Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
#Why Do Poor White Voters Reject the Democrats?
2 views
Skip to first unread message
3006 Dead
May 27, 2012, 12:42:29 PM5/27/12
to
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11619-why-do-poor-white-
voters-reject-the-democrats
Why Do Poor White Voters Reject the Democrats?
By Gary Younge, Guardian UK
27 May 12
The white working class is said to 'vote against its own interests'.
This only exposes the patronising assumptions of their accusers.
o white people who are struggling financially are going to vote
Republican. And not by a narrow margin. Asked in a recent Washington Post
poll which candidate would do more to advance their families' economic
interests, middle-class white voters who said they were struggling to
maintain their financial positions chose Mitt Romney. And not by a small
margin. In this category he beats Barack Obama by 58% to 32%.
Such news is generally greeted on the left by a mixture of despair and
ridicule. Here is a group of people, it seems, who simply do not
understand what's good for them. Whites without college degrees, as
reasonable if flawed an indicator of "class" in this country as exists,
backed John McCain by 58 to 40 in 2008 and George W Bush in 2004 and 2000
by similar amounts. Failing to sense the liberation the Democrats have in
store for them, they have been seized by a collective bout of false
consciousness and are once again set to vote against their own interests.
Having thus infantilised them as ostensible adults in need of protection
against themselves, progressives will then wonder why this particular
group of people do not flock to them at the polls.
There are several problems with this response - not least the
condescension towards a group that too many liberals feel too comfortable
disparaging - but for now let's just concentrate on two.
First, it interprets interests too narrowly. As a well-paid journalist, I
vote against my economic interests when I support parties that favour
wealth redistribution. That's because my own economic interests are not
the only things that interest me when I vote. I have a vision of a
society that I'd like to live in that goes beyond my own bank account.
It's patronising in the extreme to assume that poorer white people don't
understand that. I may disagree with their decisions to vote on issues
like abortion and gay marriage, but it's a different thing entirely to
suggest that when they prioritise those things it's because they don't
know what's best for them. Paradoxically, given that this argument comes
from liberals, it is underpinned by an insistence not that they be less
selfish, but more.
Secondly, if they were voting on economic issues alone, that might be a
reason not to vote Republican but it's not necessarily a reason to vote
Democrat. With unemployment still about 8%, many of the benefits of
healthcare reform still to kick in and bankers still running amok, it's
not like Democrats are offering much that would support the economic
interests of the poor, regardless of their race. It was Bill Clinton who
cut welfare, introduced the North American Free Trade Agreement and
repealed the Glass-Steagall Act - which helped make the recent crisis
possible. If you were going to trade your religious beliefs for economic
gain, you could be forgiven for demanding a better deal than that.
Indeed, the people most likely to have voted Democrat four years ago -
the young, the black and Latinos - are among the groups that have fared
worse under Obama. And all the polls suggest they're about to do it
again, albeit in lesser numbers. One could just as easily argue that they
are the dupes. Democrats have no god-given right to the votes of the poor
of any race and for the past 30 years can hardly claim to have earned
them.
In a country where class politics and class organisations are weak, it's
too easy to dump on the white working class as a bunch of know-nothings
when the problem is a political class that is a bunch of do-nothings.
That doesn't mean there isn't a problem here. When asked which candidate
is most likely to advance the economic interests of you or your family,
white people backed Romney 50 to 37 while non-whites backed Obama 71 to
22. That kind of discrepancy cannot just be put down to white people
being better off.
Since the mid-60s Republicans have seen an electoral opportunity in
appealing to the basest, racist sentiments of a section of the white
electorate. What became known as the "Nixon strategy" aimed to use the
dog whistle of racial symbolism - like "Welfare Queens" and "Willie
Horton" - to draw white southerners into the Republican fold and peel off
disaffected whites in the north too. It worked. Since the second world
war, Democrats have won the presidency with the white vote alone only
once - in 1964. One of the appeals for some whites of voting Republican
is a desire to maintain whatever limited racial privileges they have
acquired over the years combined with a fear that what little they have
will be taken away by feckless non-whites and undocumented migrants.
While in Nevada in 2010 I asked a white Republican without health
insurance why she wouldn't support a candidate who might give it to her.
"I never really got into that Obamacare insurance stuff," she said. "My
mind is focusing 250% on this illegal immigration."
None of this means all Republican supporters are racist. But it does
suggest they make their appeal on racial grounds and, as the poll shows,
it is effective. But it won't be for ever. Whites will be a minority in
the US in about 30 years. Republicans' appeal to Latinos is already
pitifully low and has made several western states, including Nevada, New
Mexico, Arizona and Colorado, extremely competitive.
Nonetheless, time and again during the Republican primaries Republicans
evoked racial themes in the whitest places. "I don't want to make black
people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money," said Rick
Santorum in Sioux City. "I want to give them the opportunity to go out
and earn the money."
"Right," said one audience member, as another woman nodded.
"And provide for themselves and their families," Santorum added.
The black population of Sioux City is 2.9%. In Woodbury County, in which
Sioux City sits, 13% of the people are on food stamps, an increase of 26%
since 2007, with nine times as many whites as blacks using them.
Just a few days later, in Plymouth, New Hampshire, Newt Gingrich said: "I
will go to the NAACP convention and explain to the African-American
community why they should demand paychecks [instead of] food stamps."
African-Americans make up 0.8% of Plymouth's population. Food stamp use
in Grafton County is 6% - a 48% increase since 2007.
Those who are struggling and believe Romney will improve their economic
lot are wrong, regardless of their race. Eight years of George W Bush
proved that. But it does not follow automatically from that that their
home should be supporting Democrats under whom things have gotten less
bad less quickly. True, those are the only two choices on offer. But if
you're poor they are not great choices. What they need is a party that
represents their interests. In a country where corporate money chooses
the candidates and therefore shapes the debate that will demand a change
in politics, not just politicians.
--
Subscribe:
zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
voters-reject-the-democrats
Why Do Poor White Voters Reject the Democrats?
By Gary Younge, Guardian UK
27 May 12
The white working class is said to 'vote against its own interests'.
This only exposes the patronising assumptions of their accusers.
o white people who are struggling financially are going to vote
Republican. And not by a narrow margin. Asked in a recent Washington Post
poll which candidate would do more to advance their families' economic
interests, middle-class white voters who said they were struggling to
maintain their financial positions chose Mitt Romney. And not by a small
margin. In this category he beats Barack Obama by 58% to 32%.
Such news is generally greeted on the left by a mixture of despair and
ridicule. Here is a group of people, it seems, who simply do not
understand what's good for them. Whites without college degrees, as
reasonable if flawed an indicator of "class" in this country as exists,
backed John McCain by 58 to 40 in 2008 and George W Bush in 2004 and 2000
by similar amounts. Failing to sense the liberation the Democrats have in
store for them, they have been seized by a collective bout of false
consciousness and are once again set to vote against their own interests.
Having thus infantilised them as ostensible adults in need of protection
against themselves, progressives will then wonder why this particular
group of people do not flock to them at the polls.
There are several problems with this response - not least the
condescension towards a group that too many liberals feel too comfortable
disparaging - but for now let's just concentrate on two.
First, it interprets interests too narrowly. As a well-paid journalist, I
vote against my economic interests when I support parties that favour
wealth redistribution. That's because my own economic interests are not
the only things that interest me when I vote. I have a vision of a
society that I'd like to live in that goes beyond my own bank account.
It's patronising in the extreme to assume that poorer white people don't
understand that. I may disagree with their decisions to vote on issues
like abortion and gay marriage, but it's a different thing entirely to
suggest that when they prioritise those things it's because they don't
know what's best for them. Paradoxically, given that this argument comes
from liberals, it is underpinned by an insistence not that they be less
selfish, but more.
Secondly, if they were voting on economic issues alone, that might be a
reason not to vote Republican but it's not necessarily a reason to vote
Democrat. With unemployment still about 8%, many of the benefits of
healthcare reform still to kick in and bankers still running amok, it's
not like Democrats are offering much that would support the economic
interests of the poor, regardless of their race. It was Bill Clinton who
cut welfare, introduced the North American Free Trade Agreement and
repealed the Glass-Steagall Act - which helped make the recent crisis
possible. If you were going to trade your religious beliefs for economic
gain, you could be forgiven for demanding a better deal than that.
Indeed, the people most likely to have voted Democrat four years ago -
the young, the black and Latinos - are among the groups that have fared
worse under Obama. And all the polls suggest they're about to do it
again, albeit in lesser numbers. One could just as easily argue that they
are the dupes. Democrats have no god-given right to the votes of the poor
of any race and for the past 30 years can hardly claim to have earned
them.
In a country where class politics and class organisations are weak, it's
too easy to dump on the white working class as a bunch of know-nothings
when the problem is a political class that is a bunch of do-nothings.
That doesn't mean there isn't a problem here. When asked which candidate
is most likely to advance the economic interests of you or your family,
white people backed Romney 50 to 37 while non-whites backed Obama 71 to
22. That kind of discrepancy cannot just be put down to white people
being better off.
Since the mid-60s Republicans have seen an electoral opportunity in
appealing to the basest, racist sentiments of a section of the white
electorate. What became known as the "Nixon strategy" aimed to use the
dog whistle of racial symbolism - like "Welfare Queens" and "Willie
Horton" - to draw white southerners into the Republican fold and peel off
disaffected whites in the north too. It worked. Since the second world
war, Democrats have won the presidency with the white vote alone only
once - in 1964. One of the appeals for some whites of voting Republican
is a desire to maintain whatever limited racial privileges they have
acquired over the years combined with a fear that what little they have
will be taken away by feckless non-whites and undocumented migrants.
While in Nevada in 2010 I asked a white Republican without health
insurance why she wouldn't support a candidate who might give it to her.
"I never really got into that Obamacare insurance stuff," she said. "My
mind is focusing 250% on this illegal immigration."
None of this means all Republican supporters are racist. But it does
suggest they make their appeal on racial grounds and, as the poll shows,
it is effective. But it won't be for ever. Whites will be a minority in
the US in about 30 years. Republicans' appeal to Latinos is already
pitifully low and has made several western states, including Nevada, New
Mexico, Arizona and Colorado, extremely competitive.
Nonetheless, time and again during the Republican primaries Republicans
evoked racial themes in the whitest places. "I don't want to make black
people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money," said Rick
Santorum in Sioux City. "I want to give them the opportunity to go out
and earn the money."
"Right," said one audience member, as another woman nodded.
"And provide for themselves and their families," Santorum added.
The black population of Sioux City is 2.9%. In Woodbury County, in which
Sioux City sits, 13% of the people are on food stamps, an increase of 26%
since 2007, with nine times as many whites as blacks using them.
Just a few days later, in Plymouth, New Hampshire, Newt Gingrich said: "I
will go to the NAACP convention and explain to the African-American
community why they should demand paychecks [instead of] food stamps."
African-Americans make up 0.8% of Plymouth's population. Food stamp use
in Grafton County is 6% - a 48% increase since 2007.
Those who are struggling and believe Romney will improve their economic
lot are wrong, regardless of their race. Eight years of George W Bush
proved that. But it does not follow automatically from that that their
home should be supporting Democrats under whom things have gotten less
bad less quickly. True, those are the only two choices on offer. But if
you're poor they are not great choices. What they need is a party that
represents their interests. In a country where corporate money chooses
the candidates and therefore shapes the debate that will demand a change
in politics, not just politicians.
--
Subscribe:
zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Steve
May 27, 2012, 12:51:40 PM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:42:29 +0000 (UTC), 3006 Dead <de...@gone.com>
wrote:
>http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11619-why-do-poor-white-
>voters-reject-the-democrats
>
>Why Do Poor White Voters Reject the Democrats?
>
>By Gary Younge, Guardian UK
It's real simple, actually.. some people simply reject being made
dependant. Of course, leftist types have no pride so they would
never understand..
wrote:
>http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11619-why-do-poor-white-
>voters-reject-the-democrats
>
>Why Do Poor White Voters Reject the Democrats?
>
>By Gary Younge, Guardian UK
dependant. Of course, leftist types have no pride so they would
never understand..
Dänk 42Ø
May 27, 2012, 1:39:20 PM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 12:51:40 -0400, Steve wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:42:29 +0000 (UTC), 3006 Dead <de...@gone.com>
> quacked:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:42:29 +0000 (UTC), 3006 Dead <de...@gone.com>
>
>>http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11619-why-do-poor-white-
>>voters-reject-the-democrats
>>
>>Why Do Poor White Voters Reject the Democrats?
>>
>>By Gary Younge, Guardian UK
>
> It's real simple, actually.. some people simply reject being made
> dependant. Of course, leftist types have no pride so they would never
> understand..
I scanned the article and I don't think Zepp read it before reposting it,
>>http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11619-why-do-poor-white-
>>voters-reject-the-democrats
>>
>>Why Do Poor White Voters Reject the Democrats?
>>
>>By Gary Younge, Guardian UK
>
> It's real simple, actually.. some people simply reject being made
> dependant. Of course, leftist types have no pride so they would never
> understand..
since it criticizes Democrats for assuming they are entitled to the
support of working class white people.
According to Democrat Party propaganda, the Democrats are the champions
of the working class while the Republicans represent the interests of
corporations and the wealthy elite.
In reality, the Democrats are corporate whores, rewarding greed and
corruption with trillion dollar bailouts. As for working class whites,
they work and pay taxes that are then redistributed to people who don't
work. Labor is punished while laziness is rewarded. The Democrats also
lay claim to a broad spectrum of groups with competing interests, from
labor unions to undocumented immigrants who compete for jobs, from
abortion rights advocates to Catholics who oppose abortion, same-sex
marriage advocates to religious African-Americans who oppose it, and so
on.
Not that I am supporting the criminal Republican Party in any way (I
always vote for third parties). I am just observing how corrupt the
Democrats are, not to mention their arrogance in claiming ownership of
everyone who is not a white male evangelical Christian. Their attitude
towards blacks is especially offensive, identical to that of a slaveowner
who expects loyalty from his slaves, (verbally) whipping the uppity ones
who deviate from the Party line.
The Democrat Party resembles the corrupt PRI party that ruled Mexico for
75 years. Like the DP, the PRI controlled a powerful political machine
with tentacles that reached into every facet of Mexican society. The
PRI's kleptocratic economic policies created widespread poverty, making
Mexicans dependent on social programs and subsidies -- and outright
bribes at election time. And just like the DP, the PRI justified its
single-party rule on the grounds that it was all-inclusive, that it
represented EVERYONE, from peasants to merchants to bankers (and
especially billionaires like Carlos Slim, who stole the telephone
monopoly the peasants paid to build).
3006 Dead
May 27, 2012, 1:56:27 PM5/27/12
to
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11619-why-do-poor-white-
voters-reject-the-democrats
Why Do Poor White Voters Reject the Democrats?
By Gary Younge, Guardian UK
voters-reject-the-democrats
Why Do Poor White Voters Reject the Democrats?
By Gary Younge, Guardian UK
27 May 12
The white working class is said to 'vote against its own interests'.
This only exposes the patronising assumptions of their accusers.
So white people who are struggling financially are going to vote
The white working class is said to 'vote against its own interests'.
This only exposes the patronising assumptions of their accusers.
Tracey12
May 27, 2012, 1:18:52 PM5/27/12
to
Its quite simple: Poverty does not necessarily corrolate with low
intelligence. And, since you're singling out white Americans, they
have higher IQs than most other groups who are traditionally members
of the democrat party. And culturally, the white population does not
believe it is a good thing to be dependent on anyone but yourself
unless you are too sick, too old, or handicapped in some way that
makes it very hard or impossible for you to work.
Whites reject BIG BROTHER almost universally. Democrats typically
love authoritarian government that uses a lot of force and at the
same time, readily hands out welfare to anyone including 3rd world
illegal aliens who barge into our country.
These are but a couple of the reasons why whites reject democrat party
principles. The democrat party is seen as a large conglomeration of
various self interested groups who find acceptance among the base of
socialists and communists.
Here is a bit of info on race and IQ that you might find interesting:
-----------------------
From WIKI:
the late 1970s.[50] Murray found similar results in a 2007 study.[51]
The IQ distributions of other racial and ethnic groups in the United
States are less well-studied. The Bell Curve (1994) stated that the
average IQ of African Americans was 85, Latino 89, White 103, Asian
106, and Jews 113. Asians score relatively higher on visuospatial than
on verbal subtests. The few Amerindian populations that have been
systematically tested, including Arctic Natives, tend to score worse
on average than white populations but better on average than black
populations.[47]
According to several studies, Ashkenazi Jews score 0.75 to 1.0
standard deviation above the general European average. This
corresponds to an IQ of 112–115. Other studies have found somewhat
lower values. During the 20th century, they made up about 3% of the US
population but won 27% of the US science Nobel Prizes and 25% of the
Turing Awards. They have high verbal and mathematical scores, while
their visuospatial abilities are typically somewhat lower, by about
one half standard deviation, than the European average.[52] See also
Ashkenazi intelligence.
The racial groups studied in the United States and Europe are not
necessarily representative samples for populations in other parts of
the world. Cultural differences may also factor in IQ test performance
and outcomes. Therefore, results in the United States and Europe do
not necessarily correlate to results in other populations.[53]
intelligence. And, since you're singling out white Americans, they
have higher IQs than most other groups who are traditionally members
of the democrat party. And culturally, the white population does not
believe it is a good thing to be dependent on anyone but yourself
unless you are too sick, too old, or handicapped in some way that
makes it very hard or impossible for you to work.
Whites reject BIG BROTHER almost universally. Democrats typically
love authoritarian government that uses a lot of force and at the
same time, readily hands out welfare to anyone including 3rd world
illegal aliens who barge into our country.
These are but a couple of the reasons why whites reject democrat party
principles. The democrat party is seen as a large conglomeration of
various self interested groups who find acceptance among the base of
socialists and communists.
Here is a bit of info on race and IQ that you might find interesting:
-----------------------
From WIKI:
the late 1970s.[50] Murray found similar results in a 2007 study.[51]
The IQ distributions of other racial and ethnic groups in the United
States are less well-studied. The Bell Curve (1994) stated that the
average IQ of African Americans was 85, Latino 89, White 103, Asian
106, and Jews 113. Asians score relatively higher on visuospatial than
on verbal subtests. The few Amerindian populations that have been
systematically tested, including Arctic Natives, tend to score worse
on average than white populations but better on average than black
populations.[47]
According to several studies, Ashkenazi Jews score 0.75 to 1.0
standard deviation above the general European average. This
corresponds to an IQ of 112–115. Other studies have found somewhat
lower values. During the 20th century, they made up about 3% of the US
population but won 27% of the US science Nobel Prizes and 25% of the
Turing Awards. They have high verbal and mathematical scores, while
their visuospatial abilities are typically somewhat lower, by about
one half standard deviation, than the European average.[52] See also
Ashkenazi intelligence.
The racial groups studied in the United States and Europe are not
necessarily representative samples for populations in other parts of
the world. Cultural differences may also factor in IQ test performance
and outcomes. Therefore, results in the United States and Europe do
not necessarily correlate to results in other populations.[53]
anal...@hotmail.com
May 27, 2012, 2:11:22 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 1:18 pm, Tracey12 <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Its quite simple: Poverty does not necessarily corrolate with low
> intelligence. And, since you're singling out white Americans, they
> have higher IQs than most other groups who are traditionally members
> of the democrat party.
"Democrat party".
> Its quite simple: Poverty does not necessarily corrolate with low
> intelligence. And, since you're singling out white Americans, they
> have higher IQs than most other groups who are traditionally members
> of the democrat party.
"Barack HUSSEIN Obama".
These reptilian hate-filled retards fall for the most infantile
tricks. There is no hope except that they would die off and be
replaced by a more intelligent generation.
anal...@hotmail.com
May 27, 2012, 2:21:04 PM5/27/12
to
> zepps_news-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe:
> zepps_essays-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
> zepps_news-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
>
> Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
This Limey bastard glosses over the real reasons:
> Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Ignorant American whites love killing - getting third world people
killed and maimed by the American military machine. Their natural
bias is towards those who would kill gleefully without compunctions
(GW Bush) rather than hypocritical moralizers like Obama who hold
their nose as the machine goes about its business.
Also someone who would hurt blacks and Hispanics more than they would
hurt them gets their vote.
These two factors explain most of the uneducated white vote,
espacially male, especially Southern white male.
Tracey12
May 27, 2012, 2:25:52 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 1:21 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Funny! I guess its all that Limey ancestry us whities have. Limies
love to kill and dominate the turd world, don't they?
wrote:
love to kill and dominate the turd world, don't they?
Not Sure
May 27, 2012, 2:26:40 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 11:21 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Try English next time, illiterate.
wrote:
anal...@hotmail.com
May 27, 2012, 2:39:03 PM5/27/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am only paraphasing the great secret Pat Buchanan let out about the
Republican primary electorate (ie ignorant whites) - that they tend
not to vote for Ron Paul because they are "hawkish" on foreign
policy. While the Soviet Union was around, that could be given a
reasonable interpretation. The US now has no credible enemies and has
lately been enganged in serial genocide against poorly armed
adversaries all over the world - "hawkishness" has to be reinterpreted
according to the recent evidence.
anal...@hotmail.com
May 27, 2012, 3:37:56 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 2:39 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> according to the recent evidence.- Hide quoted text -
sentimental stories like the two whales which got trapped by ice many
years ago and US and Russian ships raced against time to cut a path
through the ice to free them. Everybody was rooting for the whales
(except maybe Rush Limbaugh) and everybody patted themselves on the
back how kind and considerate they were when there was a happy ending
to the story.
But senseless wars against dozens of countries go on routinely and
they are seldom mentioned and if they are it is called "the war on
terror" and the unending killing and maiming of innocents mean nothing
to most people (except the sick ones who derive joy from it, of who
there is still a frightening number out there).
>
> - Show quoted text -
Its really amazing what children Americans are. The media play up
> - Show quoted text -
sentimental stories like the two whales which got trapped by ice many
years ago and US and Russian ships raced against time to cut a path
through the ice to free them. Everybody was rooting for the whales
(except maybe Rush Limbaugh) and everybody patted themselves on the
back how kind and considerate they were when there was a happy ending
to the story.
But senseless wars against dozens of countries go on routinely and
they are seldom mentioned and if they are it is called "the war on
terror" and the unending killing and maiming of innocents mean nothing
to most people (except the sick ones who derive joy from it, of who
there is still a frightening number out there).
anal...@hotmail.com
May 27, 2012, 4:19:42 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 3:37 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
When will people see this blindingly obvious truth I found on the web:
"As Americans mindlessly celebrate another Memorial Day with cookouts,
beer and burgers, the U.S. war machine keeps churning. As we brutally
enforce our will on foreign countries, we create more people that hate
us. They don’t hate us for our freedom. They hate us because we have
invaded and occupied their countries. They hate us because we kill
innocent people with predator drones. They hate us for our hypocrisy
regarding democracy and freedom."
Only when the hateful ignorant demographic (Fox news watchers, for
example) dies off and succeding generations get closer to the norm of
humanity.
"As Americans mindlessly celebrate another Memorial Day with cookouts,
beer and burgers, the U.S. war machine keeps churning. As we brutally
enforce our will on foreign countries, we create more people that hate
us. They don’t hate us for our freedom. They hate us because we have
invaded and occupied their countries. They hate us because we kill
innocent people with predator drones. They hate us for our hypocrisy
regarding democracy and freedom."
Only when the hateful ignorant demographic (Fox news watchers, for
example) dies off and succeding generations get closer to the norm of
humanity.
Tracey12
May 27, 2012, 4:55:04 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 3:19 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
Ahhh, spoken like another Lennon one-worlder looking for that glorious
communistic Utopia that never arrived in the pothead, LSD days of the
60s and 70s
communistic Utopia that never arrived in the pothead, LSD days of the
60s and 70s
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
de...@dudu.org
May 28, 2012, 12:06:34 PM5/28/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 12:51:40 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
wrote:
You are so incredibly stupid it truly boggles the mind.
wrote:
de...@dudu.org
May 28, 2012, 12:07:46 PM5/28/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 12:39:20 -0500, D�nk 42� <da...@purpleurkle.org>
Yea, right, and black is white and white is black and war is peace.
Right dumbass? Fuck, you people are truly insane.
wrote:
>On Sun, 27 May 2012 12:51:40 -0400, Steve wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:42:29 +0000 (UTC), 3006 Dead <de...@gone.com>
>> quacked:
>>
>>>http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11619-why-do-poor-white-
>>>voters-reject-the-democrats
>>>
>>>Why Do Poor White Voters Reject the Democrats?
>>>
>>>By Gary Younge, Guardian UK
>>
>> It's real simple, actually.. some people simply reject being made
>> dependant. Of course, leftist types have no pride so they would never
>> understand..
>
>I scanned the article and I don't think Zepp read it before reposting it,
>since it criticizes Democrats for assuming they are entitled to the
>support of working class white people.
>
>According to Democrat Party propaganda, the Democrats are the champions
>of the working class while the Republicans represent the interests of
>corporations and the wealthy elite.
>
>In reality, the Democrats are corporate whores, rewarding greed and
>corruption with trillion dollar bailouts.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
>On Sun, 27 May 2012 12:51:40 -0400, Steve wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:42:29 +0000 (UTC), 3006 Dead <de...@gone.com>
>> quacked:
>>
>>>http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11619-why-do-poor-white-
>>>voters-reject-the-democrats
>>>
>>>Why Do Poor White Voters Reject the Democrats?
>>>
>>>By Gary Younge, Guardian UK
>>
>> It's real simple, actually.. some people simply reject being made
>> dependant. Of course, leftist types have no pride so they would never
>> understand..
>
>I scanned the article and I don't think Zepp read it before reposting it,
>since it criticizes Democrats for assuming they are entitled to the
>support of working class white people.
>
>According to Democrat Party propaganda, the Democrats are the champions
>of the working class while the Republicans represent the interests of
>corporations and the wealthy elite.
>
>In reality, the Democrats are corporate whores, rewarding greed and
>corruption with trillion dollar bailouts.
Yea, right, and black is white and white is black and war is peace.
Right dumbass? Fuck, you people are truly insane.
Dänk 42Ø
May 28, 2012, 1:10:16 PM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 10:07:46 -0600, deep wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 12:39:20 -0500, Dänk 42Ø <da...@purpleurkle.org>
Senator Obama (D-IL) didn't vote for TARP?
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 12:39:20 -0500, Dänk 42Ø <da...@purpleurkle.org>
Dänk 42Ø
May 28, 2012, 1:11:42 PM5/28/12
to
stupid.
3006 Dead
May 28, 2012, 1:48:51 PM5/28/12
to
thing Republicans are interested in is individual freedom for the working
people.
3006 Dead
May 28, 2012, 1:55:52 PM5/28/12
to
righties, it's so hard to keep track...
de...@dudu.org
May 28, 2012, 2:51:14 PM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 17:55:52 +0000 (UTC), 3006 Dead <de...@gone.com>
Funny isn't it? They can't even keep their lying condemnations
straight. The communist/socialist corporate whores certainly is an
attempt at spin you don't see every day.
snicker.....
straight. The communist/socialist corporate whores certainly is an
attempt at spin you don't see every day.
snicker.....
Steve
May 28, 2012, 5:08:53 PM5/28/12
to
Steve
May 28, 2012, 5:08:53 PM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 17:48:51 +0000 (UTC), 3006 Dead <de...@gone.com>
Zepp has often expressed his rage about me being comfortable and happy
while he lives alone in a rented single wide supported by welfare and
food stamps.
wrote:
>On Mon, 28 May 2012 10:06:34 -0600, deep wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 12:51:40 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:42:29 +0000 (UTC), 3006 Dead <de...@gone.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11619-why-do-poor-white-
>>>>voters-reject-the-democrats
>>>>
>>>>Why Do Poor White Voters Reject the Democrats?
>>>>
>>>>By Gary Younge, Guardian UK
>>>
>>>It's real simple, actually.. some people simply reject being made
>>>dependant. Of course, leftist types have no pride so they would never
>>>understand..
>>
>> You are so incredibly stupid it truly boggles the mind.
>
>Oh, he's just playing his stupid little Thurston Howell game. The LAST
>thing Republicans are interested in is individual freedom for the working
>people.
Porky Jamieson has never worked a day in his lazy life...
>On Mon, 28 May 2012 10:06:34 -0600, deep wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 12:51:40 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:42:29 +0000 (UTC), 3006 Dead <de...@gone.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11619-why-do-poor-white-
>>>>voters-reject-the-democrats
>>>>
>>>>Why Do Poor White Voters Reject the Democrats?
>>>>
>>>>By Gary Younge, Guardian UK
>>>
>>>It's real simple, actually.. some people simply reject being made
>>>dependant. Of course, leftist types have no pride so they would never
>>>understand..
>>
>> You are so incredibly stupid it truly boggles the mind.
>
>Oh, he's just playing his stupid little Thurston Howell game. The LAST
>thing Republicans are interested in is individual freedom for the working
>people.
Zepp has often expressed his rage about me being comfortable and happy
while he lives alone in a rented single wide supported by welfare and
food stamps.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Liberal Here
May 31, 2012, 3:38:54 PM5/31/12
to
On May 29, 10:15 pm, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
> Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 28 May 2012 17:48:51 +0000 (UTC), 3006 Dead <d...@gone.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:42:29 +0000 (UTC), 3006 Dead <d...@gone.com>
> being THAT destitute and dependent than you'd
> put in on a REAL job :-)
>
> But true 'liberals' don't believe in 'work'
Which, of course, undergirds the liberal notion of being free to start
a business or choose any career (versus required to be whatever your
father was). Not being able to become something other than whatever
your father was or start a business without the express permission of
the king was long a conservative position....to ensure social
stability, of course.
You believe in quasi-slavery.
> because that'd mean suckin' up to The Man
> and supporting the Global Kapitalist Konspiracy.
> They also don't believe in not spending every
> penny they get because the govt OWES them a
> good living regardless (plus banking/investing
> would mean supporting the Global Kapitalist
> Konspiracy).
>
> So, modern 'liberalism' is itself a conspiracy
> by radical leftists, designed to turn people
> into utterly dependent children and gut the
> wealth and power of the nation so the radicals
> can take over. :-)
Whereas you condemn education as an attack on the superior and divine
status of inherited wealth.
> Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 28 May 2012 17:48:51 +0000 (UTC), 3006 Dead <d...@gone.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 28 May 2012 10:06:34 -0600, deep wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 12:51:40 -0400, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com>
>
> >>On Mon, 28 May 2012 10:06:34 -0600, deep wrote:
>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:42:29 +0000 (UTC), 3006 Dead <d...@gone.com>
> >>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11619-why-do-poor-white-
> >>>>>voters-reject-the-democrats
>
> >>>>>Why Do Poor White Voters Reject the Democrats?
>
> >>>>>By Gary Younge, Guardian UK
>
> >>>>It's real simple, actually.. some people simply reject being made
> >>>>dependant. Of course, leftist types have no pride so they would never
> >>>>understand..
>
> >>> You are so incredibly stupid it truly boggles the mind.
>
> >>Oh, he's just playing his stupid little Thurston Howell game. The LAST
> >>thing Republicans are interested in is individual freedom for the working
> >>people.
>
> >Porky Jamieson has never worked a day in his lazy life...
>
> >Zepp has often expressed his rage about me being comfortable and happy
> >while he lives alone in a rented single wide supported by welfare and
> >food stamps.
>
> Seems like you'd have to put more WORK into
>
> >>>>>http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11619-why-do-poor-white-
> >>>>>voters-reject-the-democrats
>
> >>>>>Why Do Poor White Voters Reject the Democrats?
>
> >>>>>By Gary Younge, Guardian UK
>
> >>>>It's real simple, actually.. some people simply reject being made
> >>>>dependant. Of course, leftist types have no pride so they would never
> >>>>understand..
>
> >>> You are so incredibly stupid it truly boggles the mind.
>
> >>Oh, he's just playing his stupid little Thurston Howell game. The LAST
> >>thing Republicans are interested in is individual freedom for the working
> >>people.
>
> >Porky Jamieson has never worked a day in his lazy life...
>
> >Zepp has often expressed his rage about me being comfortable and happy
> >while he lives alone in a rented single wide supported by welfare and
> >food stamps.
>
> being THAT destitute and dependent than you'd
> put in on a REAL job :-)
>
> But true 'liberals' don't believe in 'work'
Which, of course, undergirds the liberal notion of being free to start
a business or choose any career (versus required to be whatever your
father was). Not being able to become something other than whatever
your father was or start a business without the express permission of
the king was long a conservative position....to ensure social
stability, of course.
You believe in quasi-slavery.
> because that'd mean suckin' up to The Man
> and supporting the Global Kapitalist Konspiracy.
> They also don't believe in not spending every
> penny they get because the govt OWES them a
> good living regardless (plus banking/investing
> would mean supporting the Global Kapitalist
> Konspiracy).
>
> So, modern 'liberalism' is itself a conspiracy
> by radical leftists, designed to turn people
> into utterly dependent children and gut the
> wealth and power of the nation so the radicals
> can take over. :-)
Whereas you condemn education as an attack on the superior and divine
status of inherited wealth.
0 new messages