Deceive the Ignorant

[ClayBarham]

Democrats seem to believe a candidate must appeal to the least informed, most ignorant person in the community, in order to be elected. For example, Senator Barack Obama made a negative comment about the Blackwater Security force in Iraq hired to defend non-military Americans there. He implied American taxpayers are ripped off because one Blackwater Security agent costs nine times more than one American soldier. That causes the uninformed to believe Bush and the Republicans are stealing our money again, along with sanctioning the murder of innocent Iraqis.

The facts say it takes 6 to 12 soldiers to back up one soldier on the front lines, the one doing the shooting. That turns a nine times cost for the private security force to parity or a major cost-savings. When you take your car to the shop for work on it, you may pay $75 an hour shop time. A third of it pays for direct labor, while the rest pays for shop, tools and support staff. If the Blackwater Security person and the soldier are both the front of their organization, the point of the pyramid, with supporting personnel sliding down to the wider bottom, there are fewer in the Blackwater pyramid than the military pyramid. One looking at that would have to ask, “Why don’t we use more private forces?” It took 300 privately hired mercenaries from South Africa, near Nigeria, to beat back 10,000 rebel forces seeking to overthrow the government. They were so effective in every respect the United Nations had to insist they be fired, the result being the rebels rose up to kill again.

Now, I do not wish to imply Barack Obama is ignorant. I do mean to say he believes his constituents are ignorant, as he uses his nine times cost criticism to gain attention and admiration from them. Why do Democrats aim their words at those who do the least thinking? Do they believe that most Americans who vote are without a clue and need their persuasion to set them straight? Are they telling their constituents that they need never think just as long as they feel good about what the candidate says?

It is discouraging to me that so many people fail to educate themselves on what is going on around them, or depend on opinions heaped on them by one-sided believers. Their world and future are at stake if candidates are lying to convince. They should start out at the roots of what they and their opponents believe. They should tell everyone their ideas on how people should live. This is why we have different political viewpoints. If you put all the political ideas, viewpoints and situations in a pot, add some water, and then boil it for a day; you would boil away all the minor points and end up with only two major sides. There are only two sides to the political coin.

One side believes most people are dumb and incapable and need a few elite to tell them how to live and work. The other side believes everyone is entitled to live their lives free of elite control as long as they do not hurt anyone else. With those two sides clearly demonstrated, voters would have a choice they could easily see and understand. They could pick this side or that. Democrats generally pick the side where the few elites rule the rest of us for our own good. They believe we are uninformed or too stupid to rule our own lives and families and survive. Democrats believe someone like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is superior and better able to tell us what to do.

On the other side, the second option, we have those who support individual freedom. They believe we are capable of caring for our families and communities on our own. They believe, as was proven in America, prosperity comes from freedom and prosperous people provide prosperity for families and communities. They believe in free markets, people creating, inventing, building and trading the products they make and need with each other without elite arbiters meddling.

Those believing a few elite are necessary to rule the many, are afraid the many will not accept their rule, which accounts for their need to deceive and lie. Those who are angered by, and envy the happy and successful people in America, are where the elite get their supporters. I can also see those who assist the elite to power do so in hopes of cashing in without having to work hard. In short, those who want the elite few to rule the many are not the kind of people who, left on their own, would ever build a great nation like America. I guess the deception continues until it has produced its promised benevolent tyranny.

[Scorpion]

The facts say it takes 6 to 12 soldiers to back up one soldier on the front lines, the one doing the shooting. That turns a nine times cost for the private security force to parity or a major cost-savings.


I'd appreciate a link to information supporting your assertion bearing in mind how many support personnel "back up" each Blackwater operative.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Best thread title ever.

[Jaaaman]

It took 300 privately hired mercenaries from South Africa, near Nigeria, to beat back 10,000 rebel forces seeking to overthrow the government.
Nigeria is nowhere near South Africa... As a matter of fact, they are in two completely different hemisheres... :lmao:

It is discouraging to me that so many people fail to educate themselves on what is going on around them, or depend on opinions heaped on them by one-sided believers.

You need to educate yourself in geography.

ECW, you were absolutely correct about this fellow... :sadly:

[JohnnyAwake]

It took 300 privately hired mercenaries from South Africa, near Nigeria, to beat back 10,000 rebel forces seeking to overthrow the government.
Nigeria is nowhere near South Africa... As a matter of fact, they are in two completely different hemisheres... :lmao:

It is discouraging to me that so many people fail to educate themselves on what is going on around them, or depend on opinions heaped on them by one-sided believers.

You need to educate yourself in geography.

ECW, you were absolutely correct about this fellow... :sadly:


Well he got you there Clay. Of coarse I'm talking to a brick wall. You see Clay just writes the threads he doesn't actually stick around and respond to them.
(And I'm the new guy!)

[Labrocca]

Another well-written political analysis Clay. I will move it to editorials.

I think Obama probably believes the same lies the rest of the liberals believe. I think the party is past any intention of lying and has just come to believe them. The same holds true for the right.

Blackwater is quickly becoming a political issue and I guarantee one that will continue to grow for the election cycle. Stuff like this is simply smoke and mirrors.

[Red Dragon]

Democrats seem to believe a candidate must appeal to the least informed, most ignorant person in the community, in order to be elected. For example, Senator Barack Obama made a negative comment about the Blackwater Security force in Iraq hired to defend non-military Americans there. He implied American taxpayers are ripped off because one Blackwater Security agent costs nine times more than one American soldier. That causes the uninformed to believe Bush and the Republicans are stealing our money again, along with sanctioning the murder of innocent Iraqis.

The facts say it takes 6 to 12 soldiers to back up one soldier on the front lines, the one doing the shooting. That turns a nine times cost for the private security force to parity or a major cost-savings. When you take your car to the shop for work on it, you may pay $75 an hour shop time. A third of it pays for direct labor, while the rest pays for shop, tools and support staff. If the Blackwater Security person and the soldier are both the front of their organization, the point of the pyramid, with supporting personnel sliding down to the wider bottom, there are fewer in the Blackwater pyramid than the military pyramid. One looking at that would have to ask, “Why don’t we use more private forces?”
What we should be asking is why don't we only use private forces instead of the public monoply that is the united states military.


It took 300 privately hired mercenaries from South Africa, near Nigeria, to beat back 10,000 rebel forces seeking to overthrow the government. They were so effective in every respect the United Nations had to insist they be fired, the result being the rebels rose up to kill again. You mean west Africa and can you tell me when this was because my knowledge of Nigerian politics is limited, though if I were to take a guess it would have to be ever in the Nigerian civil war or the rule of the second republic.


Now, I do not wish to imply Barack Obama is ignorant. I do mean to say he believes his constituents are ignorant, as he uses his nine times cost criticism to gain attention and admiration from them. The same reasons republicnas appeal to the ingnorant, because it's to get their votes.

Why do Democrats aim their words at those who do the least thinking? Do they believe that most Americans who vote are without a clue and need their persuasion to set them straight? Are they telling their constituents that they need never think just as long as they feel good about what the candidate says?

It is discouraging to me that so many people fail to educate themselves on what is going on around them, or depend on opinions heaped on them by one-sided believers. Their world and future are at stake if candidates are lying to convince. They should start out at the roots of what they and their opponents believe. They should tell everyone their ideas on how people should live. This is why we have different political viewpoints. If you put all the political ideas, viewpoints and situations in a pot, add some water, and then boil it for a day; you would boil away all the minor points and end up with only two major sides. There are only two sides to the political coin.

One side believes most people are dumb and incapable and need a few elite to tell them how to live and work. Yes these go under a wide variety of names republicans, democrats, socalists, populists, the list goes on.

The other side believes everyone is entitled to live their lives free of elite control as long as they do not hurt anyone else. There is an anarchist party in America,where have I been?

With those two sides clearly demonstrated, voters would have a choice they could easily see and understand. They could pick this side or that. Democrats generally pick the side where the few elites rule the rest of us for our own good. So republicans are anti-goverment, when did this happen? They believe we are uninformed or too stupid to rule our own lives and families and survive. Democrats believe someone like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is superior and better able to tell us what to do. Clay that's what all polticans think, they just disagree on where we're too stupid to run our lives.


On the other side, the second option, we have those who support individual freedom. They believe we are capable of caring for our families and communities on our own. except of course when it comes to marrying the sam sex, doing drugs, and who we can work.

They believe, as was proven in America, prosperity comes from freedom and prosperous people provide prosperity for families and communities. They believe in free markets, people creating, inventing, building and trading the products they make and need with each other without elite arbiters meddling. except of course when the products ar morally questionable, the products are illegal substances, or the workers crossed a immganiary line with the approval of the elite arbiters.


Those believing a few elite are necessary to rule the many, are afraid the many will not accept their rule, which accounts for their need to deceive and lie. Those who are angered by, and envy the happy and successful people in America, are where the elite get their supporters. I can also see those who assist the elite to power do so in hopes of cashing in without having to work hard. In short, those who want the elite few to rule the many are not the kind of people who, left on their own, would ever build a great nation like America. I guess the deception continues until it has produced its promised benevolent tyranny.

Why should the many rule the few, why should any one rule anyone for that matter how can you calim to be free yet still live under the power of a word that comes from the word (govern) which means to control?

[ECW]

Democrats seem to believe a candidate must appeal to the least informed, most ignorant person in the community, in order to be elected.

Starting out an op-ed with an incorrect stereotype is never a good sign. If any candidate has to appeal to the least informed and most ignorant persons to get elected, is this why George Bush ran a fear-based campaign in 2004? There sure wasn't a lot of substance.

For example, Senator Barack Obama made a negative comment about the Blackwater Security force in Iraq hired to defend non-military Americans there. He implied American taxpayers are ripped off because one Blackwater Security agent costs nine times more than one American soldier. That causes the uninformed to believe Bush and the Republicans are stealing our money again, along with sanctioning the murder of innocent Iraqis.

It leads the informed to believe the same thing.

The facts say it takes 6 to 12 soldiers to back up one soldier on the front lines, the one doing the shooting. That turns a nine times cost for the private security force to parity or a major cost-savings.

Not quite because Blackwater has back-ups as well and they also cost nine times as much. No cost saving. In fact, it's a blatent rip-off.

When you take your car to the shop for work on it, you may pay $75 an hour shop time. A third of it pays for direct labor, while the rest pays for shop, tools and support staff. If the Blackwater Security person and the soldier are both the front of their organization, the point of the pyramid, with supporting personnel sliding down to the wider bottom, there are fewer in the Blackwater pyramid than the military pyramid. One looking at that would have to ask, “Why don’t we use more private forces?”

Because the United States is not in the business of hiring mercenaries to conduct it's foreign policy. Our military is the best-trained in the world. There is no oversight for private military contractors which is why they are in a world of sh*t right now over the incident where numerous people were shot without provocation which led to Blackwater being banned by the Iraqis. No oversight and crony capitalism make bad bed fellows and even worse foreign policy.

It took 300 privately hired mercenaries from South Africa, near Nigeria, to beat back 10,000 rebel forces seeking to overthrow the government. They were so effective in every respect the United Nations had to insist they be fired, the result being the rebels rose up to kill again.

If there was a link or a footnote with this statement, I sure missed it. Asserting facts without citations or links makes them mere opinions and not worthy of consideration but then it's not like you've never been told that before. With proof comes knowledge.

Now, I do not wish to imply Barack Obama is ignorant. I do mean to say he believes his constituents are ignorant, as he uses his nine times cost criticism to gain attention and admiration from them.

It's exactly what you are doing and it's what you do with every post you make. You slam the left then stand back and claim, "I'm not slamming the left but..." That routine gets old and everyone (almost) has caught on.

Why do Democrats aim their words at those who do the least thinking? Do they believe that most Americans who vote are without a clue and need their persuasion to set them straight? Are they telling their constituents that they need never think just as long as they feel good about what the candidate says?

Why do you speak in stereotypes? Are you afraid that your own rhetoric cannot withstand the criticism of a Liberal who might challenge what you say? I trust you to tell me what a Democrat thinks or believes like I trust Chesswarsnow to post using sentences in a paragraph.

It is discouraging to me that so many people fail to educate themselves on what is going on around them, or depend on opinions heaped on them by one-sided believers.

Oh, God. The pot calling the kettle black.

Their world and future are at stake if candidates are lying to convince.

A better summary of the political life of George Bush was never uttered. You finally got something right, albeit inadvertently.

They should start out at the roots of what they and their opponents believe. They should tell everyone their ideas on how people should live. This is why we have different political viewpoints.

We have different viewpoints because people have different values and ideas on how we should live. Attempting to cluster all the American viewpoints out there into little convenient boxes for identification is disingenuous at best. Last time I checked, the candidates are out there right now telling us what they believe and what their plans are for America. None of them fit the bizarre version that you have stated here. None of them.

If you put all the political ideas, viewpoints and situations in a pot, add some water, and then boil it for a day; you would boil away all the minor points and end up with only two major sides. There are only two sides to the political coin.

Your analogy falls apart because of your simplistic duality concepts. Claiming there are only two sides to the political coin ignores Libertarians, Prohibitionists, States Rights people, monarchists, theocrats, anarchists, and my two favorites: Marxists and Socialists. Those minor points that you so casually would "boil" away represent a large chunk of America who does not believe the two party system offers them anything worthwhile. They look for an alternative to that. If you actually look at a coin, it has two sides AND an edge, which is more than two sides. Nice to know you are starting on another streak of getting things completely wrong.

One side believes most people are dumb and incapable and need a few elite to tell them how to live and work.

This sounds like a monarchist view point.

The other side believes everyone is entitled to live their lives free of elite control as long as they do not hurt anyone else.

This sounds like an anarchist view point. Are you trying to tell me that the two sides of the political coin are Monarchists and Anarchists? Holy sh*t! You learn something new everyday.

With those two sides clearly demonstrated, voters would have a choice they could easily see and understand. They could pick this side or that.

And they do. But not the two sides you have illustrated. I'm telling you that for a couple of sawbucks you could pick up a used civics textbook and surprise the hell out of us the next time you posted (if you actually read the thing first).

Democrats generally pick the side where the few elites rule the rest of us for our own good. They believe we are uninformed or too stupid to rule our own lives and families and survive. Democrats believe someone like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is superior and better able to tell us what to do.

Exactly who are the Democratic elites? Do you have names? If they are so readily apparent that you can pick them out, please enlighten the rest of us who these elites are. Tell us how they manage to control millions and millions of people who allegedly have free will and how they've managed to get away with it for two centuries now.

On the other side, the second option, we have those who support individual freedom. They believe we are capable of caring for our families and communities on our own.

I did not know that Republicans, the party of crony capitalism, privatized everything, and tax cuts for the rich, didn't care enough for our families and communities to lend us a hand when we needed it and, instead, left us to our own devices. Geez!

They believe, as was proven in America, prosperity comes from freedom and prosperous people provide prosperity for families and communities. They believe in free markets, people creating, inventing, building and trading the products they make and need with each other without elite arbiters meddling.

Funny, last time I looked, that was capitalism in America, a concept embraced by both Democrats and Republicans.

Those believing a few elite are necessary to rule the many, are afraid the many will not accept their rule, which accounts for their need to deceive and lie.

Liars are looking to get ahead of the rest of us by unlawful or underhanded means. They are not interested in ruling anyone, just taking advantage of everyone. See Jack Abramoff for further details.

Those who are angered by, and envy the happy and successful people in America, are where the elite get their supporters. I can also see those who assist the elite to power do so in hopes of cashing in without having to work hard.

Now you are talking about Republicans. Finally.

In short, those who want the elite few to rule the many are not the kind of people who, left on their own, would ever build a great nation like America. I guess the deception continues until it has produced its promised benevolent tyranny.

Welcome to the Benevolent Tyranny with your hosts, George Walker Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney. Have a seat.

Another well-written political analysis Clay.

You really think so? It's full of stereotypes, incomplete analogies, misstated history and flawed analysis based on all the bogus stuff he brought up.

ECW, you were absolutely correct about this fellow...

Yeah, I know. Sad, isn't it? Geography isn't his strong suit and neither is political analysis.

[Pogo]

Exactly who are the Democratic elites? Do you have names? If they are so readily apparent that you can pick them out, please enlighten the rest of us who these elites are. Tell us how they manage to control millions and millions of people who allegedly have free will and how they've managed to get away with it for two centuries now.

That's pretty simple: they do it with the help of the Republicans.

The Dems and Repubs are two gangs of whores who prostitute themselves to the highest bidders, the electorate be damned.

Oligarchy in a cheap skirt, foisted off as democracy.

[ECW]

Exactly who are the Democratic elites? Do you have names? If they are so readily apparent that you can pick them out, please enlighten the rest of us who these elites are. Tell us how they manage to control millions and millions of people who allegedly have free will and how they've managed to get away with it for two centuries now.

That's pretty simple: they do it with the help of the Republicans.

The Dems and Repubs are two gangs of whores who prostitute themselves to the highest bidders, the electorate be damned.

Oligarchy in a cheap skirt, foisted off as democracy.


What? How dare you associate Democrats with Republicans! I mean, I've never heard of such a preposterous idea in my entire life! The effrontery! If you weren't a cartoon character I'd... I'd...well I don't know what I'd do but it's not going to be good. Trust me on that. Maybe I'll take an eraser to your cartoon self! :lmao:

[Pogo]

Exactly who are the Democratic elites? Do you have names? If they are so readily apparent that you can pick them out, please enlighten the rest of us who these elites are. Tell us how they manage to control millions and millions of people who allegedly have free will and how they've managed to get away with it for two centuries now.

That's pretty simple: they do it with the help of the Republicans.

The Dems and Repubs are two gangs of whores who prostitute themselves to the highest bidders, the electorate be damned.

Oligarchy in a cheap skirt, foisted off as democracy.


What? How dare you associate Democrats with Republicans! I mean, I've never heard of such a preposterous idea in my entire life! The effrontery! If you weren't a cartoon character I'd... I'd...well I don't know what I'd do but it's not going to be good. Trust me on that. Maybe I'll take an eraser to your cartoon self! :lmao:


Give me a little time and I'll make an anarchist out of you -- a damned good one! :evil:

[Labrocca]

You really think so? It's full of stereotypes, incomplete analogies, misstated history and flawed analysis based on all the bogus stuff he brought up.

Isn't that most Op-Eds. I didn't say it's accurate, complete, or without flaw. It's just well-written. Often people just post other news stories and make a brief comment on that. It's nice to see a member take the time to create a full post like Clay does. Obviously it's recieved some great replies.

What? How dare you associate Democrats with Republicans! I mean, I've never heard of such a preposterous idea in my entire life! The effrontery!

I am not a cartoon character and I agree with his opinion. The 2 parties are more alike than not.

[ECW]

Well, they are nothing alike if you have been reading what Clay posts. There are points of common ground but differences in how to reach those goals. Clay would have you believing otherwise.

I seem to recall Lyndon LaRouche had the capablitity for verbosity as well but I wouldn't give him the time of day either. "Well written posts" include an element of truth and verifiable information in them. What Clay writes is nothing more than neocon fantasy. Sorry. I'm not into fairy tales.

[lily]

Isn't that most Op-Eds. I didn't say it's accurate, complete, or without flaw. It's just well-written. Often people just post other news stories and make a brief comment on that. It's nice to see a member take the time to create a full post like Clay does. Obviously it's recieved some great replies.

Oh.......I'll agree they are well written and Clay likes to tell us how educated he is..........that's why when he writes something that's so obviously wrong, like South Africa/Nigeria or almost anything historical, it makes me wonder if it's a "Where's Waldo" moment. Can you find the flaws in my writing?

[Buck Laser]

Well, they are nothing alike if you have been reading what Clay posts. There are points of common ground but differences in how to reach those goals. Clay would have you believing otherwise.

I seem to recall Lyndon LaRouche had the capablitity for verbosity as well but I wouldn't give him the time of day either. "Well written posts" include an element of truth and verifiable information in them. What Clay writes is nothing more than neocon fantasy. Sorry. I'm not into fairy tales.

ECW, Clay's stuff is fantasy, but I don't know about the neocon part of it. Nor am I really sure it's well written. He has a habit of making a post, then making outrageous claims against any who'd dare to disagree with him. I've never seen him engage in any kind of dialogue: it's a matter of accepting his constructions or (in his view) attacking him brutally. I'm pretty sure any real neoconn could eat his lunch and steal his clothes with impunity.

He might be some sort of LaRouchie, though. They do have an amazing ability to construct amazing statements from the most insane premises one can possibly imagine. Clay depends on premises that simply do not stand up to historical scrutiny--e.g., the Puritans provided the main impetus in developing the American character--and weaves some kind of world view out of that. So I see him as practicing a pretty devious form of deceit himself.

[Scorpion]

It took 300 privately hired mercenaries from South Africa, near Nigeria, to beat back 10,000 rebel forces seeking to overthrow the government.
Nigeria is nowhere near South Africa... As a matter of fact, they are in two completely different hemisheres... :lmao:

It is discouraging to me that so many people fail to educate themselves on what is going on around them, or depend on opinions heaped on them by one-sided believers.

You need to educate yourself in geography.

ECW, you were absolutely correct about this fellow... :sadly:


Hi Jaaaman:

Nigeria is in western Africa, about 3.5 hours by air from South Africa.

http://www.africaclinicaltrials.org/images/actp.img.map.africa.blue.jpg