentence in mine.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo4116
What you fail to comprehend is that just because you are a conservative does not mean you want to hold any person, or people down or back. To the contrary, as a conservative I try to help others progress and succeed.
I do so by giving them opportunities, advice and support.
I realize that hand outs are not a hand up.

As a conservative, I understand that I can not save people from themselves no matter how much money you throw at them.

With that approach you only create those who live off the system and those that live off the those that live off the system.
That is the thesis of the article.

_______________________________________


I think he stated his thesis in the first sentence. How would the thesis you identified apply to the author's discussion of Iraq, single women, or the economy?
_______________________________________
To Linwood,

And I restated it in the next to last sentence in mine.
So you are saying that single women live off the system and because of that are dependent on Democrats? I don't believe that's what the author said. He said if they get married they will not vote for Democrats. My point was that he apparently reached this conclusion based solely on the last election. Plus, he doesn't seem to like single women because they are somehow bad for the country, but he doesn't eplain how that is so.
 

dixie

Senior Member
So you are saying that single women live off the system and because of that are dependent on Democrats?
are you saying the system doesn't encourage woman to have kids and not allow the father to live under the same roof and makes them dependent on government?
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
So you are saying that single women live off the system and because of that are dependent on Democrats? I don't believe that's what the author said. He said if they get married they will not vote for Democrats. My point was that he apparently reached this conclusion based solely on the last election. Plus, he doesn't seem to like single women because they are somehow bad for the country, but he doesn't eplain how that is so.
NO, I am saying that the democrats veiw of problem solving ingratiates them with supporters.

Which is in essense what the authour is saying, prolonging the perception of prejudice and inequality among segments of our population provides for the Democrat base.

Democrats see a perceived problem then throw money like a shotgun blast. They don't know exactly what they are aiming at, but are sure they will hit something. They never resolve any issues but keep them funded until they are needed again. Most likely around election time.
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
So you are saying that single women live off the system and because of that are dependent on Democrats? I don't believe that's what the author said. He said if they get married they will not vote for Democrats. My point was that he apparently reached this conclusion based solely on the last election. Plus, he doesn't seem to like single women because they are somehow bad for the country, but he doesn't eplain how that is so.
NO, I am saying that the democrats veiw of problem solving ingratiates them with supporters.

Which is in essense what the authour is saying, prolonging the perception of prejudice and inequality among segments of our population provides for the Democrat base.

Democrats see a perceived problem then throw money like a shotgun blast. They don't know exactly what they are aiming at, but are sure they will hit something. They never resolve any issues but keep them funded until they are needed again. Most likely around election time.
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
So you are saying that single women live off the system and because of that are dependent on Democrats? I don't believe that's what the author said. He said if they get married they will not vote for Democrats. My point was that he apparently reached this conclusion based solely on the last election. Plus, he doesn't seem to like single women because they are somehow bad for the country, but he doesn't eplain how that is so.
NO, I am saying that the democrats veiw of problem solving ingratiates them with supporters.

Which is in essense what the authour is saying, prolonging the perception of prejudice and inequality among segments of our population provides for the Democrat base.

Democrats see a perceived problem then throw money like a shotgun blast. They don't know exactly what they are aiming at, but are sure they will hit something. They never resolve any issues but keep them funded until they are needed again. Most likely around election time.
 
NO, I am saying that the democrats veiw of problem solving ingratiates them with supporters.

Which is in essense what the authour is saying, prolonging the perception of prejudice and inequality among segments of our population provides for the Democrat base.

Democrats see a perceived problem then throw money like a shotgun blast. They don't know exactly what they are aiming at, but are sure they will hit something. They never resolve any issues but keep them funded until they are needed again. Most likely around election time.
Well, I could have sworn he is saying that anything bad that happens to America is good for Democrats. Like single women. Are the Democrats throwing money at unmarried women? And how about the Iraq war? Are the Democrats thowing money at the war? And when the economy is perceived as being bad, which he says is good for the Democrats, is it because the Democrats threw money at the economy?

By the way, does the Republicans approach to solving "problems" alienate supporters?

At any rate, the issue that I raised is that the author offered no evidence for his claims. Guess he didn't have to. After all, he was writing for the Townhall.com readers. They aren't too picky about supporting evidence, I bet.

As an aside, how about all that money Bush threw at New Orleans after Katrina? The horror stories of the mismangement of all that cash are still being told.
 

dixie

Senior Member
Well, I could have sworn he is saying that anything bad that happens to America is good for Democrats. Like single women. Are the Democrats throwing money at unmarried women? And how about the Iraq war? Are the Democrats thowing money at the war? And when the economy is perceived as being bad, which he says is good for the Democrats, is it because the Democrats threw money at the economy?

By the way, does the Republicans approach to solving "problems" alienate supporters?

At any rate, the issue that I raised is that the author offered no evidence for his claims. Guess he didn't have to. After all, he was writing for the Townhall.com readers. They aren't too picky about supporting evidence, I bet.

As an aside, how about all that money Bush threw at New Orleans after Katrina? The horror stories of the mismangement of all that cash are still being told.
are you REAL sure you wannta bring up katrina now that the truths come out about the political games the local socialist played that cost people their lives? My memories getting bad, who was it that said, if things are going well in iraq, that real bad news for us and what party does he belong to?
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
Well, I could have sworn he is saying that anything bad that happens to America is good for Democrats. Like single women. Are the Democrats throwing money at unmarried women?

(Single women, if a greater number of women did not marry, then suffice to say there would be a greater number of illegitimate births and a greater number of women dependent on court ordered child support, schip and Defacs. Thus more targets. Not to say all unmarried women with or without children are not self suffiecient.)

And how about the Iraq war? Are the Democrats thowing money at the war?

(The Democrats in controll of Congress could not even fulfill their "mandate" for fear of a backlash, approving the money for a surge and further operations in Iraq.)

And when the economy is perceived as being bad, which he says is good for the Democrats, is it because the Democrats threw money at the economy?

(This is one of the exceptions to the rule? Generally they take this as an oversupplied Ammo dump and load up for future operations.)

By the way, does the Republicans approach to solving "problems" alienate supporters?

(Wrong word, ingratiate not alienate. But yes Republicans just like Democrats become inebriated with power and offend the conservative support, like me. But they do offer more substanstive solutions rather than "these appropriations will keep things going until we figure it out. everything will be alright till then.")

At any rate, the issue that I raised is that the author offered no evidence for his claims. Guess he didn't have to. After all, he was writing for the Townhall.com readers. They aren't too picky about supporting evidence, I bet.

(The evidence is in the pudding, the black and hispanic middle class are becoming more and more conservative in their feelings on fiscal issues and moral issues.
Women that marry and have children as evidenced by "POLLS"(so often used a evidence here) become more conservative on fiscal, social and moral issues.)

As an aside, how about all that money Bush threw at New Orleans after Katrina? The horror stories of the mismangement of all that cash are still being told.

(Now on this one if you will take a look at the Republican State of Mississippi and Alabama and compare their progress to Democrat dominated government of New Orleans and Louisianna and then ask who is hollering the loudest and why.)

However I will grant that Katrina was and is a nightmare of Governmental Bureaucratic foul ups from bottom to top.

The staffing of these types of Federal Agencies needs to be changed. Cronism has pervailed in Washington way to long. These positions should be held by persons with a professional background in the field. I don't know the answer but this has to be resolved. That being said more responsibility for planning and delivery of services should be given to the states. With only the delivery of funds and federal troops being the responsibility of the Federal Gov.
---
 

dbone

Outdoor Cafe Moderator
The article itself is too ridiculous to comment on but when I first read the thread title , I thought Oh No Howies listening to RushBo again which brings me to wonder did Rush steal the line from townhall or was it the other way around ?? :bounce: You guys do know what Rush and Sean did before the whacks in this country started taking them seriously don't you ?? :banana:
 

dixie

Senior Member
The article itself is too ridiculous to comment on but when I first read the thread title , I thought Oh No Howies listening to RushBo again which brings me to wonder did Rush steal the line from townhall or was it the other way around ?? :bounce: You guys do know what Rush and Sean did before the whacks in this country started taking them seriously don't you ?? :banana:
Rush as been in radio since he was a kid, fired many times and Sean worked construction, both worked themselves up the ladder and built themselves up to where they are today, proving America still offers opportunities to those willing to work for their dreams and your point is?
 
Top