Bring it! I’m a big boy, I can take it. Question remains as to whether you can actually dish it out.
They all think that tax cuts increase revenues, that regulation is bad for business, that immigration is bad for the economy and a whole bunch of other stuff. Effectively, they’re dumb as shit. Dangerously dumb too as our fiscal situation demonstrates.
And the numbers show the younger generation wants nothing to do with the GOP. When were Hispanics solidly Republican?
A University of Texas study found that from 1976 to 1996, 68 percent of Latino voters favored Democrats. But in the 2004 presidential election, President George W. Bush garnered more than 40 percent of the Latino vote, which was widely believed to be instrumental in his defeat of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20100223/pl_cq_politics/politics3295665
As usual you just make stuff up.
GOP pollsters are all pointing out the problems they face with emerging demographic groups, I’ll believe them over your rosy predictions and made up stuff. CPAC didn’t feature anything on immigration because it would publicise yet again just how anti-immigrant the conservative ignorami are. Remember when Bush tried to bring in immigration reform and the GOP base melted the Congress phone system down with angry calls to their representatives? It got dropped immediately. The GOP’s future, according to GOP pollsters and pundits who, crucially, know what they’re talking about involves attracting the votes of the over 65 angry white racist demographic while at the same time attracting the votes of Hispanics and Asians. Good luck with that.
Knock it off.
[ /Modding ]
I didn’t say anything of the sort. I think there’s a lot that can be done, I just don’t have any reason to think that Republicans (or conservatives, or CPAC-ers, or tea-partiers) will be the ones that do it.
I’m sorry. I thought that was a nice way of putting it. And he’s got a track record of doing whatever the acceptable way to describe making stuff up is. What is the acceptable way of saying he makes stuff up please? And I’m serious here, I’m not trying to be funny. “Make stuff up” is an uncharitable but entirely accurate way of describing what he does. So how do I say it in an acceptable way please?
“You were misinformed.”
You don’t know the difference between being wrong and lying. Or the difference between disagreeing with someone and thinking they’re a liar. Or the difference between a disputed fact and a lie. Or the difference between an accidental mistake and a lie.
I have corrected you numerous times on this board. I have never accused you of lying. When Diogenes said that 99% of the wealth is controlled by 1% of the people, I didn’t accuse him of lying or of making it up. I just corrected his factual error, and didn’t question how or why he came to believe it. It’s called being charitable to your opponents, and of being a considerate, reasonable debater who’s sincerely trying to understand the other side and defend his own viewpoint, rather than being someone who simply wants to tear his opponent down and discredit him.
As for the Hispanic stuff, that was my off-the-cuff memory from reading numerous editorials about how the Hispanic vote was being lost by Republicans. For example, this from the Washington Post:
So I gave my impression that the Republicans had significant Hispanic support. It turns out they didn’t have as much as I thought - and I got called a liar for it. In the meantime, you utter howler after howler, such as in the very same message where you called me a liar, where you stated that Republicans ALL think that tax cuts raise revenue, that they ALL think that immigration hurts the economy, and that the ‘numbers show’ that the younger generation wants nothing to do with Republicans - despite the fact that I just posted the actual data from Pew showing that Democrats only have a 54-40 lead with the youngest generation, and that gap has been cut in half in the last year and shows no sign of slowing down.
So in that very message, you made a statement that was clearly wrong, with hard data and cites proving so in this very thread. And it was a statement about voter demographics just like my Hispanic comment. Only I was going from memory and making an offhand point I didn’t think much about, and you had to actively skip past the data posted just today in order to emit your error.
But I don’t think you’re a liar. I think you’re a hyper-partisan with an axe to grind who believes every negative stereotype and caricature of Conservatives, and who refuses to consider any conflicting data. And I think that you utter this nonsense in a forum that is mostly an echo-chamber of people who think the same way, and so you don’t get called on it as much as you should.
Republicans have done more to reinforce the caricature of themselves than any liberal rant could have.
Indeed that is the gist of the OP. Republicans have moved so far right as to be in fundamentalist territory and it is the “mainstream” republicans doing it, not some fringe of the party.
Our country is in a seriously bad position and the republicans see fit to stymie government at every turn. EVERY turn…even stuff they agree with. This level of obstructionism is unprecedented in the history of the US and by a huge margin.
I thought it was just appalling gotcha politics but the Esquire poll, to me, showed that the people in power really are buying their own rhetoric. At this level it is fundamentalism and it is destructive.
So tell me how this is a liberal caricature. Show me where this is just a few bad eggs and there are lots of well intentioned republicans working to solve our problems. Surely there are some but show me they are the mainstream and the fundie pubbie is a caricature.
Cite?
Cite?
Martha Johnson leaps to mind who was very recently voted to head the General Services Agency. She was blocked by republicans for 8+ months. She passed the Senate with a unanimous vote (which includes those who blocked her voting for her).
There are some bills too in which this happened. Unfortunately the exact bill(s) escape me at the moment but I distinctly remember having a “WTF?” moment when hearing about it on the news.
I have tried to Google it but it is difficult to construct a query that gets useful results for this one (ordinarily my Google-Fu is strong). I started to peruse individual bills that passed the Senate but, frankly, that is turning out to be way more work than I think an SDMB thread is worth. I’ll continue to search as new queries occur to me to try.
There’s that one senator who put a blanket hold on all Obama appointees because he wants Air Force fuel tankers built in his district.
How about their having doubled (or likely at this point more than doubled) the rate at which the filibuster is employed in the Senate to the point that 60 votes are now regarded as necessary to pass legislation?
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/31/republican-filibusters-skyrocket/
How about the cash and trash strategy, by which Republicans opposed the stimulus and decry it as worthless even while they tout its benefits in their states or districts with big checks?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_02/022320.php
How about being regarded as “the party of no”?
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/22/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6231847.shtml
You’ve corrected me? Would you say that that statement is an accurate represenation of our discussions on this board or would you say that it’s more accurate to say that when we argue you get called on your misinformation then head for the exit without replying?
And yes, not every single Republican thinks that tax cuts increase revenues or scrapping government regulation is good for the economy but they’re as close to articles of faith within the GOP as you’ll get. The point I’m making is that these very smart college-educated guys believe a bunch of things which have completely wrecked America’s fiscal situation, vastly increased the national debt etc. And in the face of all the evidence they still believe the same nonsense. Not every one of them! But enough of them that effectively you can claim they all think like that.
That’s another question for you. Given that these guys believe a bunch of stuff that has been shown to be wrong and very dangerous for the American economy, shouldn’t serious people on the right who know the truth about these things stand up and explain to them why they’re all wrong and need to change their views? It’s the responsible thing to do after all.
Being charitable again, I’m sure that that’s the way you remember it. I’ll let everyone else make up their own mind.
You think you’ve proved anything? Epic fail.
Again, let’s see a cite that proves what you have alleged.
Regards,
Shodan
What exactly did I allege?
(emphasis added with malicious intent)
Its that last bit there, Sam. Where you slip in your desired expectation as though it were part of the citation. In your eagerness to portray the Dems as plunging headlong into demographic despair, like Lucifer from Heaven hurl’d, you slip a bit of conjecture in with the fact stuff, as though they were the same, as if proximity to fact creates fact.
Where in the cited material is there any reference to trend lines not flattening out? We couldn’t know that, now could we, under the circumstances? Not unless we can project the Pew surveys into the future, based on nothing more than hopeful expectation.
Now, not a lie certainly, worthy of no more than a tsk! tsk! Behave yourself!
Tsk, tsk! Behave yourself!
The question remains: will luci manufacture a post with content beyond snarky opinion? A post that he could be called upon to support with a cite?
From someone who has followed this thread, with Sam continually providing cites to support his arguments, this is pretty weak.
Now, you stop that! You did too “allege”! You also averred, stated and otherwise pronounced! He’s got you there, you alleged! What, precisely, was alleged is not revealed unto us, but clearly, there was some alleging goin’ on!