Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: OT - PRESIDENT. BARACK. OBAMA
559 views
Skip to first unread message
Dufus
Nov 7, 2012, 11:13:12 AM11/7/12
to
>On Nov 7, 8:53 am, Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Uh, working-class whites (i.e. 'racist Confederates and cowboys') put Obama back in the Oval Office for 'four more years'. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia?
Yes, I should have added the Rust Belt ( and its auto industry and 47
% ) to Obama's side ; but most of The South and the cowboy country
between the Mississippi River and Rockies went for Romney.
> A 'slightly' better economy?? ....Moreover, 52 percent of voters thought the nation was seriously off on the wrong track instead of going in the right direction — usually a bad sign >for the incumbent. Not Obama!"
Correct, 50 % of voters still voted for him despite all those bad
numbers. Just think what a slight improvement in all those dire
numbers would have done !! Especially against a 47 % , Bain-ed, auto
industry bankruptcy, off-shored Romney.
> Third, face it, it's 2012: Obama's skin color and lifestyle ('Nicki Minaj is on m iPod') are to his advantage. This election proved it. Blacks and Hispanics voted in far higher numbers >_for_ Obama than whites did for Romney.
And all the birthers like Trump, and " he's a Muslim"s, did not vote
for Obama.
> Uh, working-class whites (i.e. 'racist Confederates and cowboys') put Obama back in the Oval Office for 'four more years'. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia?
Yes, I should have added the Rust Belt ( and its auto industry and 47
% ) to Obama's side ; but most of The South and the cowboy country
between the Mississippi River and Rockies went for Romney.
> A 'slightly' better economy?? ....Moreover, 52 percent of voters thought the nation was seriously off on the wrong track instead of going in the right direction — usually a bad sign >for the incumbent. Not Obama!"
Correct, 50 % of voters still voted for him despite all those bad
numbers. Just think what a slight improvement in all those dire
numbers would have done !! Especially against a 47 % , Bain-ed, auto
industry bankruptcy, off-shored Romney.
> Third, face it, it's 2012: Obama's skin color and lifestyle ('Nicki Minaj is on m iPod') are to his advantage. This election proved it. Blacks and Hispanics voted in far higher numbers >_for_ Obama than whites did for Romney.
And all the birthers like Trump, and " he's a Muslim"s, did not vote
for Obama.
Roland van Gaalen
Nov 7, 2012, 11:15:34 AM11/7/12
to
Oscar wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 6:42:49 AM, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> [...]
>
> > the people of trendsetting California are coming to their senses.
>
>
>
> Is that the State that passed a ban on gay marriage four years ago .... exodus of tax-paying
> families ... third-highest-paid teachers in USA ... worst schools (Los Angeles Unified) ...
> instructors who either did not major in the subject or are not certified to teach it?
> Let's hope that trend does not export.
California has been culturally and politically influential for as long as I can remember.
I am not defending everything trend that started there.
>
> > Another blow to the Conservative Movement!
>
> >
>
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/in-california-voters-approve-ballot-measure-that-raises-taxesin-california-approve-voters-ballot-measure-that-raises-taxes.html?hp
>
>
>
> Roland, really, you know nothing about Prop 30
Obviously I did not write the NYT article, but the idea of raising taxes to pay for government services such as public education is sensible.
> and the 'conservative movement' here (hint: there isn't one in California).
I was referring to the Conservative Movement in general and in this context I have their anti-tax sentiments in mind (not their war on climate science or their opposition to gay marriage).
But I concede that much of my information about California is out date. I lived there (in the San Francisco Bay Area) from 1979 until 1992.
That's a long time ago, even though it seems like yesterday!
Those were the days of the Howard Jarvis and his Tax Revolt, President Reagan, a lot of talk about deregulation, tax cuts, supply-side economics and the Laffer Curve, reducing government spending by cutting taxes.
Prop 30 intends to go in the opposite direction, doesn't it?
Roland van Gaalen
Cape Town
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 6:42:49 AM, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> [...]
>
> > the people of trendsetting California are coming to their senses.
>
>
>
> Is that the State that passed a ban on gay marriage four years ago .... exodus of tax-paying
> families ... third-highest-paid teachers in USA ... worst schools (Los Angeles Unified) ...
> instructors who either did not major in the subject or are not certified to teach it?
> Let's hope that trend does not export.
California has been culturally and politically influential for as long as I can remember.
I am not defending everything trend that started there.
>
> > Another blow to the Conservative Movement!
>
> >
>
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/in-california-voters-approve-ballot-measure-that-raises-taxesin-california-approve-voters-ballot-measure-that-raises-taxes.html?hp
>
>
>
> Roland, really, you know nothing about Prop 30
Obviously I did not write the NYT article, but the idea of raising taxes to pay for government services such as public education is sensible.
> and the 'conservative movement' here (hint: there isn't one in California).
I was referring to the Conservative Movement in general and in this context I have their anti-tax sentiments in mind (not their war on climate science or their opposition to gay marriage).
But I concede that much of my information about California is out date. I lived there (in the San Francisco Bay Area) from 1979 until 1992.
That's a long time ago, even though it seems like yesterday!
Those were the days of the Howard Jarvis and his Tax Revolt, President Reagan, a lot of talk about deregulation, tax cuts, supply-side economics and the Laffer Curve, reducing government spending by cutting taxes.
Prop 30 intends to go in the opposite direction, doesn't it?
Roland van Gaalen
Cape Town
J.Martin
Nov 7, 2012, 11:56:46 AM11/7/12
to
>
> Third, face it, it's 2012: Obama's skin color and lifestyle ('Nicki Minaj is on my iPod') are to his advantage. This election proved it. Blacks and Hispanics voted in far higher numbers _for_ Obama than whites did for Romney.
That's an interesting way of looking at it. If it were correct, I
suspect we would have had an african american president some years
ago. But this is a very condescending analysis that assumes Latinos
vote for a candidate simply because of his race and ignores the very
significant policy differences upon which most people--including
people of color--made their decisions.
Immigration is an obvious one, with the Republicans taking a hardline
anti-immigrant stance in support of things like racial profiling of
people who look like they might be from Mexico and the intention to
force the "self deportation" (Romney's phrase) of millions of
Latinos. I think that probably cost quite a few votes. In addition,
polls have shown that Latinos did not buy Romney analysis of the
economy. Largely working class as a demographic, they overwhelmingly
felt that the economic problems were the result of Reagan-Bush era
policy and did not support Rmoney's plan for more deregulation and tax
cuts. In a broader sense, I would go so far as to say that the
Republicans, and in particular the tea partiers who seem to be running
their party, are offering a return to an imagined past that has far
more appeal to whites than it does to people of color. They envision
a predominately rural, white, christian America where men are firmly
in charge, the borders are closed to people of color and gays remain
in the closet. This does not have much appeal for anyone other than
some white christian men.
So, it seems to me that it was not the candidates' race but policy
positions and overall philosophy that drove this election. But
there's a way to test this idea. The Republicans could nominate a
person of color.
> Third, face it, it's 2012: Obama's skin color and lifestyle ('Nicki Minaj is on my iPod') are to his advantage. This election proved it. Blacks and Hispanics voted in far higher numbers _for_ Obama than whites did for Romney.
That's an interesting way of looking at it. If it were correct, I
suspect we would have had an african american president some years
ago. But this is a very condescending analysis that assumes Latinos
vote for a candidate simply because of his race and ignores the very
significant policy differences upon which most people--including
people of color--made their decisions.
Immigration is an obvious one, with the Republicans taking a hardline
anti-immigrant stance in support of things like racial profiling of
people who look like they might be from Mexico and the intention to
force the "self deportation" (Romney's phrase) of millions of
Latinos. I think that probably cost quite a few votes. In addition,
polls have shown that Latinos did not buy Romney analysis of the
economy. Largely working class as a demographic, they overwhelmingly
felt that the economic problems were the result of Reagan-Bush era
policy and did not support Rmoney's plan for more deregulation and tax
cuts. In a broader sense, I would go so far as to say that the
Republicans, and in particular the tea partiers who seem to be running
their party, are offering a return to an imagined past that has far
more appeal to whites than it does to people of color. They envision
a predominately rural, white, christian America where men are firmly
in charge, the borders are closed to people of color and gays remain
in the closet. This does not have much appeal for anyone other than
some white christian men.
So, it seems to me that it was not the candidates' race but policy
positions and overall philosophy that drove this election. But
there's a way to test this idea. The Republicans could nominate a
person of color.
Mark S
Nov 7, 2012, 12:10:29 PM11/7/12
to
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:37:17 AM UTC-8, Oscar wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 6:42:49 AM, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I fear you will be proven right, but there is light at the end of the tunnel:
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 6:42:49 AM, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> > the people of trendsetting California are coming to their senses.
>
>
>
> Is that the State that passed a ban on gay marriage four years ago, where whites and Asians voted against the ban 49/51, blacks (70%) and Hispanics for it? Or, is the trend-setting part the exodus of tax-paying families to Colorado, Nevada, Arizona over the last two decades? Or, is it the third-highest-paid teachers in USA (average $69,434) with the worst schools (Los Angeles Unified), where, according to recent studies, about 30 percent of high school math students and 60 percent of those in the physical sciences are taught by instructors who either did not major in the subject or are not certified to teach it? Let's hope that trend does not export.
> >
>
> > the people of trendsetting California are coming to their senses.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> But yeah, culturally we still rock...just not in southern Orange County.
>
>
>
> > Another blow to the Conservative Movement!
>
> >
>
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/in-california-voters-approve-ballot-measure-that-raises-taxesin-california-approve-voters-ballot-measure-that-raises-taxes.html?hp
>
>
>
> Roland, really, you know nothing about Prop 30 and the 'conservative movement' here (hint: there isn't one in California). All this measure means is that a whole lot of super-rich are going to be spending a lot more time in Nevada, Texas, Washington, Florida, et al., and other places with no State income tax. Trend-setting California has the highest Personal income tax in the nation, not to mention highest Corporate income tax and State sales tax and second-highest gasoline tax and... According to Prop 30, the proletariat will be stuck stuck with another 1/4 cent sales tax increase, on top of those already-tall State sales taxes. And the public employee unions who have held the state hostage — see recent union reforms by Gov. Jerry Brown and former labor organizers LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and his cousin Speaker of the Assembly John Perez's — and which have benefitted enormously from an unfunded bill SB 400 http://tiny.cc/kxrenw authored and passed in 1999, will continue to make out like bandits.
>
>
> > Another blow to the Conservative Movement!
>
> >
>
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/in-california-voters-approve-ballot-measure-that-raises-taxesin-california-approve-voters-ballot-measure-that-raises-taxes.html?hp
>
>
>
>
>
>
> $6 billion in revenue is expected from Prop 30, but our all-blue state is still $18 BILLION in the red for fiscal 2012/13. Trend-setting!! Even Greece is hip to the model.
Give it a rest, Oscar. Nobody listened to your RW blather pre-election. They're sure as hell not going to listen to it after the MAJOR SMACKDOWN the Ds leveled at the Rs yesterday.
Get on the bus or get run over.
Dufus
Nov 7, 2012, 12:14:26 PM11/7/12
to
>On Nov 7, 10:33 am, "Gerard" <ghendriks-nospam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Seen through the bottom of a cheap wine bottle.
In addition to enjoying the odd glass while posting here, I also cook
with wine, occasionally adding some to the food, but could not imagine
surviving a whole week on nothing but food and water.
Dufus
>Seen through the bottom of a cheap wine bottle.
In addition to enjoying the odd glass while posting here, I also cook
with wine, occasionally adding some to the food, but could not imagine
surviving a whole week on nothing but food and water.
Dufus
Herman
Nov 7, 2012, 12:21:26 PM11/7/12
to
Le mercredi 7 novembre 2012 15:53:07 UTC+1, Oscar a écrit :
>
> Third, face it, it's 2012: Obama's skin color and lifestyle ('Nicki Minaj is on my iPod') are to his advantage. This election proved it. Blacks and Hispanics voted in far higher numbers _for_ Obama than whites did for Romney.
You are one messed-up individual.
>
> Third, face it, it's 2012: Obama's skin color and lifestyle ('Nicki Minaj is on my iPod') are to his advantage. This election proved it. Blacks and Hispanics voted in far higher numbers _for_ Obama than whites did for Romney.
Mark S
Nov 7, 2012, 12:30:04 PM11/7/12
to
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:56:46 AM UTC-8, J.Martin wrote:
> >
>
> > Third, face it, it's 2012: Obama's skin color and lifestyle ('Nicki Minaj is on my iPod') are to his advantage. This election proved it. Blacks and Hispanics voted in far higher numbers _for_ Obama than whites did for Romney.
Or, it could be that your party is in trouble when people ask "did the rape guy win," and you have to ask, "which one?" (paraphrasing Alec Baldwin)
> >
>
> > Third, face it, it's 2012: Obama's skin color and lifestyle ('Nicki Minaj is on my iPod') are to his advantage. This election proved it. Blacks and Hispanics voted in far higher numbers _for_ Obama than whites did for Romney.
Oscar
Nov 7, 2012, 12:40:28 PM11/7/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 9:10:30 AM UTC-8, Mark S wrote:
>
> Give it a rest, Oscar. Nobody listened to your RW blather pre-election.
> They're sure as hell not going to listen to it after the MAJOR SMACK-
>
> Give it a rest, Oscar. Nobody listened to your RW blather pre-election.
>DOWN the Ds leveled at the Rs yesterday.
Oh, _this guy_
On Monday, September 17, 2012 12:34:49 PM UTC-7, Mark S wrote:
>
> Message to Oscar: I'm using new Google groups to read this ng, and
> your posts are being blocked by Firefox's grease monkey. Ergo, I can
> see that you're posting, but I'm not bothering to read your posts.
>
> I see no reason to unblock you or Jeffrey or any of the other handful
> of rmcr users I've put in my killfile.
'Right-wing' me all you want, Marc, I voted for the Commander-in-Chief in 2008 who is _still_ Commander-in-Chief today. Yes, 'my President is BLACK!' http://tiny.cc/uxyenw
Pundit Howard Fineman wrote:
<< Obama reached out not only racially and ethnically, but in terms of lifestyle. Analysts made fun of, and Republicans derided, his campaign's focus on discrete demographic and social slices of the electorate, including gays and lesbians. But the message was one about the future, not the American past. >>
According to what I've read, one is counted as part of America's Past if he meets three or more of the following criteria:
• white
• overweight
• Baby Boomer
• tenor
• Yankee fan
• Disneyland season pass holder
• Big Bad Progressive who hides in white Repub exurbs
• Believes in white privilege enough to move to said exurbs for 'the schools' (dog whistle for 'no blacks or Mexicans near my daughter')
In other words, milquetoast.
> Get on the bus or get run over.
Oscar
Nov 7, 2012, 12:45:34 PM11/7/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 9:21:26 AM, Herman wrote
>
> You are one messed-up individual.
Every major white male Baby Boomer pundit on MSNBC from Fineman to Todd to Matthews to you-name-him/her has commented on exactly what I said. I'm not repeating anything that hasn't been talked about ad nauseum in the last six months.
> You are one messed-up individual.
Mark S
Nov 7, 2012, 1:14:55 PM11/7/12
to
You've been kicked to the curb, Oscar.
Get over it, or the next 12 years are going to eat you alive (that's 4 more years of President Obama followed by 8 years of President Hillary Clinton).
Tell me again why you live in "Democratically controlled for the foreseeable future" CA? Wouldn't you be happier in Texas?
Get over it, or the next 12 years are going to eat you alive (that's 4 more years of President Obama followed by 8 years of President Hillary Clinton).
Tell me again why you live in "Democratically controlled for the foreseeable future" CA? Wouldn't you be happier in Texas?
Oscar
Nov 7, 2012, 1:15:27 PM11/7/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:56:46 AM UTC-8, J.Martin wrote:
> >
>
> >
>
> > Third, face it, it's 2012: Obama's skin color and lifestyle ('Nicki
> > Minaj is on my iPod') are to his advantage. This election proved it.
> > Blacks and Hispanics voted in far higher numbers _for_ Obama than
> > whites did for Romney.
>
> That's an interesting way of looking at it. If it were correct, I
> suspect we would have had an african american president some years
> ago. But this is a very condescending analysis that assumes Latinos
> vote for a candidate simply because of his race and ignores the very
> significant policy differences upon which most people — including
> > Minaj is on my iPod') are to his advantage. This election proved it.
> > Blacks and Hispanics voted in far higher numbers _for_ Obama than
> > whites did for Romney.
>
> That's an interesting way of looking at it. If it were correct, I
> suspect we would have had an african american president some years
> ago. But this is a very condescending analysis that assumes Latinos
> vote for a candidate simply because of his race and ignores the very
> people of color — made their decisions.
Way off base, Jen. The art of projection. You are leaping to conclusions, calling what I wrote 'condescending' as if I said Hispanics voted for Obama 'BECAUSE [key word] of his race'. I made no effort to analyze why Hispanics voted the way they did, just that Obama's skin color — I presume herman would prefer the more neutral word, 'race', even though Obama is bi-racial (understandably, it's a relatively new concept to Western Europe) — and lifestyle WORKED TO HIS ADVANTAGE: uses Twitter, South Side Chicago homeowner, NBA and NCAA basketball fan, Al Green crooner, knows Nicki Minaj, supports marijuana decriminalization (or used to), legitimizes hip-hop: 'the most vibrant musical genre over the past 10 to 15 years has been hip-hop', etc. It could be overt or subconscious preference, it could be any number of things depending on the individual voter's background, lifestyle, etc.
How is that controversial? Howard Fineman wrote about it within a couple hours of the end of the election. It was absolutely to Obama's advantage in _this_ election. It would not have been in 1984!!
Roland van Gaalen
Nov 7, 2012, 1:19:18 PM11/7/12
to
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 6:54:47 PM UTC+2, Oscar wrote:
[detailed message]
Still, if you want government services, you have to pay for them in one way or another.
Prop 30 seems to recognize this basic idea (regardless of the details).
In that respect, the people of California have come to their senses.
If California is a trendsetter, then ...
However, the pension deficits, in the private as well as in the public sector (eg Calpers), are staggering, so I shouldn't be too optimistic.
[detailed message]
Still, if you want government services, you have to pay for them in one way or another.
Prop 30 seems to recognize this basic idea (regardless of the details).
In that respect, the people of California have come to their senses.
If California is a trendsetter, then ...
However, the pension deficits, in the private as well as in the public sector (eg Calpers), are staggering, so I shouldn't be too optimistic.
Herman
Nov 7, 2012, 1:33:49 PM11/7/12
to
Le mercredi 7 novembre 2012 19:15:27 UTC+1, Oscar a écrit :
>I made no effort to analyze why Hispanics voted the way they did, just that Obama's skin color — I presume herman would prefer the more neutral word, 'race', even though Obama is bi-racial (understandably, it's a relatively new concept to Western Europe)
You seem to be the last person on this earth who regards himself as racially pure.
>I made no effort to analyze why Hispanics voted the way they did, just that Obama's skin color — I presume herman would prefer the more neutral word, 'race', even though Obama is bi-racial (understandably, it's a relatively new concept to Western Europe)
Good luck with that.
Oscar
Nov 7, 2012, 1:46:08 PM11/7/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 10:14:55 AM, Mark S wrote:
>
> Get over it, or the next 12 years are going to eat you alive
> (that's 4 more years of President Obama followed by 8 years
> of President Hillary Clinton).
Hillary Clinton LOL Dude you are sooo 2006.
>
> Get over it, or the next 12 years are going to eat you alive
> (that's 4 more years of President Obama followed by 8 years
> of President Hillary Clinton).
Villaraigosa 2016.
J.Martin
Nov 7, 2012, 1:58:25 PM11/7/12
to
>
> Way off base, Jen.
Who's Jen?
The art of projection. You are leaping to conclusions, calling what I
wrote 'condescending' as if I said Hispanics voted for Obama 'BECAUSE
[key word] of his race'. I made no effort to analyze why Hispanics
voted the way they did, just that Obama's skin color — I presume
herman would prefer the more neutral word, 'race', even though Obama
is bi-racial (understandably, it's a relatively new concept to Western
Europe) — and lifestyle WORKED TO HIS ADVANTAGE: uses Twitter, South
Side Chicago homeowner, NBA and NCAA basketball fan, Al Green crooner,
knows Nicki Minaj, supports marijuana decriminalization (or used to),
legitimizes hip-hop: 'the most vibrant musical genre over the past 10
to 15 years has been hip-hop', etc. It could be overt or subconscious
preference, it could be any number of things depending on the
individual voter's background, lifestyle, etc.
You're right, I'm projecting. I don't know everything about you or
your philosophy. I'm reading your comments above, which dismiss
factors such as the economy and whether or not people perceive the
country to be moving in the right direction, and conclude by asserting
that ethnicity and lifestyle drove the decision of the majority of
voters, and I'm suggesting that only a person with a condescending
view of the majority of voters would offer that explanation. In your
comments above, you only expand upon your initial statement: ie, it's
not only because he's black, but also because he recognzes pop culture
references and likes basketball that people voted for him. Can you
perhaps consider it is because his views and policies made more sense
to the majority? Or is too much of a stretch for you to give people
that much credit? If not, fine. If so, that's condescending.
>
> How is that controversial? Howard Fineman wrote about it within a couple hours of the end of the election. It was absolutely to Obama's advantage in _this_ election. It would not have been in 1984!!
I would agree that people consider a wide range of factors in deciding
their vote, including such vague things as a candidate's
"likeability." We can all recall how many Bush voters said that Dubya
seemed more like a person they would enjoy having a beer with than
Kerry. (And we know how that turned out.) But what's objectionable
(I wouldn't say controversial) is how you and some others are
suggesting that being a member of a minority group that has
historically been systematic discrimination is suddenly an advantage
that trumps factors such as people's perception of the economy and the
direction of the country. That is just sour grapes. People were
offered two contrasting visions, and they chose the one they most
agreed. Apologies if it didn't conform to your own.
> Way off base, Jen.
Who's Jen?
The art of projection. You are leaping to conclusions, calling what I
wrote 'condescending' as if I said Hispanics voted for Obama 'BECAUSE
[key word] of his race'. I made no effort to analyze why Hispanics
voted the way they did, just that Obama's skin color — I presume
herman would prefer the more neutral word, 'race', even though Obama
is bi-racial (understandably, it's a relatively new concept to Western
Europe) — and lifestyle WORKED TO HIS ADVANTAGE: uses Twitter, South
Side Chicago homeowner, NBA and NCAA basketball fan, Al Green crooner,
knows Nicki Minaj, supports marijuana decriminalization (or used to),
legitimizes hip-hop: 'the most vibrant musical genre over the past 10
to 15 years has been hip-hop', etc. It could be overt or subconscious
preference, it could be any number of things depending on the
individual voter's background, lifestyle, etc.
your philosophy. I'm reading your comments above, which dismiss
factors such as the economy and whether or not people perceive the
country to be moving in the right direction, and conclude by asserting
that ethnicity and lifestyle drove the decision of the majority of
voters, and I'm suggesting that only a person with a condescending
view of the majority of voters would offer that explanation. In your
comments above, you only expand upon your initial statement: ie, it's
not only because he's black, but also because he recognzes pop culture
references and likes basketball that people voted for him. Can you
perhaps consider it is because his views and policies made more sense
to the majority? Or is too much of a stretch for you to give people
that much credit? If not, fine. If so, that's condescending.
>
> How is that controversial? Howard Fineman wrote about it within a couple hours of the end of the election. It was absolutely to Obama's advantage in _this_ election. It would not have been in 1984!!
their vote, including such vague things as a candidate's
"likeability." We can all recall how many Bush voters said that Dubya
seemed more like a person they would enjoy having a beer with than
Kerry. (And we know how that turned out.) But what's objectionable
(I wouldn't say controversial) is how you and some others are
suggesting that being a member of a minority group that has
historically been systematic discrimination is suddenly an advantage
that trumps factors such as people's perception of the economy and the
direction of the country. That is just sour grapes. People were
offered two contrasting visions, and they chose the one they most
agreed. Apologies if it didn't conform to your own.
Steven Bornfeld
Nov 7, 2012, 2:26:36 PM11/7/12
to
crowd at Romney headquarters in Boston) what had happened to all the
minority and female people at the convention had gone. ;-)
Steve
(P.S.--Carter WOULD have made a good sound track for watching the
returns, but I would probably have had to listen in my car.)
O
Nov 7, 2012, 2:45:16 PM11/7/12
to
In article
<1d4349be-91fe-4114...@b19g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
"We were three days out on our expedition and we lost our corkscrew.
Had to live on food and water for several days."
-W.C. Fields
<1d4349be-91fe-4114...@b19g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
Had to live on food and water for several days."
-W.C. Fields
Frank Berger
Nov 7, 2012, 3:08:30 PM11/7/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
what a lot of people expect from the Left-in-Power.
Frank Berger
Nov 7, 2012, 3:11:51 PM11/7/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
You have been judged and found wanting.
RVG
Nov 7, 2012, 3:14:07 PM11/7/12
to
Le 07/11/2012 14:50, Dufus a écrit :
>> On Nov 6, 11:27 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mandate! Mandate!
>
> Were the economy even slightly better, were America not still an often
> racist Country, Obama would have won a landslide in the popular
> vote,too.
He has: 2.6 million votes ahead.
--
«Les mots qui vont surgir savent de nous des choses que nous ignorons
d'eux.»
René Char
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/artist/336871/regis-v.-gronoff
http://soundcloud.com/rvgronoff
http://bluedusk.blogspot.com/
>> On Nov 6, 11:27 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mandate! Mandate!
>
> Were the economy even slightly better, were America not still an often
> racist Country, Obama would have won a landslide in the popular
> vote,too.
He has: 2.6 million votes ahead.
--
«Les mots qui vont surgir savent de nous des choses que nous ignorons
d'eux.»
René Char
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/artist/336871/regis-v.-gronoff
http://soundcloud.com/rvgronoff
http://bluedusk.blogspot.com/
Frank Berger
Nov 7, 2012, 3:15:01 PM11/7/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
bullying were're already starting to see.
Frank Berger
Nov 7, 2012, 3:18:02 PM11/7/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
RVG wrote:
> Le 07/11/2012 14:50, Dufus a �crit :
> Le 07/11/2012 14:50, Dufus a �crit :
>>> On Nov 6, 11:27 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Mandate! Mandate!
>>
>> Were the economy even slightly better, were America not still an
>> often racist Country, Obama would have won a landslide in the
>> popular vote,too.
>
> He has: 2.6 million votes ahead.
Mandate! Mandate! Oh wait, the House still controlled by the Rs. Darn.
>>> Mandate! Mandate!
>>
>> Were the economy even slightly better, were America not still an
>> often racist Country, Obama would have won a landslide in the
>> popular vote,too.
>
> He has: 2.6 million votes ahead.
Roland van Gaalen
Nov 7, 2012, 3:28:31 PM11/7/12
to
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 10:15:04 PM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
> Oscar wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:56:46 AM UTC-8, J.Martin wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Third, face it, it's 2012: Obama's skin color and lifestyle ('Nicki
>
> >>> Minaj is on my iPod') are to his advantage. This election proved it.
>
> >>> Blacks and Hispanics voted in far higher numbers _for_ Obama than
>
> >>> whites did for Romney.
>
> >>
>
> >> That's an interesting way of looking at it. If it were correct, I
>
> >> suspect we would have had an african american president some years
>
> >> ago. But this is a very condescending analysis that assumes Latinos
>
> >> vote for a candidate simply because of his race and ignores the very
>
> >> significant policy differences upon which most people � including
> Oscar wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:56:46 AM UTC-8, J.Martin wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Third, face it, it's 2012: Obama's skin color and lifestyle ('Nicki
>
> >>> Minaj is on my iPod') are to his advantage. This election proved it.
>
> >>> Blacks and Hispanics voted in far higher numbers _for_ Obama than
>
> >>> whites did for Romney.
>
> >>
>
> >> That's an interesting way of looking at it. If it were correct, I
>
> >> suspect we would have had an african american president some years
>
> >> ago. But this is a very condescending analysis that assumes Latinos
>
> >> vote for a candidate simply because of his race and ignores the very
>
>
> >> people of color � made their decisions.
>
> >
>
> > Way off base, Jen. The art of projection. You are leaping to
>
> > conclusions, calling what I wrote 'condescending' as if I said
>
> > Hispanics voted for Obama 'BECAUSE [key word] of his race'. I made no
>
> > effort to analyze why Hispanics voted the way they did, just that
>
> > Obama's skin color � I presume herman would prefer the more neutral
> >
>
> > Way off base, Jen. The art of projection. You are leaping to
>
> > conclusions, calling what I wrote 'condescending' as if I said
>
> > Hispanics voted for Obama 'BECAUSE [key word] of his race'. I made no
>
> > effort to analyze why Hispanics voted the way they did, just that
>
>
> > word, 'race', even though Obama is bi-racial (understandably, it's a
>
> > relatively new concept to Western Europe) � and lifestyle WORKED TO
> > word, 'race', even though Obama is bi-racial (understandably, it's a
>
>
> > HIS ADVANTAGE: uses Twitter, South Side Chicago homeowner, NBA and
>
> > NCAA basketball fan, Al Green crooner, knows Nicki Minaj, supports
>
> > marijuana decriminalization (or used to), legitimizes hip-hop: 'the
>
> > most vibrant musical genre over the past 10 to 15 years has been
>
> > hip-hop', etc. It could be overt or subconscious preference, it could
>
> > be any number of things depending on the individual voter's
>
> > background, lifestyle, etc.
>
> >
>
> > How is that controversial? Howard Fineman wrote about it within a
>
> > couple hours of the end of the election. It was absolutely to Obama's
>
> > advantage in _this_ election. It would not have been in 1984!!
>
>
>
> Far, far worse than President Obama winning is the insufferable gloating and
>
> bullying were're already starting to see.
In the good old days, this is where Bob Lombard would join the fray.
> > HIS ADVANTAGE: uses Twitter, South Side Chicago homeowner, NBA and
>
> > NCAA basketball fan, Al Green crooner, knows Nicki Minaj, supports
>
> > marijuana decriminalization (or used to), legitimizes hip-hop: 'the
>
> > most vibrant musical genre over the past 10 to 15 years has been
>
> > hip-hop', etc. It could be overt or subconscious preference, it could
>
> > be any number of things depending on the individual voter's
>
> > background, lifestyle, etc.
>
> >
>
> > How is that controversial? Howard Fineman wrote about it within a
>
> > couple hours of the end of the election. It was absolutely to Obama's
>
> > advantage in _this_ election. It would not have been in 1984!!
>
>
>
> Far, far worse than President Obama winning is the insufferable gloating and
>
> bullying were're already starting to see.
wkasimer
Nov 7, 2012, 3:43:20 PM11/7/12
to
On Nov 7, 3:15 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Far, far worse than President Obama winning is the insufferable gloating and
> bullying were're already starting to see.
Here in Massachusetts, the insufferable gloating and bullying started
> Far, far worse than President Obama winning is the insufferable gloating and
> bullying were're already starting to see.
months ago, during the primaries. I've lived here so long that I no
longer remember what it's like to cast a meaningful vote in a
Presidential election. And my district, the 4th, just elected the
World's Emptiest Suit, Joe Kennedy III, to the House of
Representatives.
Bill
Oscar
Nov 7, 2012, 4:06:29 PM11/7/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 12:43:20 PM, wkasimer wrote:
>
> Here in Massachusetts, the insufferable gloating and bullying started
> months ago, during the primaries. I've lived here so long that I no
> longer remember what it's like to cast a meaningful vote in a
> Presidential election. And my district, the 4th, just elected the
> World's Emptiest Suit, Joe Kennedy III, to the House of
> Representatives.
Running on the go-kart fumes of Camelot. Neat-o. William Kennedy Smith not around?
>
> Here in Massachusetts, the insufferable gloating and bullying started
> months ago, during the primaries. I've lived here so long that I no
> longer remember what it's like to cast a meaningful vote in a
> Presidential election. And my district, the 4th, just elected the
> World's Emptiest Suit, Joe Kennedy III, to the House of
> Representatives.
We have dynasties out West, too. Mayor of the City of Los Angeles Antonio Villaraigosa is a former Speaker of the California State Assembly. His cousin, John Pérez, is the current Speaker. When Villaraigosa's former Assembly pal and lifelong job-hopping politiican, Richard Alarcón, got elected to the City Council he wanted a job for his daughter, Andrea. So Villaraigosa appointed her to the Public Works panel (annual salary $123,000) as a replacement for Ernesto Cárdenas, the brother of Councilman Tony Cárdenas.
Termed out as Mayor next year, smart money has the former Barry Obama giving the former Tony Villar a Cabinet position in the next Administration. http://tiny.cc/bu8enw
J.Martin
Nov 7, 2012, 4:44:55 PM11/7/12
to
>
> My wife was wondering (at the screen shots during the evening of the
> crowd at Romney headquarters in Boston) what had happened to all the
> minority and female people at the convention had gone. ;-)
>
It was stange to see the contrasting shots of each HQ, wasn't it?
> My wife was wondering (at the screen shots during the evening of the
> crowd at Romney headquarters in Boston) what had happened to all the
> minority and female people at the convention had gone. ;-)
>
Obama's crowd looked like the people I might see down at the
supermarket or on the bus. Romney's looked like I imagine a country
club in ol' Virginnie.
> Steve
> (P.S.--Carter WOULD have made a good sound track for watching the
>
Ha! You remembered my post from yesterday. I wound up watching the
returns with the sound on, and only got around to some Carter this
morning. Concerto for Orchestra made for some interesting listening
while weaving through the traffic on my way to work.
wkasimer
Nov 7, 2012, 5:22:42 PM11/7/12
to
On Nov 7, 4:06 pm, Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Running on the go-kart fumes of Camelot. Neat-o. William Kennedy Smith not around?
He's keeping a low profile. He hasn't been charged with sexual
> Running on the go-kart fumes of Camelot. Neat-o. William Kennedy Smith not around?
assault in nearly a decade, so perhaps he'll resurface soon - maybe to
replace John Kerry if he receives the nomination for Secretary of
State that he lusts after.
It really is difficult for me to understand what the voters of
Massachusetts are thinking.
Bill
Kip Williams
Nov 7, 2012, 5:41:52 PM11/7/12
to
Frank Berger wrote, On 11/7/12 3:15 PM:
> Far, far worse than President Obama winning is the insufferable gloating
> and bullying were're already starting to see.
It's good that the Republicans got in their strutting and sneering
before the election, since they can't now. I note they're already
dictating terms to Obama, but that's nothing new.
Kip W
> Far, far worse than President Obama winning is the insufferable gloating
> and bullying were're already starting to see.
before the election, since they can't now. I note they're already
dictating terms to Obama, but that's nothing new.
Kip W
Kip Williams
Nov 7, 2012, 5:45:40 PM11/7/12
to
Frank Berger wrote, On 11/7/12 3:08 PM:
him.
Kip W
> Mark S wrote:
>> Get on the bus or get run over.
>
> Sounds like you want to silence him. Followed by a near-threat.
> That's what a lot of people expect from the Left-in-Power.
Frank thinks Mark has a bus he uses to run over people who disagree with
>> Get on the bus or get run over.
>
> Sounds like you want to silence him. Followed by a near-threat.
> That's what a lot of people expect from the Left-in-Power.
him.
Kip W
John Thomas
Nov 7, 2012, 5:48:55 PM11/7/12
to
On Nov 7, 8:57 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Thomas wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 9:27:56 PM UTC-8, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> Mark S wrote:
>
> >>> America and the world can rest easier tonight.
>
> >>> That is all.
>
> >> Mandate! Mandate!
>
> > How large a mandate does Gary Johnson have?
>
> You're doing what? Teasing me that Gary Johnson didn't win? Go for it.
Since I voted for Jill Stein I'd hardly be foolish enough to do
something like that.
> John Thomas wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 9:27:56 PM UTC-8, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> Mark S wrote:
>
> >>> America and the world can rest easier tonight.
>
> >>> That is all.
>
> >> Mandate! Mandate!
>
> > How large a mandate does Gary Johnson have?
>
> You're doing what? Teasing me that Gary Johnson didn't win? Go for it.
Since I voted for Jill Stein I'd hardly be foolish enough to do
something like that.
Dufus
Nov 7, 2012, 7:13:50 PM11/7/12
to
>On Nov 7, 2:15 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Far, far worse than President Obama winning is the insufferable gloating and
> bullying were're already starting to see.
Here is an hilarious, factual account of the meltdown at Bullier - In
> Far, far worse than President Obama winning is the insufferable gloating and
> bullying were're already starting to see.
- Chief Fix News :
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/177701171.html
The idiot Michelle Bachmann almost got beat by a political unknown
with no funds.
Ray Hall
Nov 7, 2012, 7:36:18 PM11/7/12
to
Roland van Gaalen wrote:
>
> In the good old days, this is where Bob Lombard would join the fray.
>
> Roland van Gaalen
> Cape Town
>
We might miss Bob, but we don't miss his insufferable political schtick.
>
> In the good old days, this is where Bob Lombard would join the fray.
>
> Roland van Gaalen
> Cape Town
>
Ray Hall, Taree
Ray Hall
Nov 7, 2012, 7:50:54 PM11/7/12
to
Ray Hall, Taree
Oscar
Nov 7, 2012, 8:00:37 PM11/7/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 4:51:05 PM, Ray Hall wrote:
>
> I'll have to watch Fox News for coupla days. Should be good for a giggle.
Last night was pretty funny. Rove and Morris are like Abbott & Costello of demonic politics consulting (oxymoron). MSNBC was pretty funny, too. Ever-hyper and increasingly unhinged-looking Chris Matthews got all hot & bothered at like 3 AM and blurted out — quote — 'I'm so glad we had that storm last week because I think the storm was one of those things.' Someone could be heard saying, 'Oooh' off-screen. Matthews held up his hand and continued, 'No, politically I should say. Not in terms of hurting people. The storm brought in possibilities for good politics.' Long mea culpa today at the beginning of his show, looking ashen and drawn as if he stayed up all night obsessing over his Twitter mentions.
>
> I'll have to watch Fox News for coupla days. Should be good for a giggle.
wagnerfan
Nov 8, 2012, 12:09:40 AM11/8/12
to
keep trying to tell him its the changing USA demographics that must be
addressed by the Repubs he refused to believe it - the poor slob is
still living in Leave it to Beaver Land - he is a dinosaur doomed to
extinction. And Sean Hannity is now not only the stupidest man on
television but the angriest stupidest - I mean I could see smoke
coming out of his ears. Funniest moment - Fox news sending poor Megan
Kelly to the election room to be sure the Ohio call was correct even
though Humpty Dumpty imitator (and a person who will never be given
300 million dollars to work with again) Karl Rove just couldn't
believe it!!!!
Wagnerfan
O
Nov 8, 2012, 12:31:04 AM11/8/12
to
Congratulations to all the Democrats on this list. I think they
succeeded beyond their wildest dreams (except for winning back the
House). Let's all hope the voters made the right choice. The
Democrats ran a fine campaign, the Republicans have a lot of
re-thinking to do.
-Owen
Herman
Nov 8, 2012, 4:10:57 AM11/8/12
to
Le jeudi 8 novembre 2012 06:09:53 UTC+1, wagnerfan a écrit :
> Funniest moment - Fox news sending poor Megan
>
> Kelly to the election room to be sure the Ohio call was correct even
>
> though Humpty Dumpty imitator (and a person who will never be given
>
> 300 million dollars to work with again) Karl Rove just couldn't
>
> believe it!!!!
>
I wouldn't count on it. These people are in it for the money first.
> Funniest moment - Fox news sending poor Megan
>
> Kelly to the election room to be sure the Ohio call was correct even
>
> though Humpty Dumpty imitator (and a person who will never be given
>
> 300 million dollars to work with again) Karl Rove just couldn't
>
> believe it!!!!
>
The Roves will blame the candidate and start raking in the money for 2014 and 2016.
jeffc
Nov 8, 2012, 5:11:28 AM11/8/12
to
Perhaps some of you missed this item that was on the Floriduh ballot:
"Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution providing that no
individual or entity may be denied, on the basis of religious identity
or belief, governmental benefits, funding or other support, except as
required by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and
deleting the prohibition against using revenues from the public
treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or
religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution."
http://collinscenter.org/2012flamendments/amendment-8-religious-freedom/
It was approved by 44% of the voters -- but needed 60% to win.
God's will.
"Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution providing that no
individual or entity may be denied, on the basis of religious identity
or belief, governmental benefits, funding or other support, except as
required by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and
deleting the prohibition against using revenues from the public
treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or
religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution."
http://collinscenter.org/2012flamendments/amendment-8-religious-freedom/
It was approved by 44% of the voters -- but needed 60% to win.
God's will.
Oscar
Nov 8, 2012, 5:25:29 AM11/8/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 10:58:25 AM, J.Martin wrote:
>
> You're right, I'm projecting. I don't know everything about you or
> your philosophy. I'm reading your comments above, which dismiss
> factors such as the economy and whether or not people perceive the
> country to be moving in the right direction, and conclude by asserting
> that ethnicity and lifestyle drove the decision of the majority of
> voters, and I'm suggesting that only a person with a condescending
> view of the majority of voters would offer that explanation. In your
> comments above, you only expand upon your initial statement: ie, it's
> not only because he's black, but also because he recognzes pop culture
> references and likes basketball that people voted for him. Can you
> perhaps consider it is because his views and policies made more sense
> to the majority? Or is too much of a stretch for you to give people
> that much credit? If not, fine. If so, that's condescending.
New York Times, November 8, 2012, by Michael D. Shears:
>
> You're right, I'm projecting. I don't know everything about you or
> your philosophy. I'm reading your comments above, which dismiss
> factors such as the economy and whether or not people perceive the
> country to be moving in the right direction, and conclude by asserting
> that ethnicity and lifestyle drove the decision of the majority of
> voters, and I'm suggesting that only a person with a condescending
> view of the majority of voters would offer that explanation. In your
> comments above, you only expand upon your initial statement: ie, it's
> not only because he's black, but also because he recognzes pop culture
> references and likes basketball that people voted for him. Can you
> perhaps consider it is because his views and policies made more sense
> to the majority? Or is too much of a stretch for you to give people
> that much credit? If not, fine. If so, that's condescending.
<< And the Democrats may yet confront their own demographic challenges once they no longer have Mr. Obama at the top of the ticket, guaranteeing record-breaking turnout among his new Democratic coalition. If turnout among blacks, Hispanics and younger voters — groups that have historically had comparatively low turnout rates — had declined slightly, Mr. Obama might have lost. >>
Kind of condescending, yes? No? I mean, 'demographic challenges' immediately followed by reference to black and Hispanic turn-out, who don't usually vote in the same percentages as whites. Why? Obama has star power, i.e. 'top of the ticket.' Right? Author is a grey-faced, five-dollar haircut white Boomer guy http://tiny.cc/ep9fnw Help me parse the finer points of condescension detection. What say you.
Here's his Twitter feed, let him know what you think http://tiny.cc/bw9fnw
Dufus
Nov 8, 2012, 8:55:00 AM11/8/12
to
>On Nov 8, 4:25 am, Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Here's his Twitter feed, let him know what you thinkhttp://tiny.cc/bw9fnw
If the birthers, racists ,millionaires , Tea Party , religious Right,
>Here's his Twitter feed, let him know what you thinkhttp://tiny.cc/bw9fnw
anti-abortionists had not turned out in droves , Obama would have had
an even greater margin, not needed as much of his "base."
Dufus
Nov 8, 2012, 8:59:57 AM11/8/12
to
>On Nov 7, 7:00 pm, Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris Matthews got all hot & bothered at like 3 AM and blurted out — quote — 'I'm so glad we had that storm last week because I think the storm was one of those things.' Someone could be ><heard saying, 'Oooh' off-screen. Matthews held up his hand and continued, 'No, politically I should say. Not in terms of hurting people. The storm brought in possibilities for good politics.'
Matthews was also hawking the paper-back version of his Kennedy book
> Chris Matthews got all hot & bothered at like 3 AM and blurted out — quote — 'I'm so glad we had that storm last week because I think the storm was one of those things.' Someone could be ><heard saying, 'Oooh' off-screen. Matthews held up his hand and continued, 'No, politically I should say. Not in terms of hurting people. The storm brought in possibilities for good politics.'
earlier that night on his regularly scheduled shouting-match. "
Proud", " 12 weeks NYT best-seller " , etc., as if big news on
Election Night.
NBC should relegate Matthews to a radio talk-show opposite Limbaugh,
he of the " slut " comment.
Dufus
Nov 8, 2012, 9:00:45 AM11/8/12
to
wkasimer
Nov 8, 2012, 10:07:47 AM11/8/12
to
On Nov 8, 12:31 am, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> the Republicans have a lot of re-thinking to do.
They certainly do, if they ever want to win the White House (and
> the Republicans have a lot of re-thinking to do.
control the Senate) again. Because unless they can make signficant
inroads in California and New York, and bring them into play in
presidential elections, it will be a constant uphill (and probably
futile) struggle for them. And it won't be long before Texas goes
"blue", too.
The Republican Party has allowed themselves to be defined by its most
extreme members and stances, and as a result is dragging down
genuinely moderate party members - witness Scott Brown's loss in
Massachusetts. Whatever happened to the Republican Party that
supported civil rights legislation, over Democrat opposition?
Bill
Bill
Jenn
Nov 8, 2012, 10:55:48 AM11/8/12
to
In article
<1124da04-2a31-47de...@jj5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
"J.Martin" <mista...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Way off base, Jen.
>
> Who's Jen?
He probably thought that you were me; the other "jmartin".
Jenn
<1124da04-2a31-47de...@jj5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
"J.Martin" <mista...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Way off base, Jen.
>
> Who's Jen?
He probably thought that you were me; the other "jmartin".
Jenn
Mark S
Nov 8, 2012, 11:27:00 AM11/8/12
to
On Thursday, November 8, 2012 7:07:47 AM UTC-8, wkasimer wrote:
> Whatever happened to the Republican Party that
>
> supported civil rights legislation, over Democrat opposition?
I think it disappeared, oh, 50 to 60 years ago, when LBJ signed civil rights bills into law and the racists and Dixiecrats went running over to the Republic side of the ledger.
> Whatever happened to the Republican Party that
>
> supported civil rights legislation, over Democrat opposition?
I'm always amused when people bring up the "Rs supported civil rights before Ds did" meme, as if what was true over half a century ago has anything at all to do with politics today. Why not haul out the Whigs while you're at it?
wkasimer
Nov 8, 2012, 12:20:53 PM11/8/12
to
Democrats. But as you note, the two parties changed rather
drastically in a short period of time in the late 50's and early 60's
- and there's no reason why it can't happen again.
Bill
Frank Berger
Nov 8, 2012, 2:06:13 PM11/8/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
J.Martin
Nov 8, 2012, 2:16:46 PM11/8/12
to
> Kind of condescending, yes? No? I mean, 'demographic challenges' immediately followed by reference to black and Hispanic turn-out, who don't usually vote in the same percentages as whites. Why? Obama has star power, i.e. 'top of the ticket.' Right? Author is a grey-faced, five-dollar haircut white Boomer guyhttp://tiny.cc/ep9fnwHelp me parse the finer points of condescension detection. What say you.
Yes. I see this sort of thinking as, first, a kind of denial: ie,
these people seems to be saying that it's not because a majority of
Americans thought Obama would do a better job than Romney, or that the
Democrats priorities spoke to more people than the Republicans, it's
that Obama has "star power," that he likes more interesting music, has
a better haircut or whatever. This seems to me a rather desperate
attempt to avoid considering the possibility that they may be wrong
about a number of issues, and in particular about climate change,
immigration, and other things of special interest to younger and non-
white voters.
Beyond that, it's also a condescending view of the electorate, and in
particular women and people of color. Which should surprise no one.
We all saw Romney's "47% of Americans don't want to take
responsibility for their lives and are just looking for a handout"
remark, so we know how he feels. We've seen Bill O'Reilly's comments
about the majority supported Obama because they're looking for a
handout, and how the "white establishment is now the minority." The
viewpoint they express and that of your quoted materials seems to be
that only white men are capable of choosing a president on the basis
of what will be best for the country, and all the others choose on the
basis of star power and lazy self interest. That's condescending,
yes.
Let me add that if Republicans would like to believe that the 2012
results are a one-time thing based on Obama's singular star power,
they are in for a few surprises. The Democrats have any number of
candidates they can put forward in 2016 who can inspire a similar
coalition. If the GOP runs another representative of the "white
establishment" who wants Mexican Americans to "self deport," denies
climate change, and runs on a platform supporting a constitutional
amendment to ban abortion, and the Democrats run, say, Hillary
Clinton, I would predict very similar voting patterns to 2012 and a
very similar result.
Yes. I see this sort of thinking as, first, a kind of denial: ie,
these people seems to be saying that it's not because a majority of
Americans thought Obama would do a better job than Romney, or that the
Democrats priorities spoke to more people than the Republicans, it's
that Obama has "star power," that he likes more interesting music, has
a better haircut or whatever. This seems to me a rather desperate
attempt to avoid considering the possibility that they may be wrong
about a number of issues, and in particular about climate change,
immigration, and other things of special interest to younger and non-
white voters.
Beyond that, it's also a condescending view of the electorate, and in
particular women and people of color. Which should surprise no one.
We all saw Romney's "47% of Americans don't want to take
responsibility for their lives and are just looking for a handout"
remark, so we know how he feels. We've seen Bill O'Reilly's comments
about the majority supported Obama because they're looking for a
handout, and how the "white establishment is now the minority." The
viewpoint they express and that of your quoted materials seems to be
that only white men are capable of choosing a president on the basis
of what will be best for the country, and all the others choose on the
basis of star power and lazy self interest. That's condescending,
yes.
Let me add that if Republicans would like to believe that the 2012
results are a one-time thing based on Obama's singular star power,
they are in for a few surprises. The Democrats have any number of
candidates they can put forward in 2016 who can inspire a similar
coalition. If the GOP runs another representative of the "white
establishment" who wants Mexican Americans to "self deport," denies
climate change, and runs on a platform supporting a constitutional
amendment to ban abortion, and the Democrats run, say, Hillary
Clinton, I would predict very similar voting patterns to 2012 and a
very similar result.
wagnerfan
Nov 8, 2012, 2:43:29 PM11/8/12
to
happened again in 2012 and they had better do some soul searching. If
the Republicans do not welcome an ever growing electorate - Blacks,
Latinos, Gays, young people they will NEVER win another general
election. The demographics just won't be there for them - I can
actually see the Republican party vanishing if it refuses to redefine
itself.
Wagner fan
Christopher Ingham
Nov 8, 2012, 3:40:30 PM11/8/12
to
election night coverage.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/jon-stewart-fox-news-election.php
Christopher Ingham
Norman Schwartz
Nov 8, 2012, 6:53:03 PM11/8/12
to
"wagnerfan" <ivanm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8k2o98p29cs4r08sm...@4ax.com...
> The Republicans may have thought 2008 was a one time thing but its
> happened again in 2012 and they had better do some soul searching. If
> the Republicans do not welcome an ever growing electorate - Blacks,
> Latinos, Gays, young people they will NEVER win another general
> election. The demographics just won't be there for them - I can
> actually see the Republican party vanishing if it refuses to redefine
> itself.
> Wagner fan
Steven Bornfeld
Nov 8, 2012, 7:00:31 PM11/8/12
to
Center's generators failed, but Goldman Sachs kept going.
S.
Al Eisner
Nov 8, 2012, 7:28:44 PM11/8/12
to
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Oscar wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 3:05:07 AM, Herman wrote:
>>
>> gross distortions...and reality in general.
>
> Obama spent $853 million on his campaign.
> Romney spent $752 million on his campaign.
>
> Plenty of 'gross distortions' and reality obfuscation all the way around, bro.
You are being really naive if you don't count the independent
expenditures, or believe that they were uncoordinated with the
campaigns.
--
Al Eisner
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 3:05:07 AM, Herman wrote:
>>
>> gross distortions...and reality in general.
>
> Obama spent $853 million on his campaign.
> Romney spent $752 million on his campaign.
>
> Plenty of 'gross distortions' and reality obfuscation all the way around, bro.
You are being really naive if you don't count the independent
expenditures, or believe that they were uncoordinated with the
campaigns.
--
Al Eisner
Oscar
Nov 8, 2012, 8:34:33 PM11/8/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Thursday, November 8, 2012 4:28:44 PM, Al Eisner wrote:
>
> You are being really naive if you don't count the independent
> expenditures, or believe that they were uncoordinated with the
> campaigns.
Thanks for the compliment, but I know all about it. You mean the $600 million from Super PAC's? http://tiny.cc/vqfhnw
>
> You are being really naive if you don't count the independent
> expenditures, or believe that they were uncoordinated with the
> campaigns.
Top 10
• Restore Our Future $142,655,220 Conservative (supported Romney)
• American Crossroads $104,744,444 Conservative
• Priorities USA Action $67,496,077 Liberal (supported Obama)
• Majority PAC $37,409,076 Liberal
• House Majority PAC $30,735,096 Liberal
• Freedomworks for America $19,154,397 Conservative
• Winning Our Future $17,007,762 Conservative (supported Gingrich)
• Club for Growth Action $16,570,225 Conservative
• Service Employees International Union $14,857,213 Liberal
• Ending Spending Fund $13,238,301 Conservative
Mark S
Nov 8, 2012, 11:53:27 PM11/8/12
to
Oscar
Nov 9, 2012, 7:46:29 AM11/9/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Thursday, November 8, 2012 11:16:46 AM, J.Martin wrote:
>
> Yes. I see this sort of thinking as, first, a kind of denial: ie,
> these people seems to be saying that it's not because a majority of
> Americans thought Obama would do a better job than Romney, or that the
> Democrats priorities spoke to more people than the Republicans, it's
> that Obama has "star power," that he likes more interesting music, has
> a better haircut or whatever. This seems to me a rather desperate
> attempt to avoid considering the possibility that they may be wrong
> about a number of issues, and in particular about climate change,
> immigration, and other things of special interest to younger and non-
> white voters.
Okay, but that was pulled from a story in the 'regular' news section of the New York Times, not an Op-Ed. Michael D. Shears is white and liberal. Did you cancel your subscription yet? Even Sarah Palin doesn't read it!
>
> Yes. I see this sort of thinking as, first, a kind of denial: ie,
> these people seems to be saying that it's not because a majority of
> Americans thought Obama would do a better job than Romney, or that the
> Democrats priorities spoke to more people than the Republicans, it's
> that Obama has "star power," that he likes more interesting music, has
> a better haircut or whatever. This seems to me a rather desperate
> attempt to avoid considering the possibility that they may be wrong
> about a number of issues, and in particular about climate change,
> immigration, and other things of special interest to younger and non-
> white voters.
> Beyond that, it's also a condescending view of the electorate, and in
> particular women and people of color. Which should surprise no one.
> We all saw Romney's "47% of Americans don't want to take
> responsibility for their lives and are just looking for a handout"
> remark, so we know how he feels. We've seen Bill O'Reilly's comments
> about the majority supported Obama because they're looking for a
> handout, and how the "white establishment is now the minority."
The
> viewpoint they express and that of your quoted materials seems to be
> that only white men are capable of choosing a president on the basis
> of what will be best for the country, and all the others choose on the
> basis of star power and lazy self interest. That's condescending,
> yes.
Dean Baquet, managing editor (formerly of LA Times, btw)
c/o The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
> Let me add that if Republicans would like to believe that the 2012
> results are a one-time thing based on Obama's singular star power,
> they are in for a few surprises. The Democrats have any number of
> candidates they can put forward in 2016 who can inspire a similar
> coalition.
> If the GOP runs another representative of the "white
> establishment" who wants Mexican Americans to "self deport,"
Frank Berger
Nov 9, 2012, 9:33:17 AM11/9/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
I took an undergraduate political science class, oh, around 45 years ago.
Literally the only thing I remember is learning about a study that measured
what determined individuals' voting for Presidential elections. The
results were something like this:
1. Good times / bad times - a good economic time is good for the incumbents
(and vice versa).
2. Affiliation - my parents voted D, so I vote D.
3. Personal characteristic of the candidate - charisma, etc.
4. Issues.
I don't imagine this has changed much
I'm sure that for many RMCRers "issues" ranks 1st. But we are not typical.
Projecting our own "ranking" to the electorate at large is likely to lead to
false predictions. Not this time, because Obama does have more charisma
than Romney, and a combination of the electorate blaming Bush for the
economy and the better economic news lately saved Obama. This is not to say
that changing demographics don't matter. Surely the immigration issue is
extremely important among the growing Hispanic community, but even there is
hard to separate the "issue" from No. 1 above.
Literally the only thing I remember is learning about a study that measured
what determined individuals' voting for Presidential elections. The
results were something like this:
1. Good times / bad times - a good economic time is good for the incumbents
(and vice versa).
2. Affiliation - my parents voted D, so I vote D.
3. Personal characteristic of the candidate - charisma, etc.
4. Issues.
I don't imagine this has changed much
I'm sure that for many RMCRers "issues" ranks 1st. But we are not typical.
Projecting our own "ranking" to the electorate at large is likely to lead to
false predictions. Not this time, because Obama does have more charisma
than Romney, and a combination of the electorate blaming Bush for the
economy and the better economic news lately saved Obama. This is not to say
that changing demographics don't matter. Surely the immigration issue is
extremely important among the growing Hispanic community, but even there is
hard to separate the "issue" from No. 1 above.
Norman Schwartz
Nov 9, 2012, 10:00:07 AM11/9/12
to
"Steven Bornfeld" <dentalt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:k7hh2r$q3$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Of course, unfortunate for their in-patients which I had seen (TV-News)
being transferred to other facilities.
>
> S.
O
Nov 9, 2012, 10:04:55 AM11/9/12
to
In article
<21a6bf3d-36ad-4f09...@s12g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,
Lena <emsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 9:31 pm, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
>
> > Congratulations to all the Democrats on this list.
>
> Thank you. :) (Though did any of us do anything, besides cheer?)
> articulate persons from the putative opposition.)
Why would you want to?
-Owen
<21a6bf3d-36ad-4f09...@s12g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,
Lena <emsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 9:31 pm, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
>
> > Congratulations to all the Democrats on this list.
>
>
> > I think they
> > succeeded beyond their wildest dreams (except for winning back the
> > House). Let's all hope the voters made the right choice. The
> > Democrats ran a fine campaign, the Republicans have a lot of
> > re-thinking to do.
> >
>
> Why is it so hard to demonize you ? :) (And various other fine and
> > I think they
> > succeeded beyond their wildest dreams (except for winning back the
> > House). Let's all hope the voters made the right choice. The
> > Democrats ran a fine campaign, the Republicans have a lot of
> > re-thinking to do.
> >
>
> articulate persons from the putative opposition.)
Why would you want to?
-Owen
Kip Williams
Nov 9, 2012, 10:14:12 AM11/9/12
to
O wrote, On 11/9/12 10:04 AM:
You demonize yourself pretty well in that red union suit with the tail
and horns and pitchfork. Looks pretty corny until you put the flashlight
under your chin and laugh.
Kip W
and horns and pitchfork. Looks pretty corny until you put the flashlight
under your chin and laugh.
Kip W
Norman Schwartz
Nov 9, 2012, 10:36:33 AM11/9/12
to
"Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:IoadnWnjN7WyiQDN...@supernews.com...
are a voter's self interests, if elected what will Party 'A' do for me; my
wallet, health, education and my children's education plus my over all
well-being vs. Party 'B'? And I think that concern overrides the country's
best interest. Accordingly, if I lived and voted in a swing-state it would
have to have been for President Obama.
O
Nov 9, 2012, 10:59:22 AM11/9/12
to
In article <759ns.28222$2Q3....@newsfe25.iad>, Kip Williams
It's a magic flashlight. I got a lot of candy wearing that suit.
-Owen
-Owen
Frank Berger
Nov 9, 2012, 1:38:15 PM11/9/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
different category. Sounds familiar, it probably was in the list.
J.Martin
Nov 9, 2012, 2:06:52 PM11/9/12
to
>
> White establishment is not yet a minority nationally, but it is fast approaching. Check out statistics of members of incoming class of House of Representatives who are identify as 'white men' and compare to 1953. White establishment has been a non-factor in City of Los Angeles civic life since at least 2001. Kingmakers are Mexican-Americans: Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor of LA; Maria Elena Durazo, head of most powerful union LA County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO; Gloria Molina, head of most influential elected office in SoCal on Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors; Lee Baca, LA County Sheriff; not to mention several members of the City Council, of Congress, of the State Legislature, of the Los Angeles Unified school board. And, the Speaker of the California Assembly is Antonio Villaraigosa's cousin, John Pérez. As California goes, so goes the nation. I live in the middle of a majority Mexican + hipster/gay area. Southern Orange County, where Mark S. lives, is still firmly non-Hispanic white, upper middle class/wealthy, not progressive, and staunchly Republican.
I'm quite aware of these demographic changes. I work in education, on
> White establishment is not yet a minority nationally, but it is fast approaching. Check out statistics of members of incoming class of House of Representatives who are identify as 'white men' and compare to 1953. White establishment has been a non-factor in City of Los Angeles civic life since at least 2001. Kingmakers are Mexican-Americans: Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor of LA; Maria Elena Durazo, head of most powerful union LA County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO; Gloria Molina, head of most influential elected office in SoCal on Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors; Lee Baca, LA County Sheriff; not to mention several members of the City Council, of Congress, of the State Legislature, of the Los Angeles Unified school board. And, the Speaker of the California Assembly is Antonio Villaraigosa's cousin, John Pérez. As California goes, so goes the nation. I live in the middle of a majority Mexican + hipster/gay area. Southern Orange County, where Mark S. lives, is still firmly non-Hispanic white, upper middle class/wealthy, not progressive, and staunchly Republican.
a California campus where Asian American students outnumber whites,
and Latinos will very likely outnumber all other ethnicities within a
few years if trends continue. My wife works in the K-12 system, and
her classes typically have 6-8 white students out of 25. (And,
incidentally, a majority are first or second generation immigrants who
do not speak English at home.) The reason I bring up the remark about
the "white establishment" is to note that many in the Republican Party
seem surprised and dismayed by these changes. Many, many observers
have noted the demographic changes in our country and how they worked
to the Democrats' advantage. But one can easily sense in the
Republicans' comments a thinly veiled contempt for those not part of
the "white establishment" and their political choices. When you point
out that Latinos have a great deal of political clout in parts of
California, are you suggesting there's something wrong or unusual
about that? Should Los Angeles, with its strongly Latino demographic,
be governed by the "white establishment"? I'm not suggesting that
you're saying this, but I think that's how the Bill O'Reillys of this
world see it. And that's why their era is ending.
>
> > If the GOP runs another representative of the "white
> > establishment" who wants Mexican Americans to "self deport,"
>
> Who is seeking Mexican-AMERICANS to 'self-deport'? You know, I kinda like my girlfriend. She's not seeking her self-deportation, either, to her birthplace of East Los Angeles, for what it's worth. Oh hell no, wouldn't return to that shithole for a hot tamale (she makes the best).
analysts have suggested it was a key reason Latinos skewed so strongly
for Obama.
J.Martin
Nov 9, 2012, 2:20:38 PM11/9/12
to
>
> I don't know if it falls under "4 Issues" above, but I think most important
> are a voter's self interests, if elected what will Party 'A' do for me; my
> wallet, health, education and my children's education plus my over all
> well-being vs. Party 'B'? And I think that concern overrides the country's
> best interest. Accordingly, if I lived and voted in a swing-state it would
> have to have been for President Obama.- Hide quoted text -
> I don't know if it falls under "4 Issues" above, but I think most important
> are a voter's self interests, if elected what will Party 'A' do for me; my
> wallet, health, education and my children's education plus my over all
> well-being vs. Party 'B'? And I think that concern overrides the country's
> best interest. Accordingly, if I lived and voted in a swing-state it would
>
I would respectfully disagree. If self-interest were actually the
first priority of most voters, it would be easy to pass taxes on the
rich (who are, after all, a small percentage of the electorate) and
pass social welfare programs that provide benefits to large numbers of
people, such as the Affordable Care Act. In reality, the opposite
seems true. Many people oppose taxes and social programs on an
ideological basis, even when it would be in their self interest to
support them. And many others, on the other hand, support taxing
themselves in order to provide benefits for others. So I think Mark's
factor 2 is very powerful: many people vote based on ideology, which
in many cases is derived from their parents, but also may be the
result of a personal self-identification as a liberal, tea party
patriot, or whatever.
wkasimer
Nov 9, 2012, 2:26:59 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 2:20 pm, "J.Martin" <mistalu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I would respectfully disagree. If self-interest were actually the
> first priority of most voters, it would be easy to pass taxes on the
> rich (who are, after all, a small percentage of the electorate) and
> pass social welfare programs that provide benefits to large numbers of
> people, such as the Affordable Care Act.
That's not really self-interest - that's simple greed.
> I would respectfully disagree. If self-interest were actually the
> first priority of most voters, it would be easy to pass taxes on the
> rich (who are, after all, a small percentage of the electorate) and
> pass social welfare programs that provide benefits to large numbers of
> people, such as the Affordable Care Act.
> In reality, the opposite
> seems true. Many people oppose taxes and social programs on an
> ideological basis, even when it would be in their self interest to
> support them. And many others, on the other hand, support taxing
> themselves in order to provide benefits for others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest
Bill
Oscar
Nov 9, 2012, 3:40:13 PM11/9/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, November 9, 2012 11:06:52 AM, J.Martin wrote:
>
> Many, many observers have noted the demographic changes in
> our country and how they worked to the Democrats' advantage.
'And people said to me on the Senate floor when I was in the Senate, 'Why do you fight so hard for affirmative action programs?' And I tell my white colleagues, 'because you're going to need them.''
>
> Many, many observers have noted the demographic changes in
> our country and how they worked to the Democrats' advantage.
—Art Torres, former Calif. State Senator and Chairman of the California Democratic Party from 1995 to 2009.
Oscar
Nov 9, 2012, 3:57:18 PM11/9/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
One more, my personal favorite:
Mario Obledo, the 'Godfather of the Latino Movement' in the United States, founding member and former national director of Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), and former member of Calif. Governor Jerry Brown's Cabinet in the 70's, was on the Tom Leikus radio talk show in the late 90's (not a right-wing political show, btw):
'We're going to take over all the political institutions in California. In five years the Hispanics are going to be the majority population of this state.' Caller: 'You also made the statement that California is going to become a Hispanic state and if anyone doesn't like it they should leave - did you say that?' Obledo: 'I did. They ought to go back to Europe.'
In 1998, Obledo was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, describing him as having 'created a powerful chorus for justice and equality.
Also:
When the California Coalition for Immigration Reform erected a billboard on the California/Arizona border reading, WELCOME TO CALIFORNIA, THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION STATE (there are approx. 3 million 'undocumented migrants' living in the state), Mario Obledo was infuriated and threatened to blow up the billboard or burn it down.
Debate between Obledo and CCIR:
CCIR: 'Jose Angel Gutierrez said, "We have an aging white America, they are dying, I love it." How would you translate that statement?'
Obledo: 'He's a good friend of mine. A very smart person.'
Hear it for yourself! http://tiny.cc/jrxinw
Mario Obledo, the 'Godfather of the Latino Movement' in the United States, founding member and former national director of Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), and former member of Calif. Governor Jerry Brown's Cabinet in the 70's, was on the Tom Leikus radio talk show in the late 90's (not a right-wing political show, btw):
'We're going to take over all the political institutions in California. In five years the Hispanics are going to be the majority population of this state.' Caller: 'You also made the statement that California is going to become a Hispanic state and if anyone doesn't like it they should leave - did you say that?' Obledo: 'I did. They ought to go back to Europe.'
In 1998, Obledo was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, describing him as having 'created a powerful chorus for justice and equality.
Also:
When the California Coalition for Immigration Reform erected a billboard on the California/Arizona border reading, WELCOME TO CALIFORNIA, THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION STATE (there are approx. 3 million 'undocumented migrants' living in the state), Mario Obledo was infuriated and threatened to blow up the billboard or burn it down.
Debate between Obledo and CCIR:
CCIR: 'Jose Angel Gutierrez said, "We have an aging white America, they are dying, I love it." How would you translate that statement?'
Obledo: 'He's a good friend of mine. A very smart person.'
Hear it for yourself! http://tiny.cc/jrxinw
J.Martin
Nov 9, 2012, 4:42:44 PM11/9/12
to
>
> I believe that's known as *enlightened* self-interest:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest
>
> Bill
Thanks, I am familiar with the term. But I think it's splitting hairs
> I believe that's known as *enlightened* self-interest:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest
>
> Bill
to draw a distinction between enlightened self-interest and ideology.
J.Martin
Nov 9, 2012, 4:46:37 PM11/9/12
to
What is your point?
Oscar
Nov 9, 2012, 5:07:00 PM11/9/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, November 9, 2012 1:46:37 PM, J.Martin wrote:
>
> What is your point?
Obviously, just responding to what you wrote with a quote from a keen 'observer' in the person of former head of the Democratic Party in California, Art Torres.
The second was just a bauble.
>
> What is your point?
Obviously, just responding to what you wrote with a quote from a keen 'observer' in the person of former head of the Democratic Party in California, Art Torres.
J.Martin
Nov 9, 2012, 5:14:48 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 2:07 pm, Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 1:46:37 PM, J.Martin wrote:
>
> > What is your point?
>
> Obviously, just responding to what you wrote with a quote from a keen 'observer' in the person of former head of the Democratic Party in California, Art Torres.
>
I know you were responding to my post. I don't understand what point
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 1:46:37 PM, J.Martin wrote:
>
> > What is your point?
>
> Obviously, just responding to what you wrote with a quote from a keen 'observer' in the person of former head of the Democratic Party in California, Art Torres.
>
you were intending to make.
William Sommerwerck
Nov 10, 2012, 3:12:28 AM11/10/12
to
> The next four years are going to be just as hard and obstructionist.
Bohner has already said so: "No higher taxes on the rich."
Bohner has already said so: "No higher taxes on the rich."
William Sommerwerck
Nov 10, 2012, 3:13:49 AM11/10/12
to
> America and the world can rest easier tonight.
Obama seems to be building a stable, effective coalition against Iran.
Romney is just the sort who would start a war.
Obama seems to be building a stable, effective coalition against Iran.
Romney is just the sort who would start a war.
wagnerfan
Nov 10, 2012, 5:18:15 AM11/10/12
to
rich will go up. Wagner fan
John Wiser
Nov 10, 2012, 6:59:18 AM11/10/12
to
"wagnerfan" <ivanm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pdas98tdodg7kgai1...@4ax.com...
jdw
wkasimer
Nov 10, 2012, 7:02:13 AM11/10/12
to
On Nov 10, 5:18 am, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Doesn't matter - Obama holds all the cards.
I'm not so sure about that. He did hold all the cards his first two
> Doesn't matter - Obama holds all the cards.
years in office - both branches of Congress controlled by Democrats,
with a veto-override -proof Senate - and look where that's gotten us.
> In the end. taxes on the rich will go up.
Sometimes, I think that his definition of "rich" is anyone who isn't
receiving money from the government.
Bill
William Sommerwerck
Nov 10, 2012, 8:52:43 AM11/10/12
to
> And don't be shocked when the definition of "rich" includes you, WF.
> Sometimes, I think that his definition of "rich" is anyone who isn't
> receiving money from the government.
In this case, it's people making more than $250K.
> Sometimes, I think that his definition of "rich" is anyone who isn't
> receiving money from the government.
I hope Obama will quote Adam Smith -- the apostle of capitalism * -- who
said that the rich should pay more, as they benefit more.
* Free markets, actually. But the two are often conflated.
Kip Williams
Nov 10, 2012, 9:01:09 AM11/10/12
to
wagnerfan wrote, On 11/10/12 5:18 AM:
All Obama has to do is do nothing, and the tax cuts will go away
automatically. The question is how much Obama will bend over backwards
needlessly on this.
Kip W
automatically. The question is how much Obama will bend over backwards
needlessly on this.
Kip W
William Sommerwerck
Nov 10, 2012, 9:11:39 AM11/10/12
to
> All Obama has to do is do nothing, and the tax cuts will go away
> automatically. The question is how much Obama will bend over
> backwards needlessly on this.
He's already asked that the under-$250K tax cuts be extended immediately.
> automatically. The question is how much Obama will bend over
> backwards needlessly on this.
The Republicans won't do this, because they want to hold them hostage to
cuts for higher-income people.
"Tax cuts for the wealthy" is the conservative equivalent of the liberal
"any problem can be solved by throwing money at it". I really don't believe
that investment by the wealthy is the principal factor driving business
growth and job creation.
This is one of those rare cases where "the American people" really do
understand what's going on. The tax cuts were temporary, they don't seem to
have had much effect (on employment), and it's about time they were gotten
rid of. With the right sort of appeal to the American middle class, Obama
should be able to get the Republicans to cave in.
wagnerfan
Nov 10, 2012, 12:33:28 PM11/10/12
to
up. Then all Obama has to do is hold a press conference where he says
that he offered months ago to extend the tax cuts on the middle class
and the Repubs wouldn't budge - he still has the pen ready to extend
the tax cuts retroactively on the middle class but the Repubs are
holding it up due to the fact they want tax cuts on the wealthy - now
how do you think that will play out with the public, Seems slam dunk
to me - the only place Obama could hedge is the limit - possibly
raising it to 500,000 Wagner fan
Mark S
Nov 10, 2012, 12:57:27 PM11/10/12
to
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 4:02:13 AM UTC-8, wkasimer wrote:
> On Nov 10, 5:18 am, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Doesn't matter - Obama holds all the cards.
>
>
>
> I'm not so sure about that. He did hold all the cards his first two
>
> years in office - both branches of Congress controlled by Democrats,
>
> with a veto-override -proof Senate - and look where that's gotten us.
I have to say that I'm tiring of this RW meme, because it's a lie.
> On Nov 10, 5:18 am, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Doesn't matter - Obama holds all the cards.
>
>
>
> I'm not so sure about that. He did hold all the cards his first two
>
> years in office - both branches of Congress controlled by Democrats,
>
> with a veto-override -proof Senate - and look where that's gotten us.
The first point is that Obama got plenty done in his first two years - tthe economic stimulus, the ARRA, bringing the financial system back from the brink of collapse, rescuing two automakers, universal health care, sweeping reform of financial regulation, and major changes in student loan programs, among many others. The Ds had a very productive session those first two years. To act as if Obama could have gotten every single initiative passed in those two years is simplistic thinking. It ignores the amount of time and effort that went into getting Obamacare passed, for example. Months and months of summits and negotiations. We're talking about passing a HUGE comprehensive piece of legislation. This isn't like naming yet another post office after Reagan.
The second point is that the Ds did NOT have "a filibuster-proof majority for two years."
Here is a time-line of the events after the 2008 election:
1. BALANCE BEFORE THE ELECTION. In 2007 – 2008 the balance in the Senate was 51-49 in favor of the Democrats. Not exactly a super majority.
2. BIG GAIN IN 2008, BUT STILL NO SUPER MAJORITY. Coming out the 2008 election, the Democrats made big gains, but they didn’t immediately get a Super Majority. The Minnesota Senate race required a recount and was not undecided for more than six months. During that time, Norm Coleman was still sitting in the Senate and the Balance 59-41, still not a Super Majority.
3. KENNEDY GRAVELY ILL. Remember that Kennedy collapsed at the Inauguration Dinner and was rushed to the hospital. Teddy Kennedy cast his last vote in the Senate in April 2009 and leaves Washington for good around the first of May. Technically he could come back to Washington vote on a pressing issue, but in actual fact, he never returns, even to vote on the Sotomayor confirmation. That leaves the balance in the Senate 58-41, two votes away from a super majority.
4. STILL NO SUPER MAJORITY. In July, Al Frankin was finally declared the winner and was sworn in on July 7th, 2009, so the Democrats finally had a Super Majority of 60-40 six and one-half months into the year. However, by this point, Kennedy was unable to return to Washington even to participate in the Health Care debate, so it was only a technical super majority because Kennedy could no longer vote and the Senate does not allow proxies. Now the actual actual balance of voting members is 59-40 not enough to overcome a Republican filibuster.
5. SENATE IS IN RECESS. Even if Kennedy were able to vote, the Senate went into summer recess three weeks later, from August 7th to September 8th.
6. KENNEDY DIES. Six weeks later, on Aug 26, 2009 Teddy Kennedy died, putting the balance at 59-40. Now the Democrats don’t even have technical super majority.
7. FINALLY, A SUPER MAJORITY! Kennedy’s replacement Paul Kirk was sworn in on September 25, 2009, finally making the majority 60-40, just enough for a super majority.
8. SENATE ADJOURNS. However the Senate adjourned for the year on October 9th, only providing 11 working days of super majority, from September 25th to October 9th.
8. SCOTT BROWN ELECTED. Scott Brown was elected in November of 2009. The Senate was not in session during November and December of 2009. The Senate was in session for 10 days in January, but Scott Brown was sworn into office on February 4th, so the Democrats only had 13 days of super majority in 2010.
Summary: The Democrats only had 24 days of Super Majority between 2008 and 2010.
On top of that, the period of Super Majority was split into one 11-day period and one 13-day period. Given the glacial pace that business takes place in the Senate, this was way too little time for the Democrats pass any meaningful legislation, let alone get bills through committees and past all the obstructionistic tactics the Republicans were using to block legislation.
Further, these Super Majorities count Joe Lieberman as a Democrat even though he was by this time an Independent. Even though he was Liberal on some legislation, he was very conservative on other issues and opposed many of the key pieces of legislation the Democrats and Obama wanted to pass. For example, he was adamantly opposed to “Single Payer” health care and vowed to support a Republican Filibuster if it ever came to the floor.
Summary:
1. 1/07 – 12/08 – 51-49 – Ordinary Majority.
2. 1/09 – 7/14/09 – 59-41 – Ordinary Majority. (Coleman/Franklin Recount.)
3. 7/09 – 8/09 – 60-40 – Technical Super Majority, but since Kennedy is unable to vote, the Democrats can’t overcome a filibuster
4. 8/09 – 9/09 – 59-40 – Ordinary Majority. (Kennedy dies)
5. 9/09 – 10/09 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 11 working days.
6. 1/10 – 2/10 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 13 working days
Total Time of the Democratic Super Majority: 24 Working days.
(See here: http://mauidemocrats.org/wp/?p=2442 )
Mark S
Nov 10, 2012, 1:15:47 PM11/10/12
to
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 9:57:27 AM UTC-8, Mark S wrote:
> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 4:02:13 AM UTC-8, wkasimer wrote:
>
> > On Nov 10, 5:18 am, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Doesn't matter - Obama holds all the cards.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I'm not so sure about that. He did hold all the cards his first two
>
> >
>
> > years in office - both branches of Congress controlled by Democrats,
>
> >
>
> > with a veto-override -proof Senate - and look where that's gotten us.
I forgot point 3, which is obvious: Obama took office on January 20, 2009. NOT 2008. Ergo, his first two years of office ended on January 21, 2011. The fact that Scott Brown took his Senate office in February, 2010 rather knocks a whole year off the "first-two years" meme all by its lonesome. At best, one can say that the Ds had a technical super majority for only the final 6 months of 2009, because Norm Coleman was still in the Senate until July, 2009.
> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 4:02:13 AM UTC-8, wkasimer wrote:
>
> > On Nov 10, 5:18 am, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Doesn't matter - Obama holds all the cards.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I'm not so sure about that. He did hold all the cards his first two
>
> >
>
> > years in office - both branches of Congress controlled by Democrats,
>
> >
>
> > with a veto-override -proof Senate - and look where that's gotten us.
I think that Rs making this two-years claim are counting on the stupidity of people. They think - probably rightfully - that most people remember Obama running for president in 2008, so they think of his "first two years" as 2008-2010. Or maybe they think people think of 2009 until the midterms, which is a two-year period. But that ignores the fact that Scott Brown took his seat in 2009, NOT 2011 after the midterms.
In any case, any way you look at it, it's a lie to aver that Obama "held all the cards his first two years in office - both branches of Congress controlled by Democrats, with a veto-override -proof Senate."
Mark S
Nov 10, 2012, 1:17:28 PM11/10/12
to
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:15:47 AM UTC-8, Mark S wrote:
Correction. I wrote; "But that ignores the fact that Scott Brown took his seat in 2009, NOT 2011 after the midterms." Brown took his seat in Feb 2010, not 2009.
Correction. I wrote; "But that ignores the fact that Scott Brown took his seat in 2009, NOT 2011 after the midterms." Brown took his seat in Feb 2010, not 2009.
Bob Harper
Nov 10, 2012, 5:28:57 PM11/10/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
opportunity or a society built on dependence?
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
Nov 10, 2012, 5:30:43 PM11/10/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On 11/10/12 5:52 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> And don't be shocked when the definition of "rich" includes you, WF.
>> Sometimes, I think that his definition of "rich" is anyone who isn't
>> receiving money from the government.
>
> In this case, it's people making more than $250K.
>
> I hope Obama will quote Adam Smith -- the apostle of capitalism * -- who
> said that the rich should pay more, as they benefit more.
>
They do:
>> And don't be shocked when the definition of "rich" includes you, WF.
>> Sometimes, I think that his definition of "rich" is anyone who isn't
>> receiving money from the government.
>
> In this case, it's people making more than $250K.
>
> I hope Obama will quote Adam Smith -- the apostle of capitalism * -- who
> said that the rich should pay more, as they benefit more.
>
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Bob Harper
William Sommerwerck
Nov 10, 2012, 5:32:37 PM11/10/12
to
> Yep. the fundamental question is this: Do you want a society built
> on opportunity or a society built on dependence?
Neither. I want a society in which work is rewarded, failure to work
> on opportunity or a society built on dependence?
punished.
To put it a bit more specifically... I want an economic system in which
people are allowed to keep the wealth they create.
Gerard
Nov 10, 2012, 5:42:01 PM11/10/12
to
Mark S
Nov 10, 2012, 7:03:40 PM11/10/12
to
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 4:02:13 AM UTC-8, wkasimer wrote:
>a veto-override -proof Senate >
I assume you meant a filibuster-proof Senate. What you wrote doesn't really mean anything.
John Wiser
Nov 10, 2012, 7:28:49 PM11/10/12
to
"Mark S" <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12a1a9b7-8fdc-4206...@googlegroups.com...
Bill's judgement about recordings
I think is quite reliable.
JDW
news:12a1a9b7-8fdc-4206...@googlegroups.com...
I think is quite reliable.
JDW
Mark S
Nov 10, 2012, 7:50:13 PM11/10/12
to
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 4:28:52 PM UTC-8, John Wiser wrote:
> "Mark S" <m> wrote in message
> > I assume you meant a filibuster-proof Senate. What you wrote doesn't
>
> > really mean anything.
>
> Bill's judgement about recordings
>
> I think is quite reliable.
No one is disputing that.
> "Mark S" <m> wrote in message
> > I assume you meant a filibuster-proof Senate. What you wrote doesn't
>
> > really mean anything.
>
> Bill's judgement about recordings
>
> I think is quite reliable.
Bob Harper
Nov 10, 2012, 8:05:53 PM11/10/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On 11/10/12 2:32 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> Yep. the fundamental question is this: Do you want a society built
>> on opportunity or a society built on dependence?
>
> Neither. I want a society in which work is rewarded, failure to work
> punished.
>
I can't see the difference between your desire and my first option. And
>> Yep. the fundamental question is this: Do you want a society built
>> on opportunity or a society built on dependence?
>
> Neither. I want a society in which work is rewarded, failure to work
> punished.
>
it's what I want as well.
Bob Harper
John Wiser
Nov 10, 2012, 8:32:50 PM11/10/12
to
"Mark S" <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fed9a105-dba3-4702...@googlegroups.com...
JDW
William Sommerwerck
Nov 11, 2012, 7:45:02 AM11/11/12
to
>>> Yep. the fundamental question is this: Do you want a society built
>>> on opportunity or a society built on dependence?
>> Neither. I want a society in which work is rewarded, failure to work
>> punished.
>> To put it a bit more specifically... I want an economic system in
>> which people are allowed to keep the wealth they create.
> Marxism.
Absolutely, completely, WRONG. Of all economic systems, communism is the one
>>> on opportunity or a society built on dependence?
>> Neither. I want a society in which work is rewarded, failure to work
>> punished.
>> To put it a bit more specifically... I want an economic system in
>> which people are allowed to keep the wealth they create.
> Marxism.
furthest from the principle I've stated.
Gerard
Nov 11, 2012, 9:35:24 AM11/11/12
to
William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> typed:
Completely wrong. I wrote: Marxism.
(Tip: read what I wrote.)
(Tip: read what I wrote.)
Lena
Nov 11, 2012, 10:43:48 AM11/11/12
to
On Nov 9, 7:59 am, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> In article <759ns.28222$2Q3.3...@newsfe25.iad>, Kip Williams
>
> <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > O wrote, On 11/9/12 10:04 AM:
> > > In article
> > > <21a6bf3d-36ad-4f09-ae1f-34581c934...@s12g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Lena <emswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Why is it so hard to demonize you ? :) [...]
>
> > > Why would you want to?
>
> > You demonize yourself pretty well in that red union suit with the tail
> > and horns and pitchfork. Looks pretty corny until you put the flashlight
> > under your chin and laugh.
>
> It's a magic flashlight. I got a lot of candy wearing that suit.
>
My recruiting for the demons' party is doing pretty well, but I can't
say we're getting a lot of respect.
L.
> In article <759ns.28222$2Q3.3...@newsfe25.iad>, Kip Williams
>
> <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > O wrote, On 11/9/12 10:04 AM:
> > > In article
> > > <21a6bf3d-36ad-4f09-ae1f-34581c934...@s12g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Lena <emswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Why is it so hard to demonize you ? :) [...]
>
> > > Why would you want to?
>
> > You demonize yourself pretty well in that red union suit with the tail
> > and horns and pitchfork. Looks pretty corny until you put the flashlight
> > under your chin and laugh.
>
> It's a magic flashlight. I got a lot of candy wearing that suit.
>
My recruiting for the demons' party is doing pretty well, but I can't
say we're getting a lot of respect.
L.
Norman Schwartz
Nov 11, 2012, 1:28:10 PM11/11/12
to
William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> The next four years are going to be just as hard and obstructionist.
>
> Bohner has already said so: "No higher taxes on the rich."
It's not simply Mr. Boner, he's made it clear that many of his Republican
>> The next four years are going to be just as hard and obstructionist.
>
> Bohner has already said so: "No higher taxes on the rich."
colleagues won't follow him should he say 'yes' to higher taxes on the
"rich".
Anyway it's the loopholes that these so-called rich have. The everyday rich
guy is already paying more than 70% of his/her income in federal and local
taxes.
Mark S
Nov 11, 2012, 1:35:14 PM11/11/12
to
On Sunday, November 11, 2012 10:28:25 AM UTC-8, Norman Schwartz wrote:
> The everyday rich
>
> guy is already paying more than 70% of his/her income in federal and local
>
> taxes.
???????????
> The everyday rich
>
> guy is already paying more than 70% of his/her income in federal and local
>
> taxes.
Got any non-partisan statistics to back that up?
J.Martin
Nov 11, 2012, 2:15:41 PM11/11/12
to
On Nov 9, 2:07 pm, Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 1:46:37 PM, J.Martin wrote:
>
> > What is your point?
>
> Obviously, just responding to what you wrote with a quote from a keen 'observer' in the person of former head of the Democratic Party in California, Art Torres.
>
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 12:40:16 PM, Oscar wrote:
>
> > > Many, many observers have noted the demographic changes in
> > > our country and how they worked to the Democrats' advantage.
>
> > 'And people said to me on the Senate floor when I was in the Senate,
> > 'Why do you fight so hard for affirmative action programs?' And I tell
> > my white colleagues, 'because you're going to need them.''
>
> > —Art Torres, former Calif. State Senator and Chairman of the
> > California Democratic Party from 1995 to 2009.
>
> The second was just a bauble.
Well, since you won't say what your point is, I'll say what I would
infer from your post.
There are countless statements about the demographic changes in our
country you might have referenced, including many from President Obama
and other Democratic leaders made in the wake of the recent election.
Instead, you chose a quote from 1995, by a now retired California
legislator, who was speaking in the context of a discussion about an
initiative (California's Prop 187) long since ruled unconstitutional.
It was a statement made at a time when few would have imagined the
election or reelection of an African American man as president, so why
suggest it is relevant to the present situation?
I wanted to give you a chance to explain because the conclusion I
would draw is not flattering. It seems to me you are bringing up with
this quote (and the more inflammatory one that followed) because you
see it as an example of Latinos stating that they intend to use their
growing political power to discriminate against whites. Needless to
say, this is not typical of the sentiments of the vast majority of
Latinos. (The fact that you needed to use a nearly 20 year old quote
speaks for itself.) But this kind of thing has been typical of the
rhetorical tactics of white racists since at least the Civil War:
convince whites that they should fear the political empowerment of
other groups, because the people of color are the real racists and
will only use their power to oppress whites. This is a load of
racist bullshit, of course, but that is how I would read your post.
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 1:46:37 PM, J.Martin wrote:
>
> > What is your point?
>
> Obviously, just responding to what you wrote with a quote from a keen 'observer' in the person of former head of the Democratic Party in California, Art Torres.
>
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 12:40:16 PM, Oscar wrote:
>
> > > Many, many observers have noted the demographic changes in
> > > our country and how they worked to the Democrats' advantage.
>
> > 'And people said to me on the Senate floor when I was in the Senate,
> > 'Why do you fight so hard for affirmative action programs?' And I tell
> > my white colleagues, 'because you're going to need them.''
>
> > —Art Torres, former Calif. State Senator and Chairman of the
> > California Democratic Party from 1995 to 2009.
>
> The second was just a bauble.
Well, since you won't say what your point is, I'll say what I would
infer from your post.
There are countless statements about the demographic changes in our
country you might have referenced, including many from President Obama
and other Democratic leaders made in the wake of the recent election.
Instead, you chose a quote from 1995, by a now retired California
legislator, who was speaking in the context of a discussion about an
initiative (California's Prop 187) long since ruled unconstitutional.
It was a statement made at a time when few would have imagined the
election or reelection of an African American man as president, so why
suggest it is relevant to the present situation?
I wanted to give you a chance to explain because the conclusion I
would draw is not flattering. It seems to me you are bringing up with
this quote (and the more inflammatory one that followed) because you
see it as an example of Latinos stating that they intend to use their
growing political power to discriminate against whites. Needless to
say, this is not typical of the sentiments of the vast majority of
Latinos. (The fact that you needed to use a nearly 20 year old quote
speaks for itself.) But this kind of thing has been typical of the
rhetorical tactics of white racists since at least the Civil War:
convince whites that they should fear the political empowerment of
other groups, because the people of color are the real racists and
will only use their power to oppress whites. This is a load of
racist bullshit, of course, but that is how I would read your post.
Mark S
Nov 11, 2012, 2:25:34 PM11/11/12
to
He seems to be unreachable and unteachable on many issues.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages