"Smart Moral Republican"... superfluous or oxymoron?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Before the conservatives form a lynch mob...

I just want to make fully clear that i am aware that there are Republicans who are not god fearing, border fence building, anti-choice, anti-education, fundamentalist bullying, freelance racist, sweatshop tycoon, line jumping, tax cheating, testosterone junkie, brownshirts in pinstripes. There are certainly Barry Goldwater/Bill Buckley types out there, intellectual moral conservatives who would be ashamed of the GOP of today. Ron Paul is the only highly visible Republican of our day that measures up... but technically is a Libertarian & Constitutionalist.

Also in considering that the red states are typically made up of our rural, less educated citizenship (compared to blue states)...

...is "Smart Moral Republican"... more superfluous or more of an oxymoron?

(let's make this a "No Spin Zone" and i don't mean in an O'Reilly way
)




posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I wonder....

Why didn't you ask about "Smart Moral Politicians"? That would have made more sense than singling out Republicans, especially in this political environment. There appears to be enough stupidity and immorality in DC to go around.

And, for the record, not all red states are backwood, redneck hangouts (I know you didn't say that, but that line could have been left out of your post...especially the uneducated part). I'd say, per capita, there are more uneducated people in blue states.....

[edit on 10/13/2008 by skeptic1]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Not that education makes anyone any smarter... but i think it enables people to make more informed decisions... like when it comes to voting. As for "educated" include in this definition, exposure to a larger variety of people and experiences.

I didn't ask about "Smart Moral Politicians" because i see some fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats that i think are worth investigating. Many of these differences appear to be in the realm of quality and quality in information resources or the lack there of.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
IMO, "Smart" and "moral" do not coincide... one comes from the head and one from the heart... a person can govern with one or the other in mind but not both...



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 



Why didn't you ask about "Smart Moral Politicians"?


Because he feel the inner city ghetto dwellers with their drug, prostitution, and murder are a lot more civilized, moral, and educated than the rural dwellers of America are. And also simply because he is extremely biased towards the socialist side, as shown by his "fair and balanced" post.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
It was not my intention to suggest that smarts had anything to do with morals or visa versa. But i do think that they can have a significant influence on one another. Sometimes to a positive... sometimes to a negative, depending on scope of one's perspective.

For instance, an open mind generally leads to an open heart and in turn an open heart usually leads to an open mind... just as well the opposite is true... closed leads to closed and so on.

As for the getto... we can thank the conservative pro-slavery pro-segregationists of our not so far away past, for our current state of impoverished urban populous. To deny this responsibility and place it elsewhere is a huge hypocritical stance.

[edit on 13-10-2008 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


I guess you are right about the blue states.Being that there are more large cities in the blue states.The inner city educational system would probably out distance any small southern town's.Especially when it comes down to measuring out dime bags of crack.Or knowing how many "caps" placed in someone makes you a true "G"



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   
You have to consider that there are probably very few true Democrats or Republicans. I have come across very few people who were really far left or really far right in their beliefs. I think that most people are kind of in the middle, which is where I find myself (with a great deal of company, I might add).

Truth is, if you are not a Democrat or Republican, good luck finding a primary to vote in. That's why I am registered Republican. I could just as easily be registered Democrat.

I hate labels. Once you get one label (like "Republican") people start trying to label you more. Like they know you, based on what list you can be found on. Republicans are smart and moral, as are Democrats, Libertarians, Communists, etc. Republicans are stupid and immoral, as are Democrats, Libertarians, Communists, etc.

One could easily say that "smart moral HUMAN" is an oxymoron.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Fair enough... though i am not referring to the exceptions of the rule.

I am going after the overall big picture of our current state of affairs and those who are responsible for all the stupid immoral acts performed in our name.

Those people who voted republican in the past two elections... making it close enough for these con-artists to fabricate a win and reign for the past 8 years.

If we survive, we will being paying for these mammoth mistakes for generations to come.

So this is why i question the greater evil of the two parties.

For i think the head and heart of America has developed a tumor,
...and i'm looking to make a diagnosis... the source is in the citizenship... and i'm speculating that it has GOP/Christian-Coalition origins

... we may either need to administer kemo or cut it out... in order to improve our odds for survival.

[edit on 13-10-2008 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
I'd say, per capita, there are more uneducated people in blue states.....
[edit on 10/13/2008 by skeptic1]


For one, if you had left off the "per capita" part I would have agreed with you. What I think you were getting at is that there are more uneducated people in Blue state because they tend to have larger populations, this I would most likely agree with. However, from a factual standpoint, the Red states definitely rank the lowest when you compare state educational levels. Most southern and western states like Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Montana, the Dakotas, etc. tend to rank in the bottom half of the state rankings. Whereas, Blue states like New York, California, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, etc. tend to be consistently ranked in the top 10-20 states for educational levels.

The most notable correlation to this fact is that most Blue states are more metropolitan in nature whereas most Red states tend to be rural. In my state of Kentucky, the only areas that consistently vote Democrat are the metropolitan areas of Louisville and Lexington. Not surprisingly, these areas also have the highest educational levels per capita when compared to the more rural parts of the state. This does not mean that country people are stupid, just generally less educated. It is an undisputed fact that as your educational level increases, you tend to be more liberal in your thinking. Liberalism, like education, tends to be associated with progress.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Ok, let me get some of these points straight.

Rural, uneducated, Christian people in red states vote in the people who are the problem? That's what I am getting from the OP. If I am wrong, please correct me, because I don't want to misconstrue what you are saying, AllSeeingI. Republicans, bad; Democrats, good.

And, to BluegrassRevolutionary, I agree; should have left out the "per capita" part. My basic point was that there are more people in the blue states, hence they will have more stupid people than the rural red states.

Let's just use me as an example. I am from a red state. I was raised in a rural area of a red state. I was educated in a private school, not because my parents could necessarily afford it, but because it was the only school within 30 miles of where we lived. I started college my junior year of highschool and graduated early with a double degree. My education did not make me more liberal.....seeing how closed minded the people I grew up around/with made me more socially liberal, while I remained a fiscal conservative.

So, generalizations do not work all the time, and that is the problem I see with the premise of this thread; hence my first post in it.

If you want to figure out the problems with this country and our government, you can't just look at half of the problem. And, I say that because, at the heart of it, half of this country is left-leaning and half is right-leaning. It isn't like if you get rid of the "cancer that is the Republican Party" that America will suddenly become all wonderful and fuzzy and happy. Same goes for the Democrats.

It is yet another generalization that doesn't fit and doesn't work.

OP, you said there were fundamental differences with the Republicans that made you focus on them alone. Maybe if you expounded more on them and less on the generalizations of rural, uneducated people that elect them, it would be easier to discuss for some of us and a lot less insulting as well.

Problems arise when you start to generalize and lump people into categories that just label them. It is insulting, because the problems aren't due to a general group of people that are labeled Republicans; the problems are due to a select group of people in power that are labeled Republicans and Democrats. Just check out their approval rating for confirmation.....



[edit on 10/13/2008 by skeptic1]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Thank you bluegrass for that confirmation.

Skeptic, you are taking this inquiry way too personal. There are always exceptions to the rule, especially when taking such broad brush strokes. Feeling insulted is a choice. Remember... “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” ~Eleanor Roosevelt

As for one party being good and the other bad... i'd say they are both bad... one is just worst then the other. Every election year we have the option to pick one of the lesser evils. Which can still make a world of difference.

Ideally what we need is a party that is not bought and sold for. But with the system rigged, both parties serving the same corporate masters... a viable third party who truly represents the people's interests and only the people's best interest is our best option, but unfortunately this will never materialize, without a collective threat (revolution).

Now to cut even closer to the bone/source of the problem, we need to take a closer look at what is referred to as the "Bible Belt".

Devil is in the details so to speak... the origins of our dis-ease lay in the sins of scripture.

If we note the manual from which most Republicans govern their lives... we will see a direct correlation to the twisted political games they play.

[edit on 13-10-2008 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Went to elementary and high school in a "red" Kentucky. Public school system. Went to college in NY and outperformed a good 90% of local "blue state" students. Graduated Magna Cum Laude. Just sayin'.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I

Skeptic, you are taking this inquiry way too personal. There are always exceptions to the rule, especially when taking such broad brush strokes. Feeling insulted is a choice. Remember... “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” ~Eleanor Roosevelt



Thank you for reading my mind; I appreciate it.
Shows how far comprehension on the internet goes.

I am not insulted. I am curious and trying to weed out the real point of this thread. So far, I gather that you aren't a fan of Republicans, Christians, and people that vote Republican. Also, you seem to have a problem with red states, rural areas, and uneducated voters who you think have voted in a "cancer" to govern us.

If I am wrong, correct me.

My whole point is that picking apart half the problem does not solve it, and generalizations do nothing to identify the source of the problem.

Example: You made a generalization about uneducated people in rural red states. What are the majority of your replies? Either snarky replies about the "uneducated" comment or the problems/issues with "labels" and generalizations.

Do any of those replies further the original premise of this thread? I asked for clarification on the fundamental differences you were referring to and I didn't get that. I didn't get that; I got your ever so WRONG insight of my being insulted. And, we got links to info on the Bible Belt and "sins of scripture".

Just come out and say what you mean and think. Then, things can be discussed clearly without cryptic sentences and confusion.

I am just trying to get to the meat of your thought process in all of this. Specifics help but generalizations normally just muddy the water and make it rather impossible to navigate at times.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 



As for the getto... we can thank the conservative pro-slavery pro-segregationists of our not so far away past, for our current state of impoverished urban populous. To deny this responsibility and place it elsewhere is a huge hypocritical stance.


Hmmm. Conservative pro-slavery.


Northern Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas as their candidate, and Southern Democrats adopted a pro-slavery platform and nominated John C. Breckinridge in an election campaign that would be won by Abraham Lincoln and the newly formed Republican Party.

www.pbs.org...

Sounds like somebody else is taking a hypocritical stance and denying responsibility, doesn't it?


Although, what else could we expect.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   
anonymous poster... you are referring to a time period when the parties ideologies were flipped. The Republicans in Lincoln's day were the progressive party.

skeptic1 ... come at this again tomorrow... anew.
With your head in lead of your heart this second time around... you should find, i have made my point by peeling off the layers one by one.


[edit on 14-10-2008 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I'm pretty much a Goldwater Republican. Which sadly makes me pretty disillusioned with today's Republican party. I'm more moderate in some ways though, I don't know.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   

It is an undisputed fact that as your educational level increases, you tend to be more liberal in your thinking. Liberalism, like education, tends to be associated with progress.

I think that this is incorrect. Instead of "liberal" you should have used "open-minded." The two are not the same. Just because you are conservative does not mean that you are less educated.

As far as the OP's question goes: That is very biased. I think that there are very few smart and moral Republicans AND Democrats. As a Libertarian, I am of the opinion that both of these parties are a lost cause that that to debate about which the two is smarter and moral is superfluous.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
...is "Smart Moral Republican"... more superfluous or more of an oxymoron?


I too have been trying to figure out the best way to answer the question posed in this thread. I decided the best way to answer your question was directly. I feel it, in most cases, is an oxymoron. In particular I feel that it is the combination of the three words that makes it so. Lets look at these combinations in pairs.

Smart & Moral: Intelligence levels and morality have nothing to do with one another. I have met many highly intelligent people who were quite immoral (eg. Ken Lay of Enron fame). On the flip side, I have also met many "simple" people who had a moral compass that always holds true (eg. most children and mentally handicapped people always know what the most moral/right thing to do is). The problem with intelligence is it allows you the ability to justify just about any action.

Moral & Republican: I often see blatant examples of Double Think with regards to Republican morality. Take the fact that Republicans generally are for capital punishment but against abortion. Though there is an innocence issue here, if you value the life of a "person" in one instance, you too should place value upon it in another. Some would say that Democrats are also guilty of double think in this example, however I would counter that most pro-choice individuals do not consider an un-born fetus or ball of cells to be a "person." Another area that I feel Republicans tend to lack morality is their whole hearted belief in capitalism. Capitalism is a system that cares little for the poor in our society. I forget who said this, but it is often quoted that "a society should judge itself by its treatment of its poor," or something to that nature. From this, one would gather that a purely Republican/Capitalistic society is ont the most moral.

Lastly, Smart & Republican: Though I have met many smart Republicans, I feel that they too often do not exercise their ability to think for themselves. Take the often heralded Republican idea of Trickle Down. Trickle Down is a "theory" that is never touted by any respectable economist but is touted by most any Republican. Economists do not tout it because, simply put, it is a FALLACY. It does not hold true when put to the tests of supply and demand. In economics, anything that does not hold to the tenants of supply and demand is false, PERIOD. Essentially, I see too many educated Republicans take information that is fed to them and spout it as truth without first examining its validity themselves. Aristotle said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Republicans too often fail to entertain a thought, and instead just accept it because it was said by some other Republican, Rush for example.

I know I went on quite a ramble but I hope I illustrated my point that "Smart Moral Republican" is definitely an oxymoron in most cases. However, that is not to say that there do exist some smart, moral, Republicans.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperSecretSquirrel

I think that this is incorrect. Instead of "liberal" you should have used "open-minded." The two are not the same.

If you check the definition of "liberal," you will see that it specifically uses the term "open-minded" in its description. So, I would agree only to the extent that liberal=open-minded. But I do not agree that I should have substituted the terms as I, as well as Webster's dictionary, see them to be one in the same.






top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join