Don't embrace stupidity

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Larry
    Sept. 3, 2008 10:13 p.m.

    Add one more Mormon who has the greatest respect for Harry Reid.

  • Stupid is as stupid does
    Sept. 3, 2008 10:01 p.m.

    The ultimate stupidity was embracing George Bush for 8 looooong years. And Utah is not over their love affair with him yet. Talk about embracing stupidity.

  • Look Who's Right
    Sept. 3, 2008 9:20 p.m.

    I know that lefties sometimes have trouble connecting the dots, so let me help you out. No need to go on and on with your overused and under inspired concepts and opinions. The letter writer makes a couple of very valid statements, that don't go into great detail, but are easy for most people to understand if you don't live in a fog. First he refers to Harry Ried. The guy is a baffoon and a fool. I could not be more pleased that he is not a republican, because he cannot come up with one original thought, and I believe he is in competition for being the dimmest person in Senate history.
    Next the letter writer refers to all the things that Democrats love, but often try to deny. Taxes, Phony Overzealous Environmentalism, Massive Governmental Spending on Socialistic Programs that are Ripe with Corruption and Waste, and last but not least - Abortion on Demand. Yes, occasionally a few Republicans have foolishly fallen for this idiocy. I can't believe that "Stupid Is..." can even try to make his claims, because everything he tries to renounce in his statement, is exactly what Dems. and Lefties love and embrace.

  • DBG
    Sept. 3, 2008 4:10 p.m.

    I'm inclined to agree with paperlake (2:40). To add to this, if you think that McCain IS NOT going to raise taxes, then think again. BOTH raise taxes, just at different socioeconomic groups. McCain shifts it back to the middle-class which creates the bigger socio-economic divide (in other words, increases poverty of the middle-class), whereas Obama repeals many of Bush's taxes which the majority went to the very rich people (I didn't benefit from that cut no matter how "all American" statement they imply, it won't happen).

  • re: Stupid is what...
    Sept. 3, 2008 3:15 p.m.

    You said that republicans are on a short leash. Was it the republicans who voted out one of their own (even a former VP candidate) for disagreeing with the party line on just one issue? Don't talk to me about a short leash.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 3, 2008 2:44 p.m.

    Don't embrace stupidity?

    Are we talking about those people who were warned not to support the Cheney/Bush monsters yet voted for them anyway?

    We progressives tried to warn you.

  • peperlake
    Sept. 3, 2008 2:40 p.m.

    re: thomas

    unless you make more than $250,000 a year the demos said they would not tax you more. I ask wich is more responsible, to tax people with money and pay off national debt and pay as you go or cut taxes for the rich and pile on the debt while not paying for anything as you go? I think the chinese would prefer the republicans for a while so they can lend us more money, some day they might like the demos to take charge so that the dollar is worth enough for us to ever have a chance at paying them back. I for one am tired of the lie that cutting taxes for the rich creates jobs. I have been fed that line since I was a teenager and it always smells like a line from a used car salesman. I am no economic expert but it seems to me that the only time our economy booms is after congress pays down a national debt and the dollar is worth enough to allow for employers to give larger raises to middle an lower class folks enabling the consumer base to buy more.

  • Cats
    Sept. 3, 2008 2:30 p.m.

    If you want to see that what I said above is true about the liberal view of religion, just read the blog posted by "Stupid is, what..." This is the typical liberal Democrat view of religion and religious people. Of course, this blogger has completely distorted and misrepresented religion and it's belief's and positions but, that's beside the point.

    If you want to know which party disdains and hates religion in general, look to the Democrats. So, please, don't be fooled by their cynical attempts to convince voters that they are spiritual people of faith. For the most part, it's fraud.

  • DBG
    Sept. 3, 2008 1:48 p.m.

    Well, Thomas, even a little bit, opens the door to virtually limitless access and intrusions. Where is the line drawn? Liberties need to be safeguarded, but we can't do away all in the name of war. That goes against every principle this country was founded upon.

  • Stupid is, what...
    Sept. 3, 2008 1:33 p.m.

    Religion told its believers the sun circled earth. the earth is 10,000 years old, dinosaurs walked with man, lightning rods intervened with god's judgment and that using anything to relieve pain during labor stopped god's punishment for original sin.
    I can see why religion hates knowledge.

    I'm a happy democrat. No more Mitt!!

    Conservatives are a blessing. They show the value of education. I love the conservative. I just have little time for stupidity in the information age.

    I rejected gun control arguments when semi automatics were being passed off as automatics. This turned this liberal against the assault weapons ban.

    I can be a liberal and question. When you're conservative your a dog on a short leash. You must say with the talking points, read only conservative authors, watch only Fox News. You intellectually might as well be in a one party state.

    On the count of three.....we are all individuals!

  • Cats
    Sept. 3, 2008 1:33 p.m.

    To ECR: You didn't refute or even address anything that I stated in my last blog. What I stated about Harry Reid, and the Democrats, is factual.

    Personally, I like Harry Reid although I don't agree with him. In fact, we used to say "hello" to each other in the halls of Congress every day. He's a good decent man.

    I am also saddened by the fact that many evangelicals have a distorted and incorrect view of Mormons. That may take a lot of time to correct. However, I think that Mitt Romney has gone a long way in helping to dispel some of those misconceptions.

    Back to my original point--the far-left of the Democrat Party (which has pretty much taken over the mainstream of that party) disdains and disparages religion in general. Please don't be duped by their attempts to lay claim to the religious vote. Harry Reid's ascendancy to Senate Democrat Leader was mostly a cynicals move on the part of the Democrats to hide the truth about where most of them stand on religion. Most of them think religion is a joke and religious people are STUPID.

    ECR: Sorry if the TRUTH offends you.

  • Thomas
    Sept. 3, 2008 12:47 p.m.

    Peperlake --

    "and you really believe that the demos will tax and spend more than Bush did"?

    Well, yes. They've said they will. Barack Obama has promised a net tax increase, and has proposed enough new spending that it's mathematically certain that the tax increase will have to be larger than advertised.

    Should I not believe him?

    Anon 12:14 -- I submit that you should not take as gospel anything that preachers or talk show hosts say -- OR the things said by teachers and professors. Nobody has the right to a blank check. If anyone can make a persuasive argument that honestly convinces you, agree with him; if not, don't.

    That said, I agree that a good deal of what's taught about history in K-12 education and a fair number of university history professors' classes is ideologically-corrupted pseudohistory. The truth, though, is usually discoverable easily enough for anyone who takes the time and effort to review enough of the evidence on both sides of a question.

  • PJ
    Sept. 3, 2008 12:45 p.m.

    Cats | 9:39 a.m. ---

    "The Democrats don't embrace religion, particularly Mormonism, as much as you'd like to believe. It was a particularly prevalent joke around the Clinton White House to make fun of Mormons."

    What do they think of Muslims?

    "The Democrats discerned correctly that one of the main reasons they lost in 2004 was because they are perceived as being a Godless, anti-religion party."

    The Dems lost because they put up a loser for a candidate.

    "The far-left portion of their party, took particular joy in making fun of religion and religious Americans."

    How is it that the far left was able to take over the party? Is the party full of wimps?

    "Therefore, the Democrats made the calculated decision to put Harry Reid in as their leader in the Senate in order to try and counteract this perception that they were anti-religion."

    Not to worry. He'll be out in a few months.

  • Thomas
    Sept. 3, 2008 12:44 p.m.

    DBG -- I agree that *true* "corporate welfare" is an abomination. It demonstrates that contra leftist ideology, corporations are not inherently conservative. Most of them are amoral and unideological, and will dump conservative orthodoxy in a heartbeat if they can gain a government-enforced advantage. That needs guarding against, just as much as the Democratic-supported statism that gives this rent-seeking camouflage.

    Far better to have a broad, minimally-intrusive tax base than the present jury-rigged system of special tax exemptions for industries best capable of lobbying.

    As for the "Patriot Act," I simply don't see how anyone can make any comparison to previous wartime measures. The actual provisions of the Act are so far removed from the mythology created by its critics that I can only conclude they've never actually read them. Government has long had far more intrusive powers with respect to tax collection and the War on Drugs than virtually anything in the Patriot Act (not that I'm thrilled with those intrusions, either).

  • Thomas
    Sept. 3, 2008 12:34 p.m.

    Anon: Yes, I'm familiar with that quote. I've got you one better: It wasn't Benjamin Franklin who said it.

    Do you honestly agree with that quote's sentiment? If so, ask yourself this: What law is *not* a trade of liberty for security? Do you not support gun control? What is gun control, except a trading of one's liberty to own a firearm without restrictions for the alleged safety of added protection against gun crime?

    What are antidiscrimination laws, except a trading of one's liberty to discriminate for safety from being discriminated against?

    That "trade liberty for security" quote is just stupid. Nobody really believes it. If they did, we'd all be radical libertarians. And last time I checked, that party gets what -- 2% of the vote on a good day?

  • to wrz
    Sept. 3, 2008 12:31 p.m.

    Michael Moore is actually quite jolly. "Rabid" is a better description of the foaming Limbaugh.

  • wrz
    Sept. 3, 2008 12:23 p.m.

    Convention watcher | 9:22 a.m. ---

    "The DNC people just seemed like mean and angry people obsessed with getting political advantage, very passionate about their political party (almost to the point of obsession) but not so much about their country in general."

    A fairly accurate description of Democrats.

    When I picture a Democrat, guys like the rabid Michael Moore comes to mind.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 3, 2008 12:19 p.m.

    nice rant "to thomas."

    Thomas while I do not necessarily share the same pessimism with DBG, I think some of us that have "read history" do not care to repeat it. It is truly foolish to not learn from history. Being a history puff I am sure you are familiar with the quote any man that would give up liberty for safety deserves neither.

  • BYDC
    Sept. 3, 2008 12:16 p.m.

    I'll tell you what is always stupid: to blame either political party for high gas prices. Please.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 3, 2008 12:14 p.m.

    Thomas,
    Yes our teachers and professors have no idea what they're talking about. Better to listen to our preachers and talk radio host. They much more logical and reasoned and balanced.

  • DBG
    Sept. 3, 2008 12:09 p.m.

    @Thomas: The answer would be "No". History repeats itself and that is the very reason I put the Patriot Act up there. It doesn't matter the party, the fact, that BOTH are going to bring this country to her knees. Someone told me "the definition of republicanism has change, or George Bush is no republican." This has destroyed what republicanism stood for and one reason why I left. More and more people are leaving the republican party because of things like this.

    If people want real change, then we need to vote for a different party. Utah is proof enough that party doesn't matter (republican vs. democrat) since we are paying higher taxes here. Corporate welfare is high among republicans, but they are quick to denounce "socialsim". Can't have it both ways.

  • peperlake
    Sept. 3, 2008 12:07 p.m.

    and Parrots can be percieved as intellectuals. come one paul, president bush has spent us out of our childerens future and you really believe that the demos will spend and tax more than Bush did. sounds like you like stupidity to me.

  • Respond to C-Mon
    Sept. 3, 2008 12:04 p.m.

    Read the Alan Greenspan biography and then tell us that Republicans are not about vote buying, big government, deficit spending, etc. Imagine, NO federal deficit by 2006 IF Bush had not been elected. Time to start looking at facts - many of which Greenspan lays out for everyone to read.

  • To Thomas
    Sept. 3, 2008 11:39 a.m.

    To Thomas: You asked "Doesn't anybody read history anymore?" The answer is No. They are too busy listening to the teachers and profs spout off about their view of history and why the USA is a bad place and not to be proud of. The dumbing down of America is well on its way thanks to the liberal media, mindset and leadership.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 3, 2008 11:37 a.m.

    I think C'Mon illustrates perfectly everything that is wrong with politics as usual. CMon has a lot of rhetoric but no facts or substance.

  • uncannygunman
    Sept. 3, 2008 11:28 a.m.

    This letter is name-calling, nothing more and nothing less. It calls Democrats stupid. If you're going to print the letter to begin with, you should post comments reflecting the opposing view (i.e., Republicans are stupid). Or just pull the whole name-calling circus altogether.

  • Thomas
    Sept. 3, 2008 11:10 a.m.

    DBG, I'll share your annoyance about NCLB (though probably for different reasons; mine is that I don't think the federal government has any business monkeying around with local education *at all*), but really, do you have any idea what is *in* the "Patriot Act"?

    It doesn't come within a country mile of the intrusions on liberty FDR imposed during the Last Good War. If it did, the Bush haters would have been put on trial for sedition, like FDR did his loudest opponents in 1942. Arab-Americans would have been interned like the Japanese. Formal government censorship would have been imposed on the media. Industry and consumers would have been put on a rationing system. The FBI would have the right to conduct warrantless surveillance of *anybody*, not just the incoming international telephone calls that had everybody so worked up last year.

    Doesn't anybody read history anymore?

  • Whose convention?
    Sept. 3, 2008 11:09 a.m.

    Oh. That's the Republican convention this week? Both nominees are "mavericks" and the convention had a Democrat speaker. Looks to me like the traditional Republicans are being ushered to the background (like the Utah delegates up in the rafters).

    When do the "real" Republicans hold their convention?

  • C'Mon
    Sept. 3, 2008 10:59 a.m.

    To you Looney Liberal's: You don't think that your social spending is out of control, too? How laughable. Your spending is for vote buying, plain and simple. Bush's spending on the war got him 0 votes, but at least it is more honest than your thinking has been. And to put Dirty Harry as your Minority Leader was as ludicrous as one can think. Pelosi? C'Mon, get a clue!!!! The Looney Left put Reid on display as a Trophy as well as putting Obama on display as a Trophy. Reid, Obama, Pelosi and the rest are as incompetent as any... yet they are Trophys...

  • Howard Lambert
    Sept. 3, 2008 10:44 a.m.

    Think...said ...the democrats have allowed him (Harry Reid) to rise up, and his faith was not a factor in keeping him down. and Johny Fairplay said...At least the Dems don't seem to have a problem putting a Mormon in a leadership position. Boy what Hypocreaceae, It is not the democrats that have allowed this -- if Reid were a Republican religious bias and slander would have been all over the media. I would also dare say if Mitt Romney had been a democrat The Republicans would not have brought about the kind of crap you saw in the bias media.

  • ECR
    Sept. 3, 2008 10:10 a.m.

    Cats 9:39 - As someoine who LIVES in Washington I can tell you that the only party that trashes the Mormon religion in this town is the party of the Evangelical Christians. You can decide which political party that most represents.

  • Reid is Right
    Sept. 3, 2008 10:02 a.m.

    Utah for Bush! Utah for insane spending on stupid wars, death for our soldiers and thousands of Iraqis, Utah for huge corporate welfare outlays! Here's one Utah Mormon who lines up 100 percent with Reid. Too bad there aren't more of us with our eyes open.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 3, 2008 9:51 a.m.

    Convention watcher: I thnk a slight bias also plays into your observations as it does everyone's (including me) I heard a great deal of "liberal" bashing last night. It sounds like you and I would agree that it is not helpful coming from either side of the isle though.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 3, 2008 9:41 a.m.

    "Don't embrace Stupidity"...

    Hmmmmm, this from a Bushie?

    Now THAT's comedy!

  • Cats
    Sept. 3, 2008 9:39 a.m.

    As someone with a lot of political experience in Washington, please let me set the record straight--The Democrats don't embrace religion, particularly Mormonism, as much as you'd like to believe. It was a particularly prevalent joke around the Clinton White House to make fun of Mormons.

    Harry Reid was voted in as Senate Majority Leader (minority leader at the time)purely because the Democrats got hammered in the 2004 election.

    The Democrats discerned correctly that one of the main reasons they lost in 2004 was because they are perceived as being a Godless, anti-religion party. The far-left portion of their party, took particular joy in making fun of religion and religious Americans. They knew they had to do something about this perception or they were going to continue to be rejected by devoutly religious Americans and continue to lose elections. They agonized about this a great deal after the 2004 election and knew they were in serious of trouble

    Therefore, the Democrats made the calculated decision to put Harry Reid in as their leader in the Senate in order to try and counteract this perception that they were anti-religion. It was a purely political move--plain and simple.



  • Convention watcher
    Sept. 3, 2008 9:22 a.m.

    I've only watched a little of the Republican Convention but I watched a lot of the DNC Convention and the thought that kept coming to me last night was that the people at the Republican Convention (in the audience) seemed a lot more like me (common Americans) than those at the DNC Convention. The DNC people just seemed like mean and angry people obsessed with getting political advantage, very passionate about their political party (almost to the point of obsession) but not so much about their country in general.

    I saw some crazy dressed people in the GOP convention audience too, but not the anger at the other party, anger at our country, anger at the direction the governent (and therfore their life) is taking, anger at past/current administrations, etc. I also didn't notice the catch phrases from the speakers that prompted the audience to rise to their feet finish the sentences with the speaker, almost like a pledging of allegiance.

    The fanaticism factor may be more equal than it appears. It's hard to tell from TV (they can pretty much tell whatever story they want)

    Just an observation.

  • DBG
    Sept. 3, 2008 9:19 a.m.

    Bush is "more big government" than any modern president. Look at NCLB, Patriot Act, and the rising deficit just to name a few. This will tear our country apart more than anything else.

  • Johny Fairplay
    Sept. 3, 2008 8:59 a.m.

    At least the Dems don't seem to have a problem putting a Mormon in a leadership position.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 3, 2008 8:48 a.m.

    I don't see how bush "betrayed" what republicans stood for. You love war and you hate taxes.
    Now you have the nerve to complain about deficits, high gas prices, a worthless dollar, and a soiled national reputation.
    Republicans should go back to pretending everything is fine. At least then they were funny.

  • wow
    Sept. 3, 2008 8:37 a.m.

    Reading the blog convinces me that voting Republican is the right thing to do. I am also disapointed with them, but the hate and hypocrisy of the left still remains more intense. Unfortunately there is only two choices: bad or worse.

  • Oh Paul
    Sept. 3, 2008 8:04 a.m.

    Your party never betrayed you, or changed it's values. It's just that you were ignorant enough to vote for them to begin with. You reap what you sow, deserve what you get, etc, etc, etc.
    Get used to the idea of at least 4 years of change.

  • Think....
    Sept. 3, 2008 7:45 a.m.

    I am a conservative LDS woman. My party has totally left me. The democrates have LDS in the higest power they've got. Never a question about his faith has arose. It's never cancelled him out. I don't agree with Ried on much. But the democrates have allowed him to rise up, and his faith was not a factor in keeping him down.

    The GOP? I'm just wondering when the brown shirts will start comming out. So far, so bigoted.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 3, 2008 7:34 a.m.

    Paul will please you remind me what it was "that the Republican party once stood for"? Apparently I'm too young to remember.

  • Government problem/solution
    Sept. 3, 2008 7:29 a.m.

    yes, these generalizations about Democrats blinds people like this writer to see how this nation has become great! If we didn't have government-sponsored education for our populous, we wouldn't have one of the most educated and entrepreneurial workforces in the world to offer us the standard of living that is the envy of the planet. High gas prices are a direct result of GOP secret meetings to shape the Cheney/Bush energy policy around oil and to defeat any wind, solar, and fuel efficiency standards in Detroit. The result? High gas prices and a dying American auto industry. Worse, Bush promoted tax incentives for Americans to buy gas-guzzling SUVs after 9/11 when we all knew our oil dependency was paying for the terrorism against us -- but GOP "stupidity" just made our oil dependency worse! Democrats don't want socialism, but a government that works! GOP showed during Katrina that government can be gutted so much that it can just let its citizens be "on their own" during disasters (part of GOP's "ownership society"). Democrats are just seeking how government can benefit society and solve America's key problems, from energy to healthcare to reducing abortions to creating domestic jobs.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 3, 2008 7:28 a.m.

    If we don't change our ways, and maybe even if we do, those gas prices aren't likely to come down much. It would be stupid not to see the end of cheap oil, and moreso not to start doing something about it.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 3, 2008 6:17 a.m.

    more government, more spending and higher gas prices all sound like the republican part to me, is that not what we have had for the past 8 years. Six of which the republicans held both the congress and the presidency. Stupid is as stupid does.

  • stupid is as stupid does
    Sept. 3, 2008 4:03 a.m.

    Paul, maybe the stupid ones are those who buy into the right-wing talking points. The truth is that democrats don't embrace out of control spending, higher taxes, socialism, high gas prices, or rabid environmentalism.

    Maybe Harry Reid is able to see the truth that you're unwilling to see: People everywhere want the same things, and the political polarization you exhibit is a result of brainwashing.

    If you are obtuse enough to believe those absurd generalizations you spout about your fellow americans, then it appears you are the fool.