Terr, not that you’re breaking any rule here, but . . . you often seem to think you are posting on some other board. Not another forum, another board, where the culture of discourse is different.
No. The point is made. If lefties can’t even refrain from using terms of abuse when talking about lower class whites, why in the world should we assume that they care anything about us?
Is Jeff Foxworthy a leftie?
I honestly don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone use those terms in a non-joke sense.
Well, asthis piece in the New York Times shows, the Democratic Party has for all practical purposes turned its back on working class whites, depending instead on a coalition of upper class progressives and lower class blacks and Hispanics to keep the Party in power. This means, of course, that they will have to pit lower class blacks and Hispanics against lower class whites. This isn’t surprising to anyone who isn’t blind to the left’s racial politics for the last forty years.
And considering that the Democrats are the party of Warren Buffet and George Soros, that Obama got more money from Wall Street than McCain, and that many Democratic politicians such as Barney Frank, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi are millionaires who haughtily inform the commoners of the sacrifices that must be made, knowing full well that they themselves will never have to share in those sacrifices, I find it awfully hard not to believe that the Democrats are not also a party of privilege and power.
Thank you for your comment. Bless your heart.
Was Richard Pryor a racist? He threw the N word around an awful lot.
Then you just haven’t been paying attention, or your memory is being very selective.
The more you post, the more you make it clear you are unable to actually demonstrate where I’m wrong or even willing to address the matter. Which again demonstrates your error in attempting to lump in people who think Bush did nothing to stop 9-11 with “Truthers”; people can and do disprove what the Truthers claim. As opposed to claiming that “The more you post, the more you make my point” without even bothering to explain how.
Who said they weren’t? This thread is about whether or not republicans are detached from reality.
The “how” is obvious.
Not any more than Democrats.
Inasmuch as the Democrats are certainly no less corrupt than the Republicans, that corruption requires them to make bizarre rationalizations to justify or cover up their corruption. Consider ethanol as a fuel source. Al Gore backed this one to the hilt, claiming it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil and give us a cleaner environment. Yet it’s a total boondoggle, the only purpose of which is to put billions of dollars in the pockets of agribiz. Even more fiendishly, the ethanol program causes shortages of grain that lead to serious hunger throughout the world. The Arab Spring was fueled in large part by ever rising food prices in which our asinine ethanol program played a considerable role. Yet we can’t get rid of this program because of the Democrats.
As for crazies, anti-nuke kooks won’t let us develop nuclear power, eco-wackies won’t let us mine coal (Obama has specifically stated his intention to make it too expensive for coal companies to mine coal) or drill for oil, and have shut down fertile farm land in California. You can complain about the religious right controlling the Pubs all you want, but the fact is that a technophobic Earth worshiping cult has much the same influence on the Dems.
But Frum’s essentially not comparing them to the Democrats, but to the Republicans as they were, as recently as, say, the Bush Sr. years. He says the GOP is more detached from reality now than it was then. Would you agree?
Then you can actually explain it, instead of insisting that it must be so because you say so. You can engage in an actual argument, instead of just completely avoiding actually addressing anything that I say.
No, not really. As I explained, in detail, point by point, in my reply above. To Budget Player Cadet I think.
With someone else I probably would. But then, someone else would probably not need the explanation.
Provably untrue.
I need the explanation. The PNAC was influential in the Bush White House, Rumsfeld and Cheney, the two biggest proponents of the Iraq War were PNAC member IIRC. And the PNAC DID call for “a new Pearl Harbor” which is EXACTLY what they made out of 9/11. You may say this does not constitute definitive PROOF of Bush deliberately ignoring the terrorist threats, but it’s enough to make a reasonable man suspicious. The truthers got … nothing … plenty of it, but nothing nonetheless. Der Trihs makes cogent points, you just evade.
Cool. More trutherness.
never mind
Unions aren’t dead-in the public sector especially they have a stranglehold. Plus the left has complained about the power of the police unions for example. And I’m not opposed to all regulations and welfare-for example I support tightening banking regulations.
No I’m not opposed to unions. For many industries they are quite necessary, however in the public sector they are a group opposed to reforming and austerity measures.
No I mean governmental welfare programs: I want private charity to play a larger role and government welfare to be more efficient.
I don’t support a law banning flag burning. And obviously economists should help determine where regulations are necessary and where they should be reduced.
What the flying fuck. No seriously, unless you are shitting me that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve read in a while.
So we shouldn’t be glad justice is being done.
Those are some Republicans not all.
See above.
[/QUOTE]
I find it interesting you have no problem calling Republicans evil while trying to be euphemistic and politically correct with totalitarian dictators.
Your dogmatic, unsubstantiated assertions are laughable and hilarious. Give me cites.