Yeah, that’s the real problem, Starvo Blofeld. You guys are just so misunderstood.
I also don’t get the part about prison reform, America hates, and I mean hates its criminal class. Rape by buggery will teach a car thief a lesson. vocational training is a waste of time.
What constituency can he possibly hope to appeal to with that? Unless…
No, I can’t say it, it may not be true, and not even a whore like Frum deserves such a suggestion.
Never mind.
Well, then, I suggest that people who are in favor of curbing illegal immigration stop spewing hateful rhetoric against Mexicans. Everytime there is a public discourse about illegal immigration, there are no shortage of Republican party officials or conservative commentators who unnecessarily drag the topic off into debates about race, culture, or language. If you don’t want people associating opposition to illegal immigration with hating Mexicans, I suggest you go talk to the ones who purposely link their opposition to illegal immigration with racist, ethnocentric and xenophobic rhetoric.
:: adopts Reagan voice ::
See?.. now there you go again! 
Or are we to assume that it’s only Republicans who care little for the ‘criminal class’, as you call it (though I admit I have a hard time wondering why anyone would champion it. Perhaps you could offer a little insight. And btw, I imagine that when most people speak of ‘criminals’, they aren’t necessarily speaking of marijuana-smokers and car thieves, such as you would apparently have us believe.).
But be that as it may, and speaking as a long-time person of the Republican persuasion - and one who knows at least a couple of others - I don’t know of anyone personally who is cheerleading for rape by buggery…or by anything else for that matter, in prison or otherwise.
But thanks for providing yet another example of exactly the type of disingenuous false portrayal and demonization that I’ve been talking about.
I said Americans, which is not synonomous with “Republicans”. Less so, every day.
So ? He’s A Democrat; just one. Appealing to the racists isn’t a core strategy for the Democrats as a party - it is for the Republicans.
For one thing, some people actually want to be better than the scum of the Earth, hard as that concept is to grasp for most of the Republicans. We don’t want to act exactly as bad, or even worse than the supposed bad guys. Not to mention that the right is notoriously indifferent to the actual innocence or guilt of “criminals”.
The Republicans are. Especially the “criminals” with brown skin. You don’t see the supposedly tough on crime Republicans calling for harsh measures on corporate crime, do you ? Only poor people crimes.
Oh, the Republicans have demonized themselves quite well. Act like a demon, you get regarded as one. Act like a racist, you get looked upon as one.
Sorry, I’m a little confused. Is it your position that debates about race, culture and language are bigoted by definition and should thereby be verbotten? I thought debates about these kinds of issues are what was supposed to take place in a free and democratic society. Or is it your position that when it comes to race, culture and language, everyone should just fall into step unquestioningly with whatever notion seems to have gained the greatest foothold? This is certainly the impression one gets from the left over the last forty or fifty years.
Assuming you can provide genuine cites for this type of behavior on the part of certain party officials and/or commentators - which I doubt - it proves nothing more in regard to how the average Republican thinks than the rhetoric of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton represents what the average black person thinks or Michael represents what the average white liberal thinks. Surely you have known more than a few Republicans in your lifetime. Do they seem anything at all like the people you’re talking about. Most Republicans aren’t any more like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh than most liberals are like Michael Moore or Al Sharpton.
A little critical thinking would go a long way toward dispelling these false notions of what Republicans are really like.
I’d love to see a cite for this, or even some sort of underlying logical argument.
Not so far. When does it kick in?
Uh, that would be synonymous, luci. You know us pubbies; we’re sticklers for propriety.
And now the time has come, as it always does, for me to repair for my evening repast. I shall now climb into my Cadillac and drive to the liquor store for a $500 bottle of scotch, which I shall consume with a huge, barely-cooked 32 oz. piece of red meat, all the while sitting in my leather-upholstered recliner (or perhaps club chair - I haven’t decided which) with a rifle on my shoulder and watching Rush Limbaugh, who will undoubtedly exhort me to go out and shoot some brown-skinned car thieves with gaping anuses.
Life is good.
You’re lecturing people about critical thinking, and this is the sort of crap you post? Nowhere did I say that people shouldn’t discuss race, or that they should be silent. How you arrive at that from what I posted is beyond me, but you might want to try actually reading what I’ve written before you post.
I don’t know how I can make this any clearer to you, so I won’t bother. For others reading my post, my position is that some Republican party officials and conservativie commentators frequently and purposefully link their positions against illegal immigration to racist, xenophobic, and culturally bigoted language.
Um, okay. You can go debate that with a lefty if you want to.
Again, here you are with a complete lack of critical thinking skills. I never said all Republicans think a certain way–my comments were limited to a subset of Republican party officials and conservative commentators.
Physician, heal thyself.
I’ve got work to do, but I’ll start diggin up cites for the ugly rhetoric that usually accompanies these debates.
Let’s limit mangling usernames in uncomplimentary ways to the Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Gawdamighty, you never tire of that desperate tu quoque no matter how many times it’s dispelled here do you? Just out of curiosity, what do you think you’ve been told about Byrd’s life in more recent decades, and what do you know about the Civil Rights Act and the subsequent Republican “Southern Strategy”? More than you’re willing to admit here, I’m sure. Silly gotcha attempts are just so much more fun for some folks. But do give your audience a little credit, okay?
Your statement that Republicans “want” to stop illegal immigration and the importation of unskilled labor is not supported by either actual policies prior to this election season, nor to a serious analysis of actual poll data of actual self-identified Republicans. It’s yet the latest in a string of wedge issues from the strategists. It’s also often conflated with security, in that better border controls will keep terrorists from coming in. That too is a wedge issue that does not stand up to scrutiny, since the terrorists-coming-over-the-border problem has been a real one with Canada and nonexistent with Mexico - yet the fence proposed to deal with the problem would face the poor, brown, non-English-speaking country. Let’s not kid ourselves here.
But, to return to the list:
Private-sector health insurance - this is NOT going to be affordable for EVERY American unless subsidized for the poorest, and the subsidies are going to come from, erm, well, gotta be the government, right? To implement this, with what has been called in this thread “respect for markets” (always historically a phantasm, however attractive it may be to some), requires getting public agreement that the more-limited “market-based” system in place currently is actually a decent one. Only someone who has never had to argue with an HMO to get coverage for a procedure or med, or whose interests are with the stockholders of the insurance companies, would be willing to believe that.
Lower taxes on the better-off while raising them on things even the lower-income folks need - right, how’s that worked out politically for the Republicans lately?
Encouraging larger families - perhaps somebody willing to buy, or at least read, the book can explain if Frum means something other than fighting the “drowning” of our culture under a tide of immigrants. I would have to wonder where Frum’s family came from.
Reduce *unskilled * immigration? That ignores the origin of our economica malaise in the loss of *skilled * jobs to outsourcing and other globalizing effects. Reducing unskilled immigration can only help reduce competition for the burger-flipping jobs that remain. More race-baiting in disguise, it appears.
“Genuinely compassionate conservatism” - meaning what? We’ve heard the term, got the same old I-got-mine, fuck-the-poor conservatism instead with a gloss of Christian evangelicalism. What the hell does Frum mean that’s any different?
“Conservative” environmentalism, as opposed to what other kind? Gotta get a clarification on that, too. If he means a bias toward solutions that favor keeping energy production under the control the existing large corporations, just changing a few business methods, in the name of the mythical “free market”, then let him say so.
Higher ethical standards in the GOP - no possible argument there. But that comes from within, from the nature of the people in quesion - calling for it as a *policy goal * is absolutely futile.
Crush “terrorism”? That’s a method used by those with perceived grievance, not a thing in itself tangible enough to be crushed. Yes, a military can kill terrorists, but it creates many more, as Iraq should have shown. The challenge from China is economic, not military - please David.
Seems like he needs to get a better grounding in description before even thinking about prescription. He’s trying to tailor a description of the world that fits with a future in which the Republican Party does not have to make any serious changes in itself in order to restore the power it has squandered. But the world is a little bigger than Frum or even the GOP, and any difference between how it behaves and how he wants it to behave is not *its * fault.
Gotta be easier and cheaper to read Free Republic threads and Powerline posts, and likely just as enlightening.
Oops. Quite right. Mea fuckup
At least he didn’t call me Ernst. 
Got any evidence this is true?
Canada, actually. From the Wikipedia page on Frum:
The Frum name is quite well-known to Canadians, due to most of the Frums (and as can be seen, their relations) having some connection to the Canadian media.
Number 3, larger familles, etc., this is also part of the anti-woman slogan of modern conservatism. It is a bid to keep women in their place, remember Frum’s wife Danielle Crittenden is champion of the get the “women out of the workforce and back into the kitchen crowd.” She wrote a book on this topic.
I remember on C-SPAN, Brian Lamb asked Frum if he would support any of his children serving in the military and going to Iraq. Frum paused for a second then stated he would support his sons going to Iraq but not his daughter because women don’t belong in harms way, what a jerk.
I began by reading through the comments but I felt like I was forgetting my initial thoughts, so I apologize if I am merely adding to what has already been said.
This is a good idea. In fact it’s in line with Obama’s plan. He stated in the debates that it simply doesn’t make sense to work toward a universal plan when most people are already covered. I think both parties can work toward this end. It would require a new way of thinking for conservatives who recognize that rampant abuse by industry is the same as rampant abuse by government. The government by definition and by necessity must be antagonistic to industry. It is power after all that is being governed.
Well, if people had more money they might save. However, I think it is easy access to credit that keeps us from saving. The idea that money will always be there available for us. No one under the age of 60 at this point has ever lived through a time of real deprivation. The slump in the 70s and the Recessions of 1987 and 2001 simply do not rate.
I think this is more about making it family friendly than it is about abortion. Sure abortion and contraceptive use are issues, but I think that it is sort of a leftist trope to think that conservatives are mounting an attack on contraceptives. They recognize that one as a lost cause. This one is interesting as it implicitly implies the socialist direction the right is taking these days.
The national ID card and greater oversight could handle this quite easily. At the same time a recognition that Americans simply won’t work at lower rates, even when unskilled needs to come into their thoughts. Or else we need some sort of economic downturn that forces the hand of many Americans.
More of the right wing movement toward nanny-state leftism. It’s quite interesting how this is proceeding. Prison reform is absolutely necessary, but the first step in the process is blanket legalization of Marijuana. Putting people in jail for a crime that really only hurts them is ludicrous. Greater governmental health standards are necessary, a total restructuring of the FDA could do this in a way that would jive with conservative values. As it is the FDA is dominated by food suppliers who have an interest in making sure the standards are not too high. At the same time however, the health movements that have risen out of the hippy left have provided a free-market solution to these problems as there is a whole industry dedicated to bringing awareness to health matters. The highest growth industries right now are in the health/wellness arenas. There is tons of room for fields such as Massage therapy and Nutrition to grow in every state.
I definitely agree with this. Every time people suggest building coal plants I cringe. Most of the anti-nuclear rhetoric is based off of old-school nuclear power plants with their huge reactors. Today we can build plants with smaller reactors like they have on warships, creating a distributed model where they can turn off a single reactor if it needs maintenance and not even disrupt energy output. It’s far less dangerous than it once was.
This isn’t one to scoff at. This is a huge movement within conservatism. The man on the street always wanted a more ethical conservatism, such as the evangelicals. The problem was that their adherence to the party was unthinking. Within conservative circles people are bringing the idea of a more intellectual conservatism to the forefront, demonstrating that morality requires a greater reason and attention than was previously applied. The loss of faith in Bush conservatism has brought this about face to the forefront. Linking environmental conservation with Christian morality is pretty simple. Personal ethics bourne of a greater awareness can bring us into a more mature political relationship between the parties.
Terrorism is not about the size of the military. It’s about intelligence and engagement with people on their own cultural terms. China is not an imminent threat in any way. Mutually Assured Destruction is still a sufficient deterrant. We require a capable military, but also a strategic recognition that our fate and China’s are linked.
Could this be to counter the people not immigrating?
Ever look at the economies of Europe in 1939?
The reason to be worried now is so we won’t be worried in umpteen years time.
Si pacem vis, pare bellum.
Not true, they don’t despise Mexican-Americans they despise Mexicans.