He asked about their opinions on the state issues, namely gambling, smoking and minimum wage, and the candidates.
Gambling: " We might as well have it here, since everyone just goes to other states to gamble. They're going to gamble anyway. Might as well get an education." No mention of the monopoly the gambling companies would have, the negative effects on society of gambling, and the fact the Ohio Lottery really hasn't done much for funding Ohio schools.
Minimum wage: "Yeah, I'd like to make more money. And I think the poor people who work for minimum wage should get a raise. They haven't had one in a long time." She obviously had no idea of the real impact of raising the minimum wage: higher consumer prices, inflation, unemployment.
Smoking: "I don't really like to work in smoke. It makes my hair all yucky, so I'd vote for the ban." At least she got one right.
The only thing they knew about the candidates was what they saw on television commercials.
The interesting thing about this discussion: neither of these bimbos was registered to vote, and neither planned to vote. Thank God for small favors.
Reminds me of this photo:
I think you could label the parties based on those comments. Instead of liberals equaling Democrats and conservatives meaning Republican mybe it would be more accurate to identify by ability to understand issues.
ReplyDeleteDemocrats pander to the folks who can't understand details, economics, the Constitution, etc.
Republicans appeal to those who have an understanding of the issues and have read the Constitution.
I think you're on the right track.
ReplyDeleteIn my mind it's more a case of liberals working from 'feelings' and conservatives working from morals and adult thinking.
In other words, if you're a liberal it doesn't matter if you understand the issues, 'cause you can feel good with yourself that you 'helped' someone.
And the latest from the Dummycrat Cut and Run Party:
ReplyDeleteExcerpt from the NY Times:
New York Times
November 13, 2006
Democrats Push for Troop Cuts Within Months
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 — Democratic leaders in the Senate vowed on Sunday to use their new Congressional majority to press for troop reductions in Iraq within a matter of months, stepping up pressure on the administration just as President Bush is to be interviewed by a bipartisan panel examining future strategy for the war.
The Democrats — the incoming majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada; the incoming Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan; and the incoming Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware — said a phased redeployment of troops would be their top priority when the new Congress convenes in January, even before an investigation of the conduct of the war.
“We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months,” Mr. Levin said in an appearance on the ABC News program “This Week.” In a telephone interview later, Mr. Levin added, “The point of this is to signal to the Iraqis that the open-ended commitment is over and that they are going to have to solve their own problems.”
The White House signaled a willingness to listen to the Democrats’ proposals, with Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff, saying in two television appearances that the president was open to “fresh ideas” and a “fresh look.” But Mr. Bolten said he could not envision the White House signing on to a plan setting a timetable for the withdrawal of troops.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/ 1...agewanted=print