Republicans care about one thing and one thing only

[SilentBull]

http://www.truthinexile.com/2012/01/22/republicans-believe-in-one-thing-and-one-thing-only/

[realtonygoodwin]

I disagree with your collectivism.

[69360]

collectivism at it's worst

[LawnWake]

I disagree with your collectivism.

Yes, let's turn this into ANOTHER 'I'm more of an individualist than you' pissing contest. I'm sure there's hundreds of users at this very minute refreshing a page hoping a race related thread pops up so they can waltz into it and be the first to say 'WELL YOU KNOW I DON'T REEEAAALLY BELIEVE IN RACES! WE'RE ALL INDIVIDUALS AND BLA BLA BLA SELF RIGHTEOUS BULLCRAP BLA BLA'.

Then someone goes into another thread and whines about socialists and liberals and statists and Keynsians and the mainstream media as if that isn't collectivism.

Why would you even go as far as to discuss a point someone makes if you could use it as an opportunity to fight the good fight for 'individualism'?

He's absolutely correct and I've been saying this for months. This is about PERCEPTION. People don't care about what's actually small government, they care about what they perceive as small government. We've been pushing issues and it works to a degree, but you want slogans and to make Ron Paul look like the 'small government' choice. Push an idea, let them fill in the blanks. Don't overwhelm people with information, because the information is what they perceive as non-Republican and being apart of a stupid little club is all people care about. The campaign doesn't wanna do this, so that's what we're here for.

[SilentBull]

collectivism at it's worst

First, I think you mean "its", not "it's". And I know some of you love to use words like "collectivism" to show how smart you are, but you miss the whole point of the article. Of course, I'm generalizing to make a point. If Republicans select Romney, is it wrong to say "Republicans picked Romney"? Some of you guys don't even understand things enough to know when to use terms and when not to use them. This has nothing to do with collectivism. When I speak of Republicans is it not obvious that I'm speaking of the majority of the party that is picking these candidates? Talk to someone else if you are looking to make yourself feel better and superior. You just look like fools throwing around terms.

[affa]

collectivism at it's worst

I think you guys are misreading it. If the article is flawed, it's only in that it keeps using the word Republican, when the same criticism can be leveled across the board. That is, the arguments the article makes are spot on. However, since the article focuses on Republicans, it feels biased and 'collectivist' to you.

That same article, sans that imagined bias (when in fact it does accuse all), is spot on.

It is quite true that many people:
1) Don't actually believe (and in some cases understand) what they claim to believe.
2) See what they want to see
3) Deceive themselves
4) Prioritize other things.

Those accusations have merit across the board, and while the article speaks mostly about Republicans, it does levy the same charges at democrats, noting that Obama too was a 'blank page' that allowed voters to see what they wanted to see.

This article is not collectivist, it's just aimed at Republicans - which makes perfect sense, given the two Republican 'front runners' of the moment, Romney and Gingrich.

[SilentBull]

I think you guys are misreading it. If the article is flawed, it's only in that it keeps using the word Republican, when the same criticism can be leveled across the board. That is, the arguments the article makes are spot on. However, since the article focuses on Republicans, it feels biased and 'collectivist' to you.

That same article, sans that imagined bias (when in fact it does accuse all), is spot on.

It is quite true that many people:
1) Don't actually believe (and in some cases understand) what they claim to believe.
2) See what they want to see
3) Deceive themselves
4) Prioritize other things.

Those accusations have merit across the board, and while the article speaks mostly about Republicans, it does levy the same charges at democrats, noting that Obama too was a 'blank page' that allowed voters to see what they wanted to see.

This article is not collectivist, it's just aimed at Republicans - which makes perfect sense, given the two Republican 'front runners' of the moment, Romney and Gingrich.

Thank you. That's exactly right. When I first started writing it was supposed to be an analysis about voters in general. But I wanted to specifically use the examples of the Republican party after what we witnessed last night.

I'm gonna take a look at the article to see if I can make it more about voters in general. I certainly don't want to ignore the Democrat voters who are just as guilty.

[realtonygoodwin]

It is the "and one thing only " that I have trouble with. That's where it goes beyond generalizing.

[SilentBull]

It is the "and one thing only " that I have trouble with. That's where it goes beyond generalizing.

I'm editing the article now.

[otherone]

You guys are completely missing the significance of "collectivism" as it relates to the Liberty Movement. Commenting about groups of people, prejudice towards groups of people, and sweeping generalizations about groups of people is not 'collectivism".

[LibertyEagle]

All Republicans don't do anything. If you could change your title such that you are not bashing ALL Republicans, it would be much more effective. Remember that something like 80K Republicans in S. Carolina voted for Ron Paul.

[LibertyEagle]

You guys are completely missing the significance of "collectivism" as it relates to the Liberty Movement. Commenting about groups of people, prejudice towards groups of people, and sweeping generalizations about groups of people is not 'collectivism".

Yes, it is.

[SilentBull]

All Republicans don't do anything. If you could change your title such that you are not bashing ALL Republicans, it would be much more effective. Remember that something like 80K Republicans in S. Carolina voted for Ron Paul.

I just changed the title and the article to be more general. It's now more of an analysis of voters in general.

[Jack Bauer]

You guys are completely missing the significance of "collectivism" as it relates to the Liberty Movement. Commenting about groups of people, prejudice towards groups of people, and sweeping generalizations about groups of people is not 'collectivism".

Exactly!

Stereotyping is NOT collectivism.

[robert9712000]

You can make generalized observations and believe 100 percent in the importance of the individual,Seeing a pattern and noting it isnt collectivism,but if the way you treat a random individual is based on those observation that is collectivism

[realtonygoodwin]

Thanks for editing!
I think the most important thing for many voters is the desire to beat Obama.

[otherone]

Exactly!

Stereotyping is NOT collectivism.

To use the term "collectivism" to describe someone's 'opinion' diminishes the significance of the term politically.

"Collectivism is the root ideology that underlies all totalitarian systems; socialism, communism, fascism, and naziism alike. It holds that the group is superior to the individual, and thus individual rights may be violated with impunity, for the perceived or alleged "common good," "national greatness," or "national security.""

The FF created this government with the belief that the Individual is Sovereign, and the purpose of Government is to Protect that Sovereignty. This is the quintessence of Freedom. The Constitution is a "job description", outlining ALL the powers that WE ALLOW to government.
Me opining, "All Eskimos are lazy" is not collectivism. No ones Rights have been undermined. The government, on the other hand, creating Affirmative Action to 'help' Eskimos, IS collectivism. The Government is supposed to protect the Rights of the INDIVIDUAL...color-blind, gender-blind, and religiously neutral. If I'm competing for a job, the government has NO RIGHT to interfere with my opportunity...my pursuit of happiness, based on my race.

[tennman]

I'm a Republican and I care about some of the things mentioned. I do care about free markets. I want freedom. That's why I support Ron Paul. What is this crap?

And the people I know who are supporting Santorum care about free markets. And the people I know who support Romney care about free markets. I'm sure I have friends who support Newt and I'm sure they care about free markets too.

Many of them would be passionate Paul supporters if they knew and understood his views on foreign policy. They think he won't protect us because they don't understand. The campaign should take come of the blame on that.

Most Republicans would be supporters of Paul if they understood his views on foreign policy. It's that simple. Insulting groups as a whole is not productive and is illogical.

[otherone]

I'm a Republican and I care about more than that. Much more. What is this crap?

We frequently use the term "neocon" to identify those Republicans who disagree with our positions. The writer of the article was using hyperbole (as most do). Frankly, most Republicans don't have an appreciable grasp of the issues at hand, or any real understanding of civics, to be labelled a "conservative" or a "neocon". "Lemming" is more apt... :p

[SilentBull]

I'm a Republican and I care about some of the things mentioned. I do care about free markets. I want freedom. That's why I support Ron Paul. What is this crap?

And the people I know who are supporting Santorum care about free markets. And the people I know who support Romney care about free markets. I'm sure I have friends who support Newt and I'm sure they care about free markets too.

Many of them would be passionate Paul supporters if they knew and understood his views on foreign policy. They think he won't protect us because they don't understand. The campaign should take come of the blame on that.

Most Republicans would be supporters of Paul if they understood his views on foreign policy. It's that simple. Insulting groups as a whole is not productive and is illogical.

You obviously didn't understand the article. I explain the 4 reasons why I think people go against what they "believe" in. Only one of those reasons could be that they don't really believe in it. Did you miss the other three? Secondly, it would be hard to have a conversation without ever making generalizations. I expect readers to be smart enough to understand what is being said. Guess what? Dominicans love to eat rice and beans. This doesn't mean all Dominicans love rice and beans. To criticize someone for making that statement would be just foolish. Let's be smarter than this. Jesus. Some of you people really surprise me.

[pinkmandy]

I like your article. + rep to you. :)

[No Free Beer]

First, I think you mean "its", not "it's". And I know some of you love to use words like "collectivism" to show how smart you are, but you miss the whole point of the article. Of course, I'm generalizing to make a point. If Republicans select Romney, is it wrong to say "Republicans picked Romney"? Some of you guys don't even understand things enough to know when to use terms and when not to use them. This has nothing to do with collectivism. When I speak of Republicans is it not obvious that I'm speaking of the majority of the party that is picking these candidates? Talk to someone else if you are looking to make yourself feel better and superior. You just look like fools throwing around terms.

what a whoop

+rep

[realtonygoodwin]

You obviously didn't understand the article. I explain the 4 reasons why I think people go against what they "believe" in. Only one of those reasons could be that they don't really believe in it. Did you miss the other three? Secondly, it would be hard to have a conversation without ever making generalizations. I expect readers to be smart enough to understand what is being said. Guess what? Dominicans love to eat rice and beans. This doesn't mean all Dominicans love rice and beans. To criticize someone for making that statement would be just foolish. Let's be smarter than this. Jesus. Some of you people really surprise me.


What you originally had, and this thread title still has, would be equivalent to saying "Dominicans love to eat rice and beans, and only rice and beans."

I think that is where many of us had the issue.

[TheTexan]

http://operatorchan.org/k/arch/src/k83700_thread%20derail.jpg

[GeorgiaAvenger]

One the one hand, I get tired of RPF shouting collectivists

On the other hand, it is better than the drone like supporters who crazily shout neocon at everybody. They turn off people by the thousands no doubt.

[LawnWake]

Rich white men overgeneralize about about black people, a Democrat complains, but should stop being so 'PC'.

Someone writes an article relating to voting behavior, but targets it to Republicans because they're the relevant voting block, and people whine about 'collectivism'.

My God.

[Mini-Me]

I thought the article was pretty awesome, actually. Maybe I just didn't see the original that the collectivist police were so uppity about though. ;)

logikal, thank you for clearly delineating the truth we have all vaguely felt for...well, forever. (I guess I shouldn't say "we have all" though... :p)

[ConCap]

It is the "and one thing only " that I have trouble with. That's where it goes beyond generalizing.

Nice avatar.
Mine is 8 right and 3 down

[realtonygoodwin]

Lol, thanks. I don't know where exactly mine is, looks close to yours, maybe a little bit higher.

[unknown]

Whats amazing is how the most basic truths are applauded simply because they are never stated.

This is a good article but its something thats clear to anyone whos not mentally retarded.

But the reason we get so excited about an article like this is because its never mentioned by those who control discourse in this country: the corporate media.

[unknown]

And the people I know who are supporting Santorum care about free markets. And the people I know who support Romney care about free markets. I'm sure I have friends who support Newt and I'm sure they care about free markets too.

How can people who allegedly support free markets, be in favor of those who advocate mandates, big government, big spending and less freedom: Newt, Romney or Santorum?

To the article's point, have they not done any research? Are they lazy? What is it?

[unknown]

Logikal can I suggest some editing tips?

Also, have you read Glenn Greenwald's article? It gives a great summary on Obama's policies which Libs are supposed to hate but dont simply because its Obama. You may be able to incorporate some of the points when pointing out the Obamacrites.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

[StilesBC]

The term you guys are looking for is not "collectivism". That is something else entirely.

"Polylogism" is what you are trying to say.

[unknown]

The term you guys are looking for is not "collectivism". That is something else entirely.

"Polylogism" is what you are trying to say.

How about a sheeplish, brainwashed, dumb downed electorate?

[idiom]

Its not projected collectivism if it is an actual collective that you have to register to join.

There are people who are registered republicans and there are people who are not. Those who are registered republicans can often do things the people who are not registered republicans cannot do. Like vote in closed primaries.

The difference between the Republicans and Democrats, vs all the many other little parties? The two big parties play to win. First and foremost.

You can't govern unless you win.

Republicans will happily vote for the principled candidate if they thought he could win.

What is the point of running someone who can't win? We believe RP can win. We need to get everyone else to believe, but not only that, that RP is the only candidate who can beat Obama.