A properly-trained dog doesn’t even know he’s been trained.
Class envy and stirring up hatred against “the wealthy?” I think the Left has a pretty good resume on that, as some tens of millions of victims of communism could attest (if they weren’t dead).
Dropping the “Left=Communism!!” bomb to sidetrack the conversation, I see. More of a BBQ Pit tactic, but whatever.
Not true. These particular stupid drug laws (and I agree that at least the laws relating to pot are stoopid) have been around for 30 years and yet the violence is fairly recent. I would say that the blame may lie with our stupid gun laws (or lack thereof) except those have een around since about 1776. I think the blame lies on the Mexico side. For some reason, violent drug smugglers have come in and replaced sneaky drug smugglers. Someone suggested recently thatg it might e the growing pains of a more vibrant democracy in mexico.
Are you seriously trying to argue that the Democratic party TODAY is more racist than the Republican party TODAY? THe Democratic party? You do know we have a black president and he has a (D) next to his name right?
Perhaps you are saying that neither party is racist and ceratinly neither party yells racial epitaphs anymore but the Republican party is still where racists find their political home these days.
You won’t get an answer. An e-mailed (or Fox-broadcast) list of talking points is all he’s got. Pity.
Well, I think that aside from the abortion issue, hispanic voters would be voting Democrat in roughly the same proportion as blacks. I look at national hispanic candidates and I just don’t see too many Hispanic Republicans outside of Florida. My point is that nearly a third of Hispanic voters are effectively single issue voters. I think that Democrats spent too much political capital catering to abortionists and are now paying a political price for it (just like Republicans spent too much political capital catering to segregationists and are paying a price). On the other hand, we have effectgively gotten rid of all the whacko religious nutjobs and held on to the plain old religious nutjobs (and I say taht as a proud religious nutjob).
Did you miss the aprt where the pot elected a black president?
:dubious: If by “catering to abortionists” you mean “supporting women’s reproductive rights”, then speaking as a Democrat, I think we’ve made the right decision.
And I think that as time goes by, more and more black and Hispanic voters will agree with it. Latin America, after all, has the second highest abortion rate of all regions in the world, even though abortions are illegal throughout most of it.
The problem is that too many of them are in fact racist. It is racist to try to deny citizenship to babies born in the US when Americans do it just like it is racist for Israel to deny Israeli citizenship to Palestinian babies born in Israel (even if one of the parents is an Israeli). Its not Democratic Arizona legilstors propsing these kinds of laws.
And there are a lot of Asians that think affirmative action is unfair now that its working against them but probably didn’t mind so much when it opened the doors of the Ivy league to them. I’m not accusing all these latinos of selfish motives, just a change in perspective. They think they are one of “US” and not one of “THEM” anymore. It doesn’t help that recent illegal aliens have been bringing so much vipolence with them.
Magiver, I’m writing this post with the hopes you’re still reading, and for reasons of your own are not responding to my question. I’d like you to consider the following:
For just a moment, let’s leave alone whether or not you heard the dog whistle, for the purposes of this post only let’s assume it happened. Which is better for moving the debate forward? Acknowledging it happened and marginalizing that position. Pretending it didn’t happen, thus implying I’m lying or somehow oversensitive.
Now, lay that to side a moment and go back to assuming the statement was made. Again just for the purposes of this single posting; imagine it was a campaign ad. Now, think about any particular ad that annoyed you this past primary season. How many times did you hear it? More importantly, did anyone insist to you that the ad does not exist?
Last one, now again assuming for the purposes of this post only, again taking it as a given that the dog whistle happened. That post was one of 125 post made to this thread at the time. Now again assume there was just one ad like it for every election, how many such ads do you think I would have heard in since 1986 (the first year I voted).
Now go back and re-read my first two posts to you. I ask you again, are you trying to win a debate, or are you trying to understand?
There are a few terms, the use of which really bother me. Grandfathering is one of them (it has escaped its racist origins) and Redneck is the other (it has lost the meaning given to it by the blood of exploited miners who stood up to corporate security guard that beat them when they tried to unionize), but taht’s neither here nor there.
Well the prolem is that the Republicans have backed themselves into a corner. They have cobbled together a winning coalition but it requires them to sell their souls to corporate interests even more tahn the Democrats have and it requires them to pander to at least wink and nod to the racists. I have no doubt that if they could win elections witjhout the racist vote, they would drop them in a second but they can’t so they don’t.
I have not studied the statistics about how much crime is caused by illegal aliens, so I won’t speak to that, but as for why there are minority members who are against illegal immigration or agree with Arizona’s laws, or whatever, is because they played by the rules to become citizens or resident aliens, or what-have-you, and they don’t appreciate others sneaking in here breaking the law in order to live here.
So does the fact that Trent Lott and Strom Thrumond never apologized make them less racist?
I totally agree but that doesn’t make those accusations untrue. Its a bit like having an argument with a fat person and then saying" Oh yeah, well you’re fat" when you can’t figure out what else to say. Its not a legitimate form of debate but its not untrue either.
You mean nominating Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court didn’t win them any points?
Here is yet another myth that involves rock throwing from the glass house crowd. Obama was the largest recipient of money from BP in 2008.
There are two ends to that spectrum, but you knew that. BTW, do you think the Democratic party is advocating a communist revolution?
No, by catering to abortionists I meant supporting partial birth abortions and abortion on demand generally. If we had a more balanced approach to begin with instead of being forced into the more balanced position we have today perhaps we wouldn’t have pushed religious moderates into the arms of the religious right.
I have no problem with first trimester abortions and i think sex education is critical to reducing the number of abortions among teenagers (well pregnancy generally among teenagers whether the baby is aborted or not is something that I think we should try to reduce and trying to do that by reducing teenage sexual activity simply tells me that you are too old to remember what it was like to be a teenager) but I also think that the notion that the right to abortion trumps almost everything else really turned off a lot of people.