Mitt Romney was asked if he believes that Obama is a socialist during the joke-of-a-debate held on Fox News tonight. Naturally, Romney danced around the question and didn't quite answer, but not before speaking ambiguously enough to insinuate that he does.
It seems that too many people have a way misconstrued notion of what it takes to be a socialist. Some uneducated folks interchange the terms "socialist" and democrat, showing that they know little about the facts of the matter. Being a democrat, or a liberal, doesn't mean one is a socialist or communist. In grade school in the United States, children are taught about US government, albeit lightly. In high school, in US government classes, you are taught about different forms of government. Have these people forgotten the basics of governmental education?
What's more, there are basic things you can find online to help educate on the matter. So is Obama a socialist? No. He is a registered democrat, and nowhere near as liberal as some of the farthest of the left would like him to be. The United States already has a socialist and a communist party. These parties actually have open and proudly serving members who run in government elections. President Barack Obama isn't on of them.
The key to voting in a reliable and strong government is to be informed. The general public, as it stands, appears to be far too gullible, and with current candidates wanting to phase out public education, like Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul, it's only going to further inspire misinformation. It appears that Mitt Romney, although a bit wishy-washy, is the best of the potential candidates the conservatives can muster, and he has a long way to go. He could have simply just answered the question that he either doesn't understand the difference between liberalism and socialism, even if it is just one step to the left.
---~~*~~---
©2011 Chelsea Hoffman is the Author of "Chloe and Louis," and the "Fear Chronicles," series of books. She also covers a myriad of true crime stories online. Click here to visit Chelsea Hoffman's official blog and contact website. Be sure to like the page to become a fan!
---~~*~~---
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 77 ( 1 removed by Chelsea Hoffman )
Of course Romney and/or the other GOP wanna-be's are going to try and classify Preseident Obama as a socialist, as that serves to call into question Obama's vision, ideas, positions. When the vast majority thinks of "socialism" they think of Marxist, extreme socialism and that will clearly turn most Americans off.
President Obama is NOT a true "socialist" based on the definition. He is, in fact more of a "nationalist" - seeing that the roll of the federal govenrment should be far reaching and that the majority of government power should be controlled and dictated at the federal as apposed to the state, local level. Also, a "nationalist" believes that government should have over-reaching control of the business sector of society, thinking that government can positively influence and direct a more consistent marketplace overall.
Of course, history shows repeatedly that a "nationalist" approach to both government and business are far too over-reaching and ultimately un-sustainable.
Is President Obama a socialist? - IMO, no, No, NO!!!
Is President Obama a nationalist? - IMO, yes, Yes, YES - without question!!!
Respectfully
You are definitely correct when you say that that approach "to both government and business are far too overreaching and ultimately unsustainable." Unfortunately, Obama does not seem to realize that.
But in America, the term "statist" might be misconstrued by many to think that means giving more power to the individual "States" - which would NOT correctly represent President Obama's philosophy.
Yes I do believe it. I think that is why many are calling President Obama a "socialist" because they see his philosophies as being more "social" then "capital" - thus he must be a "socialist"...not understanding exactly what a "socialist" is or how a "socialist government" would actually run.
Most voters simply listen to a few propaganda "talking points" from NBC, CBS, CNN, NYT, Fox News, etc. and then pull the lever, punch the chad with the (D) or (R) next to candidates name and think that they (the voter) has done his/her civic duty.
To try and introduce "statist" or "nationalist" to the debate would simply be too overwhelming for the majority of the voters. It is easier for each party to simply try and scare what each considers their respective base...for the GOP - it's the older, business, retired American - scaring them about taxes and encroachments on SS and Medicare, etc....for the DEMS - it's the younger, less mature, minority American - scaring them about repeal of Rove vs Wade; LGBT, expansion of defense; global warming, cuts to social entitlements, etc.
Of course, neither party is ready nor willing to address the actual "real" problems with each of the above i.e.: taxes, SS/Medicare, business regulation, social entitlements, defense, etc. and so the political carousel goes round and round.
Respectfully
"...scaring them..." I think that is a far more accurate assessment than any attempt to place most of our current crop, from either party, onto such a one-dimensional spectrum.
"H. L." Mencken more aptly assessed the nature of the American political spectrum with the statement from In Defense of Women (1918), "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Since the only things that vary between the parties are the "hobgoblins," and they are mostly imaginary, that doesn't leave much of a palpable nature to differentiate between them.
America has always been a plutocracy, with the accumulation of extreme wealth by a few justified through their implied benevolent stewardship of the masses. Viewed from this perspective, the range of differences on such a "political spectrum" become virtually meaningless. The most that they can possibly represent are different accumulations of great wealth.
That's not to say that those running for office may not genuinely believe in their positions (though I suspect that many at least pander to some audiences). It's just that the net result of their positions don't actually represent that much practical difference for the common person.
Thanks for the comment.
Mencken is always more eloquent...but I would argue that the "hobgoblins" are NOT imaginary...only the "alarm" is!
The problems with the Natioal Debt, Social Security, Medicare, Federal Pensions, Veterans Beneifts, IRS Statutes, Immagration, Military Spending and Presense, Environmental Concerns, etc are ALL REAL - the desire, will and actual plan of action to address these are what is imaginary on the part of our Government, and so each is simply brought out each election cycle like old-tarnished armour to invigorate the base...only to be pushed again deep into the closets of Washington.
Hope and Change, President Obama's slogan words...along with a "transparent government" - meant to me, that finally we would have a leader who would level with the American people and sit with Congress and trully begin to addressa and atttempt to solve these issues - NO matter how hard. I believe that the majority of Americasn realize that to right-this-ship it's going to be ugly, painful and difficult...but by NOT doing so will only make it that much more ugly, more painful and difficult for us and the future generations.
Unfortunately, I was niave in my belief and/or expectation of Presidnet Obama's abilities as a leader and instead of seeing any degree of "Hope" and "Change"...all I see is more and more "Helplessness", "Fear" and "Dispair" on the part of the American People.
In 2008 I was un-trusting of Hillary Clinton during her run for the Democratic nomination...today I would welcome the chance to work on her Presidential campaign - although I realize that is a fantasy that simply will not be realized and so once again the American People will enter the voting booths in 2012 with the choice of the lessor-of-two-evils. As of this writing, IMO, the lessor will be whomever challenges our current President.
Respectfully
Likewise, thank you for the reply.
I have to agree that at least some of the "hobgoblins" are real, though perhaps not to the extent that the alarmists would have us believe. But those that are real exist, by and large, due to the same influences that express themselves in American political power.
To address your first example, our national debt is certainly real, and servicing it consumes significant wealth. But looking at the sources of debt leads to the same institutionalized centers of wealth that contribute massively to both political parties. America's military-industrial complex is largely untouchable in that regard, as is the pharmaceutical industry, and the banking industry, and the petroleum industry, and the legal industry, and... Consequently, there isn't any impetus from either party to deal with roots of the problem, so the eventual result is always some statistical smoke-and-mirrors "solution." Immigration and environmental destruction are very similar issues.
Social Security, taxation, education, drugs, (now even disaster relief) and the plethora of other things our politicians choose to make war on find themselves so shrouded in double-speak and numerical nonsense that debate becomes meaningless. Fear-mongering then backs each party's rhetoric into extremist corners from which they have no intention of governing. And to add to the confusion, we are fed that continuous diet of soap-opera distractions you mentioned.
After the last Presidential election, I commented to a good friend that I didn't actually believe that anything significant would change, and I suggested three issues that could be re-examined within only a few months; nation-building in Iraq, immigration reform, and national health care. Not surprisingly, Iraqi troop deployments rapidly increased, immigration was formally sidelined, and the President began wavering on significant health care legislation. The money had spoken, and Democrats weren't any more willing than Republicans to bite the hands that feed. To quote the lady trying to sell me a fake Rolex in Bangkok, "Same, Same...but different."
Interesting about Hillary Clinton though. I've come to a similar conclusion from the opposite direction. I'm certainly not a "liberal" in the broad sense, but I almost have to laugh at how things like the word "socialist" have become such rhetorically loaded nonsense.
I just returned from South Korea, where government could hardly be described as having a "liberal" history. Yet South Koreans enjoy universal health care, incredible technology infrastructure, excellent transportation systems, and so on -- all far superior to anything available to Americans, and all the result of "socialized" systems that can be run far more efficiently than our strictly "for-profit" model allows. And, this has been accomplished with significantly lower individual and corporate tax burdens than in the US. Is that "liberal," or "conservative?" ...or maybe just "pragmatic?"
socialist= lower case l= someone who believes that government shall own or control the major means of production in a country.
Socialist=Capital L= A political party named after the theory.
While Obama may not be a Socialist, he is most definitely a socialist.
Winston Smith
Yes....He may be a Democrat but his way of thinking is socialistic..
Nail on the head Winston...
someone who believes that government shall own or control the major means of production in a country.
I tell you if they ever get around to running Bernie Sanders, I'm voting for him.
{Joe Liberman could do a good job and almost everyone likes him.}
I don't !!!
Please remember that the DEMS campaigned agaisnt Joe on his last run for CT Senator and he had to run (and win) as an Idependent. Although Senator Lieberman caucuses with the DEMS, he is now a registered "Independent".
Yes, I think Joe Lieberman is one of the very last good, honest working politicians in Washington...do I think he could win the Presidency and do a good job??? Not sure - he would have to fight with both parties - talk about stonewalling!!!
Respectfully
If you give a man a fish, he will eat but one day...
If you teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime....I think the problem with healthcare is its not afforable... There was a time when companies offered it and put people to work full time.. Then you had the temp. agencies come along, then the companies figured out, why do we have to offer all of these benefits, we can just use temps or part timers and dont have to give them anything... This is when the companies started doing away with the benefits... The people who worked for these companies started getting less and less and now it seems to come around full circle...
I would love to have insurance... My husband works 40 hours aweek and is not offered insurance.. he only gets paid for a couple of holidays... he does get paid vacations... Many companies now dont offer insurance or you have to pay alot more for your part of it...
So , I think there is a problem somewhere, but where for sure does it begin? The insurance company, the place that is employing these people, the government... ?
No, we need to start over again in this country... Lets take a long look at the handouts, who is receiving them, how long have they been getting the benefits... and try this again only it needs to be done in a different way..
I am for helping people but not making it a life style... People need to help themselves. They need to get an education and work... With jobs being as scarce as they are, they may not get a job that they want, but work is work.. As long as they are making a paycheck , its a start and it proves they are indeed, trying to help themselves to a better life... When people work, they feel good about themselves.. and they are also, contributing and paying back into the system plus setting an example for their kids...
Difference is that if we had more preventative care there wouldnt be those people who wait until they are deathly ill to go to a doctor and then it is usually the ER and that costs 5x as much as an office visit.
And this is helping people to help themselves...a significant portion of the people without insurance today are only that way because some pre-existing condition prevents them from being insured.
And please for the love of God don't bring up education as a means to why they cannot get work...education is out there for everyone and it is FREE....you have to apply yourself...
Self pitty and the demand that the Government take care of them, which they are and have been for era's now...
When are people going to realize that they have to do for themselves? This is were Socialism comes into play..Big Government continuing to give hand outs..not grants for education, but hand outs which in return creates more dependency on the Government...it is a viscous circle...
How can one deny this?
Interesting observation. AFAIK, most people aren't receiving government assistance. As Lori pointed out, those who are are eligible for medicaid. Most people who don't have medical insurance work for a living but can't afford it. Well, they decided that eating and living indoors came first.
"How can one deny this? "
By considering the facts of the situation.
What HCR does is make it so those that fall between the cracks like the working people who arent offered healthcare at the jobs or for some reason they cannot get insurance because of some pre-existing condition to be able to get insurance privately.
I dont understand how someone can be firmly against something that you know nothing about.
can not speak for them, but for myself, it is an absolute guarantee that the health insurance industry will be driven from existance, leaving the entire country at the mercy of a universal, single payer plan. there is no other possible outcome, as it stands.
and that is my problem with aca.
is a 'pool' needed for those that truly can not afford insurance? of course.
but aca is not it.
there will still be many that simply pay the fine, rather than pay the higher cost of an insurance premium. then after they have a condition, they will call and get insured. in fact - i can not imagine that there will not be triple or quadruple the number of uninsured, who simply do the same - a 2000 fine, is cheaper than 5000 in premiums. and once you are sick, they cant dent coverage?
there is no way that it will not cause huge increases to the sick that do not have the "luxury" of paying the fine.
we need to have control of the malpractice problem, and eliminate the need for malpractice insurance.
we also have to give some subsidation to those that want insurance, on a needs basis, and a window of opportuinity to sign up, that closes.
if circumstances/needs/ability changes, and a person chooses to not participate on an 'ability to pay' basis within 90 days - whose fault is that?
people have to know there are personal consequences for their action.
i know that sound cold in a way - but give them every opportunity, and base it on ability, if the CHOOSE to opt out - that is their gamble.
And you do have a point about others just not getting insurance however if they are forced much like auto insurance than they will have to be responsible.
solves the whole 'pre-existing' problem, without creating a new, even bigger problem.
i also see a problem with the whole penalty if you dont sign up - it is not at all like auto insurance. many people have no car, or carry a bond for liability - they only legal requirement, is IF you drive, you must have protection for others you may hurt. there is no requirement to protect yourslef. if you have a loan,m the lender will require you protect them, but that is still not protecting you.
the government has no buisiness, and no right, to try to force people to be responsible, or to be smart.
aca goes so far in that direction, and yet does it in a very ineffective way, that will damage most, while benefiting few, and encouraging others (fine vs premium) to be less responsible.
and it will destroy an entire industry in the process.
A large part of the law has to do with payment for health care. There are a variety of provisions in the law that deal directly with health care practices. Some are linked with payment, but only as a carrot.
'payment for'
exactly what i said - insurance - not the health care actually delivered.
the provisions that do address actual treatment, are again seeped in the financial aspect of it - not the quality of care.
the primary motive of the act, is to bankrupt all private health insurance companies, so there will be nothing except a single payer national program......
this law is simply a way to lead into it.
if you look at the factors, the repercussions this will cause, and the tiny profit margins of existing insurers, you will see that.
but i doubt you will look, or go beyond the initial comments, to see the inevitable results.
Although I do believe President Obama is personally more to the left than where he feels he can safely govern and get re-elected. Notice, I only said more to the left, not socialist!
Obama does not like the private sector. He's not a big fan of liberty, freedom, private property and the idea of American exceptional ism.
He believes in wealth redistribution, and the government has power over the people damned what the Constitution may say.
American Exceptionalism is rhetorical fluff. Like Zaphod Beeblebrox was "just some guy," the US is just some country. We happen to be a wealthy country with a reasonably decent system of government. For some reason US leaders have always had to wrap foreign policy in a moral blanket. In spite of the shiny but soft to the touch packaging, our foreign policy has always been pragmatically founded on the national interest as defined by the wealthy, not so different from other developed countries.
{Obama's looking more and more like a moderate Republican in the mold of Jacob Javits or Nelson Rockefeller}
I believe that he has thus far governed somewhat closer to that of Republican Pres. Richard M. Nixson.
But, for the most part, I believe that he has acted in the capacity of a non combatant, conscientious objector, rather than the front line General I would like him to be.
For me, a little more Gen. George S. Patton and alot less Sgt. Alvin York would be more in line for what I would like to see in Pres. Barack Obama.
1. Government does have power over people, but people should be able to control and stop any trend they do not like. Americans seem to have abdicated on this, or just plain be too busy or uninformed to comment.
2. Government is wealth redistribution. Where is it that money has to be the be all end of of everything. The fact is that just because someone is good at making money does not make them a good force in the country, and because they have tons of money should not mean they get to force their will and ideas on other people.
When people get too rich and powerful they threaten the society at large, in America's situation we have two problems, a very weak and unexercized electorate that those in power fear and want to keep powerless, and a group in power that is afraid to live up to the ideals of the country because they are afraid they might have to pay some or even a lot of taxes. Tough tiddlywinks.
He dodges a lot of stuff by blaming it on Republicans or external forces, but there is little indication that for example he really is for single payer as he said when he was campaigning. He never even had any discussions on it. By the way being for single-payer, at least intellectually, is not anywhere near as capitalistic as they come, it is pramatic, and I see glimpse of that in Obama, though he is damn poor at explaining it to the American people, or working with it.
For example the opposite was George W. Bush who wanted to change Social Security to private accounts ... right before the second biggest dump of Wall St. in history. Republicans just do not care, they want to drive all working people into a state of more stress and desperation because over a whole country and long period that time that works out to more money and less threats to them.
The Republican party is no longer a party that is constructive in the US, it is inimical to the country. If the Republican party is allowed to survive it will keep getting up again and again like a corpse in a zombie movie and trying to eat the heart out of America.
socialism is first an economic strategy, that can become a political structure, using the economy as a starting point.
what is a socialist economy?
it owns significant portions of the economy, or controls them in some way, to direct the operating policies of those companies. it enslaves its people to progrmas that are difficult to break free of, paid for by wealth re-distribution.
has omaba does this?
yes, over and over again, and is in process of doing more.
anyone that thinks the aca is about health care, needs to re-examine. it is about health insurance, not care. and it will certainly drive all private health insurance providers out of business. there is no possible conclusion oither than that, and as he said, the aca is a 'stepping stone' towards single payer, nationalised health care.
add that to the control exerted over the auto industry, and the banking industry - telling many of the larger ones what they can and can not pay, and who they must fire.
then add the higher and higher unemployment, and a push to sign more people on welfare, instead of helping them to get out of the system.
throw in trying to force a high speed rail system, whether the states want it or not, can afford it or not, and can use it ir not.
then the powers influencing the education system, sole control over student loans, and giving epa the ability to destroy utility companies, along with every business that must have utilities.
pretty muich looks like a fast forward agenda towards a socialistic economy.
only difference with bush, is he was doing it at a slower pace.
Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the workers. Most socialists over the years have believed in a democratic system of government.
One thing about socialism. It's never been put into practice. Accusing Obama of being a socialist is a waste of time and may be a symptom of a severe disconnect with reality.
You mean talking about socialism? That's pretty much what they've done. Socialism is an abstract concept and has never been implemented in any community larger than a small town.
the only real difference in the tyoes of socialist you mention, is who has the control.
control is what it is about.
Debating who or what institution, or societal groups wield coop[erative ownership is moot - it is still the elite holding power, and everyone else is screwed.
as to a 'corporate socialist' system - we are all still allowed to compete against any company out there - they do not control who, or how, another entity (or person) enters the market.
yes some may 'define' our system that way - but some would define communism as nirvanna - that does not make it true.
end of (this) discussion.
back to the topic ;)
She could have chosen to report on the man who blew his nose and nothing happened, but being the intelligent person that she is, she chose instead to write an article on Pres. Obama being a Socialist.
Walla, 200 responses !!!
I would say it's considerably more "uneducated" to assume that just because someone goes by the party label "democrat" that necessarily precludes them from being a socialist.
A socialist is one who believes that the state is legitimately all-powerful and that collective coercion trumps individual rights; regardless of whatever label they may cloak their beliefs with.
The fact that this definition aptly describes the vast majority of today's political class isn't a proof that it's a flawed definition; it's just a proof of how bad of a political shape this country is really in.
In high school, in US government classes, you are taught about different forms of government. Have these people forgotten the basics of governmental education?
lmao. Of course our government isn't arbitrary and totalitarian! Why, didn't you learn that in the government-controlled educational system?!
The United States already has a socialist and a communist party. These parties actually have open and proudly serving members who run in government elections. President Barack Obama isn't on of them
Sure. But in lieu of having one of their own "open and proudly serving members" in the White House, they'll gladly endorse Obama and the Democratic Party in general.
The general public, as it stands, appears to be far too gullible
Tell me about it. I've been saying the same thing around here for years. Just consider how many people out there are completely bought into the contrived, foisted paradigm that the U.S. is a society of "free market capitalism," and that the federal government is hard at work trying to establish "liberty and justice for all."
with current candidates wanting to phase out public education, like Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul, it's only going to further inspire misinformation.
Wow. You should consider re-naming this artilce "How Many Fallacious Memes Can I Fit Into Four Paragraphs?"
I might ask; what was it that inspired the misinformation you are currently re-inspiring for others? I can say with absolute certainty that Ron Paul is not trying to "phase out public education," and I suspect the same is true for Bachmann.
Part of Paul's platform is to abolish the federal Department of Education; but there's a bit of a difference between believing that education (like the vast majority of issues of social policy) is best handled on as local a level as possible, and wanting to phase out public education altogether. One-size-fits-all curricula and mandated educational standards imposed on an entire society from an ivory tower in one small city is a good recipe for turning out a severely underskilled, undereducated, functionally and practically illiterate generation of teens and young adults, as just three decades of experience is now teaching us -- just consider the off-a-cliff drop in literacy, skills and general education of each successive generation of Americans since the federal Dept. of Education began dumbing down our society in 1980.
And even if it were Paul's or Bachmann's position that education should not be a government-monopoly and compulsory, then personally, I would say more power to 'em for it.
But then again, I'm not one whose prey to the popular statist fallacy, that objecting to something being done by state coercion is tantamount to objecting to that thing being done at all.
As the great Frederic Bastiat said in response to the socialists of his day: "They might as well accuse us of wishing men not to eat, because we object to the cultivation of corn by the state."
and your avatar says it all ; )
BULLSH*T
All states, all forms of states believe they are all powerful, they have to in order to survive. I am so annoyed by the constant pretensions to authority that this person constantly makes bandying about phrases that are not even considered or though about.
Collective coercision ... by this I guess you mean the vote. What an ass.
And trust me, I'm just as much annoyed by your reflexive deference to power, and by the fact that you assume your inability to consider or even think critically about something I write implies that what I write wasn't considered or thought about.
Collective coercision ... by this I guess you mean the vote.
By that I mean the law. Law is force. Everything that government does, is does under the implied threat of force; lest anyone be recalcitrant enough not to submit to their terms. The fact that a government is appointed by popular vote, does not change the essential character of the institution itself.
When you go to the voting booth, it is because you have definite ideas about how you think the collective force of the law should be used against the rest of society, and you want to select some agent who you believe is most likely to wield that force in the manner that you find most appealing. You might think that everyone should be required to pick up the tab for your healthcare costs, or maybe you think that people making above a certain income should be exproporiated for the benefit of people making less, or maybe you just want to have people in some other country murdered and believe that some candidate promises to have that done.
Whatever the case, the fact remains that as long as the generally-accepted purpose of government power goes anywhere beyond the simple maintenance of equal justice, then the voting booth just becomes the grounds of a contest whereby certain interested groups battle each other for control of the means to subjugate and plunder one another.
"Freedom" is not some point that sits between "left" and "right." That particular depiction is suggestive of the false notion that our only choices are between "left-wing" collectivism and "right-wing" collectivism (or trying to find some optimal "balance" between them); a notion which the established political class is happy to have us buy into, since no matter which "side " we choose, we are still choosing what they want: collectivism. (I'm reminded of a witty line I read once, I dan't remember where: "'bipartisanship" is when the stupid party collaberates with the evil party to do something that is both stupid and evil.")
The real dichotomy, representing our real choice, is not between left and right wing collectivism, but between collectivism and individualism.
"Communism" and "fascism" are just two different variations of the same root ideology of collectivism; which asserts that the rights of the individual are subservient to the whims of the state. Whether the "common good" justification for the squashing of individual rights is welfare statism, or if it is warfare statism, doesn't matter. The differences between the two are superficial only; their similarities are at the heart of the matter.
The other end of the spectrum is the real point representing "freedom," and that is individualism, which holds that the only just and legitimate scope and purpose of the law (and thus government" is the defense of the intrinsic rights of person and property of each individual, equally.
And obviously irony escapes you. (i.e. the image)
You think this is the first time I've had somebody who can't muster an argument against me try to save face by saying "you talk too much"?
obviously irony escapes you. (i.e. the image)
Nope, not at all. I'm well aware of the irony here; that someone who's worldview is so confounded that they aren't able to recognize the fact that government operates by coercion and threats, is suggesting that it's ironic that I should recognize that.
Things certainly aren't going to change for the better until a critical mass is able to rid themselves of some of the tacit assumptions of collectivism that we are conditioned to accept as unqualified truth from early childhood on. People have to start thinking critically and independently, break through the indoctrination.
All I can do is refute fallacies and sophistry as I come across it. It's up to others whether they will recognize and accept sound logic when it is placed in front of them, and adjust their worldview accordingly, or if they'll choose to continue clinging to discredited memes. The latter doesn't surprise me. The human mind's capacity for cognitive dissonance and rationalizing preconceived emotional biases when confronted with contradictory facts has long been scientifically acknowledged and documented. Adherence to rigid ideology and illogical partisan loyalty, even in the face of solid refutation, is something people are apparently uniquely adapted to.
In what twisted universe do you live in, sir, that Lindsey Lohan's career troubles could conceivably outweigh the importance of Kim Kardashian's love life?
How can we just carry on with our lives pretending nothing is amiss, until we get the scoop on why she stopped wearing her engagement ring?
What is wrong with you, man?