jesus krist an opinion is not an error. but the fact that i am getting attacked for something i didnt say is an error
I don’t believe Bigfoot has ever taken a shit in the pool at the Beverly Hills Hotel, because iI have never never heard him say anything of the sort, and would be surprised if you could provide a cite.
Thank you for admitting your error :rolleyes:
However, I could have an “opinion” about that issue
The “error” was in reference to your OP, I think, not the post immediately previous.
I could “Opine” that since I haven’t heard of a sighting that Bigfoot ever visited the Beverly Hotel, that he never took a shit there. But I don’t know for sure.
Thank you, but that might have been made more clear…or i am still a dumbass and will therefor go to bed
Come on now, don’t hold back. Share your opinion.
Well, you got it right eventually. Don’t worry, we’re all dumbasses at our core. I could have been more clear, for example. Night night.
I don’t think it sounds strange to anyone. As a liberal, I shake my head: I think a lot of people are conservative because they figure that they could pay much lower taxes if Big Guv would stop forking over big bucks to the poor (though they still believe in a reasonable safety net). My problem is a) the Federal government is basically a large pension fund that happens to have an army. Aid to the poor isn’t small. But it isn’t huge either and middle class retirement programs are way bigger. b) The safety net in Europe is Way-ay-ay-ay-ay better, so I’m skeptical about the idea that our system is miles out of whack.
Karl Rove understood this. The Dems don’t have a lock on the Hispanic vote. But here’s the thing. Romney sided with Arizona on Immigration policy. I’m a straight white guy, but my take is that the Republicans have to stop tacitly advocating stop, frisk and check your papers policies if you have brown skin. I hasten to add they don’t do that explicitly - though the language is pretty tortured. I’m having difficulty here: let me put it this way. Imagine a politician saying: “Look, support me because I support A, B, and C. We agree on that. Oh and by the way, fuck you and vote for me.” The point being certain stances just trump other ones.
Not going to do it. They need to get in front of immigration reform (something I personally care little about at the national level) but while their funders are behind them, their base is not.
Props for posting this thread klaatu, and props for putting your money where your mouth is.
drewtwo99: You might be right about adaher. I wouldn’t rule out the bizarre possibility that he was working for hire though. Not that it would do his employers any good. I’m leaning towards your scenario though. Adaher was a prolific poster, but he shied away from threads that asked people to state positions concisely. In short, he blew a lot of smoke.
Ta-Nehisi Coates: The Latino Vote: Wide Awake, Cranky, Taking Names - The Atlantic The Latino Vote: Wide Awake, Cranky, Taking Names
Romneys 16 percent of the Latino vote does not merely approach the black vote in Ohio, it nearly mirrors Bush’s 16 percent of the black vote from 2004. This should scare the hell out of any non-delusional GOP operative.
I am hearing a great deal of talk about “appealing to Hispanics” and “appealing to women.” But I am not hearing much about endorsing actual policies. What happened last night is not a matter of cosmetics. This is not false consciousness. This a real response to real policies. Mitt Romney actually endorsed Arizona’s immigration policies. You can’t fix this by flashing more pictures of brown people.
This is not a “branding problem.” This is a “problem problem.” Latino voters didn’t go crazy. Latino voters went voter.
There’s a difference between an idea that has some basis in real events, and one that was pulled completely out of thin air. I think people here are just looking for some indication which category “Obama wants people to be on the dole” fits into.
Sorry, I missed the edit window.
It might have sounded like snark, but I honestly would like to know what made you form the idea that Obama would prefer people be on public assistance. I can’t think of a logical reason why anyone who was in a position of running a country would want that, and I can provide quotes from him that indicate he doesn’t, if you’d like.
Good on ya, Klaatu for starting this thread. I disagree with some of your statements that you’ve made here, and I’l leave my critique at that. However, I must ask, are you against corporate welfare as much as you are to welfare for the underclass?
Klaatu is right. It’s necessary to demonise and vilify those receiving welfare, otherwise opportunists will seize on the opportunity to loaf at the expense of hard-working Americans. We already know Republicans work longer hours than Democrats, exploding the myth of Democrats as the party of labour. It’s the same reason pacifism is an impossible system to enforce, as any random permutation would cause the non-pacifists to exploit and enslave the pacifists. Hazlitt explained it all in “Economics in One Lesson”: if welfare exceeds the costs of wages and transport, then people will be discouraged from working. Subjugation of the working class is difficult and costly, systemic dismantling of welfare programs is the most efficient method to attain it. Hunger is a powerful motivator.
Cite?
Are you fucking serious?
Aw, pat, is your sarcasm meter on the fritz?
Wait, let’s get off your opinions, and other ways of enlightening us, and get back to the part where you were admitting to being a dumbass. Could we hear more about that? I really liked that part.
When did you first realize you were a dumbass?
Do you think you are a dumbass because of genetics or upbringing or what?
Are you willing to become a smartass now, or do you enjoy being a dumbass?
What, if anything, has changed or will change, in your political views since you realized what a dumbass you are?
I wasn’t pissed off. I even explicitly said that I’m not attacking you.
I agree with you that there are people who choose to live off the dole. I never said otherwise. I said that most of us here don’t think that people should be on the dole unless they are in need, so we agree on that. I also said that I see no evidence that Obama doesn’t also agree with that, and said that I was curious as to why you think otherwise.
Instead of answering, you accused me of being pissed off, put words in my mouth, and responded to things I didn’t say. I wasn’t pissed off before, but you’re starting to move me in that direction.
Exactly. If I were a conservative Hispanic citizen, I’d still vote Dem if I were in New Mexico just because we’d be so physically close to Arizona that their policy would always be on my mind. No use for people who hate you and want to harass you at will, even if they can’t deport you and you support their other policies.
Problem is you’d quite possibly be hitching your cart to a dying horse. These “conservative values” are very subject to change.
I agree with the posters here who say the main issue is immigration reform. I’m surprised to hear that US Hispanics dislike the “wets”, but even if they do, they probably identify with what’s perceived as attacks on them, and consider that they represent at some level a dislike of Hispanics. Also, to a large extent, it’s probably a class issue, as Hispanics tend to be poorer than average.
Re “handouts” etc., I think posters in this thread are setting up a false dichotomy. Leaving aside whether anyone wants people to be permanently dependent on welfare (not a significant factor IMO), the more important issue is whether policies have that impact.
News flash: Obama is NOT a liberal; he’s a moderate being painted as a liberal by the right, much like Bill Clinton was. If you look at his record through unbiased eyes, which I know is difficult for most folks on either side, it’s immediately apparent.
On the Hispanic thing:
I also live in New Mexico. It is important to note that many of the Hispanics in New Mexico are not immigrants, either legal or otherwise. Not only were they born here, but many are descendants of families that traveled with the conquistadors and have been in this area long before the United States of America existed. When you treat these people as immigrants it is deeply offensive.
The local pubbies like Suzy Martinez get this. The national ones (and even the ones in AZ ISTM) totally don’t. There is absolutely no recognition that they are omitting these people when they speak of immigrants, and offending them when they make their condescending assumptions that tell in a thousand small ways. Not only do they not know they are doing it, they don’t even seem to know what it is. They know you are not talking about them when you talk about immigrants, and they also know that you don’t know that.
I think W may have gotten this, but the rest of his party started throwing rotten vegetables at him when he tried to explain it to them, so he eventually gave up. And this is the problem. It is not that every GOPer is clueless, just that enough of them are, and they engage in group-think and litmus testing to the extent that the voices of the sane ones are never heard. Until this changes, the GOP will be unable to appeal to Hispanics on a national level.