Obama threw it away in Denver...There's grousing and blaming in the offing if this iffing is happening.
The Bush economy killed him...
It was the second-term vision thing...
Citizens United, the super PACs and the Koch Brothers did it...
He lost for a noble cause: national health care...
It all comes back to race...
What they'll never say: Mitt Romney was a fine candidate.
He was a fine candidate — and so was Ryan — even with the media spinning everything they could against him. And if R&R win, their victory will be spun as negatively as possible. Politico is giving you a peek of what they will be doing if you people don't get a clue and vote they way you're supposed to. We're going to pummel you with stories of your racism and Obama's martyrdom until you expiate your sins by voting for whomever the Democrats present for your obeisance in 2016. Look out... or rebel.
Posts
395 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 395 of 395They wrote a twin piece about Romney excuses for losing. This blog is off the charts in its selective idiocy.
"Obama won because there were not enough racists out there to cost him the election."
... And so, I ask you again: Did Obama usher in a New Dark Age of Racism?
"Just look at the current national electoral map. Does it look familiar? It is the same map in your history book, how the nation was divided during the Civil War, the Confederate States are voting for Romney."
-- It's kind of a shame that you'd concede VA and FL so readily. Obama could still win there.
Why do you think everyone is racist?
Just look at the current national electoral map. Does it look familiar? It is the same map in your history book, how the nation was divided during the Civil War, the Confederate States are voting for Romney. And that is not a coincidence.
There you go! The wild argument I've been getting for the last week on FB!
Romney secretly pines for the return of the Confederacy. It's "not a coincidence!"
Racism is the all purpose explanation for everything. It's sort of a Unified Field Theory that explains the entire universe. And, Bob Hubert is one of those geniuses who understands it!
Probably the single most accurate thing you can say about the state of this election is that Romney has not managed to get a lead that is beyond the margin of fraud.
Thus Romney loses.
The very dull-witted Bob Hurbert: "Just look at the current national electoral map. Does it look familiar? It is the same map in your history book, how the nation was divided during the Civil War, the Confederate States are voting for Romney. And that is not a coincidence."
LOL
Well, it appears that someone has just bought into the whole "southern strategy" nonsense.
LOL
They'll never learn.
That's right Bob. It's racists..all the way down.
I would highly recommend that you keep mentioning that as the reason obama is losing.
Really, please do.
It will make all those people who have given up looking for work feel so much better.
Colorado was a confederate state?
Romney has not managed to get a lead that is beyond the margin of fraud.
There is no such thing any longer.
Mathew: "... And so, I ask you again: Did Obama usher in a New Dark Age of Racism?"
"..New Dark Age..."
Official Chris Mathews decoder-ring detected dog whistle!
Oh these are troubled times me laddies....
Seeing Red: "Colorado was a confederate state?"
LOL
Red, before the left is done they'll have New Hampshire in the "slavers" column.
Sablan: "Instead, you hope to conflate the fact there are some white racists with the fact that Obama will lose because of white racists. That's simply not rational; the votes for whites split in such a way (and across such ideological grounds) that the candidate's race is a minimal to non-factor in the race."
================
And absent from the discussion, as Sablan noted about whites splitting their vote in a manner that suggests race is about at the bottom of their criteria for selecting candidates..
Is the Giant Elephant in the Room! Carefully left largely undiscussed by Democrats, academics, and the liberals and progressive jews running their "media narratives".
That is - black racism. How it pervades key elections on a city, Congressional District, state, or national level.
Blacks will vote 95% against a Democrat white or hispanic or Asian candidate with similar beliefs and better credentials than a black contender in any Primary.
Hillary and "the 1st Black President" with decades of listening to and helping blacks? All tossed away in black voters minds when they feasted on Barack's half-black skin.
Blacks will vote for a Democrat of any race that promises race privileges for blacks when running against a Republican of any race.
Blogger Bob Hurbert said...
" Obama won, so therefore racism is no longer a factor? I am sorry, but that makes no sense. Obama won because there were not enough racists out there to cost him the election. But there are still racist out there..."
Yes, there are but most of them are not white.
Drago, Sometime check out the documentary film: Eyes on the Prize. Look at the mobs of white people out of their minds with hatred towards blacks in the 1960's. Just because they should be allowed to go to the same school as whites. Then realize many of those people are young, and still alive today and raising children. Do you think that everyone of them changed what is in their hearts?
"Red, before the left is done they'll have New Hampshire in the "slavers" column"...
Not to mention, if Romney manages to actually win, Wisconsin.
Another one for Politico: "Obama lost because the kind of people who made the country great voted in larger numbers than the kind who made it what it has become under Obama - not great."
Do you think that everyone of them changed what is in their hearts?
Will you shut the fuck up about this bullshit.
It has nothing to do with this election. Your bullshit speculation about the motivations of people who disagree with your are... bullshit.
STFU idiot.
"Drago, Sometime check out the documentary film: Eyes on the Prize. Look at the mobs of white people out of their minds with hatred towards blacks in the 1960's. Just because they should be allowed to go to the same school as whites. Then realize many of those people are young, and still alive today and raising children. Do you think that everyone of them changed what is in their hearts? "
I lived in the South at that time. I know that those murderous crowds you speak of were almost entirely Democrats. When I was a kid "Democrat" and "KKK" were interchangable in rural Louisiana.
So does that answer your question?
St some things like a women's right to make decisions about her health are important enough not to flip flop about, nor is the need to improve the skill, education level of our students to prepare them for the future- but speaking of pragmatist, who better than Obama to take that label. Romney is an opportunist but even that didn't work out in Mass-- check his record in that state and then tell me why he should be president.
It would be awesome if this was the real Bob Herbert.
"Romney is an opportunist but even that didn't work out in Mass-- check his record in that state and then tell me why he should be president."
Best answer possible:
"Because his isn't Barack Obama."
Bob Hurbert, you are hopeless.
This is not "America-circa 1960".
This is America 2012 baby. An America that elected by a large margin it's first black President, with solid majorities (and at times super majorities)in the House and Senate.
We were told then by those on the left that we had ushered in an new era!
An era where republicans would never again win national office.
An era where "we are all Socialists now!"
Of course, you and your pals were full of beans. You are still full of beans and your leftist policies have (as they inevitably must) failed.
You are simply too stupid to realize that everyone has noticed this.
I understand your discomfort.
You have nothing left to hide behind.
Nothing except the one tried and true weapon at your disposal: cry "Racist".
Won't work anymore.
You have abused the privilege.
St some things like a women's right to make decisions about her health...
You see the problem?
There are three people involved in this "right," which is in fact abortion. You've wiped out the other two, the father and the child, as either non-existent or unimportant, and focused solely on the woman's right.
No, no, no. Women's rights do not supersede the rights of all other parties.
You are very thick headed.
Drago, don't kid yourself. The Progressive movement has plenty to hide behind.
If Obama loses, the Left will throw him to the wolves to save their precious ideology.
It will start with Benghazi, which the press will suddenly "discover."
Of course some people will not vote for him because he is black.
If Obama were white, then of course conservatives and moderates would vote for him and his leftist agenda in droves. And racism is also why Bill "the first black president" Clinton never got a majority of the vote.
And that is why people opposed ObamaCare, because it was pushed by a black man. That they also opposed it when enacted by White Harry Reid and White Nancy Pelosi only proves that people must suspect that they too have some black ancestery, as does apparently CJ John Roberts, since so many people have rejected his opinion. But it is historic to have the First Black Chief Justice in Roberts.
r/v: "..some things like a women's right to make decisions about her health are important enough not to flip flop about,.."
LOL
Under obama care, every health care decision for men and women will come under government scrutiny.
Every single one.
This too has been noticed.
Again, for your side, this is an unfortunate circumstance.
Tough.
@ Bob Hurbert...The Confederate States lost the War and underwent a shameful re-construction by the GOP, so they voted solid Democrat for the next 115 years.
Then we surrendered to MLK's superior world view. Thereafter voting solid Democrat was unnecessary. We were free from the civil War bitterness and we had become conservative realists by nature due to the need to survive within the discriminatory tricks of Reconstruction. Those that had only ended in the late 1950s.
There had never been hatred for our African American darker skinned cousins. Just for the invasion from the North. And now we do not see race. We are all the human race.
What we do see is your character. And we see in you an ugly slanderer still riding high in the triumph of Northern anti-southern bigotry.
Shouting Thomas: I think thou protest too much.
Cedarford:
The most interesting black racism I've seen is when Bobby Rush beat Obama in the Dem Congressional primary in 2000. Obama won all the white Dem votes in the district and Rush won almost all of the black votes. Obama was too white and fancy talkin for the low-rent blacks.
Bob Hurbert said...
Drago, Sometime check out the documentary film: Eyes on the Prize. Look at the mobs of white people out of their minds with hatred towards blacks in the 1960's. Just because they should be allowed to go to the same school as whites. Then realize many of those people are young, and still alive today and raising children.
Psst, Bob: the 60's were 50 years ago. Someone who turned 18 in 1969 is now over 60. Something tells me not many are raising children.
If you want to understand reality, watch your documentary and then walk through any downtown in the south. You'll see people of different races interacting in ways that would fuel even greater rage than covered in your documentary. Virtually no one cares, and the tiny minority that do understand even their close friends will shun them if they say so.
They have this phrase called burying the lede, you should look it up.
So, no, R/V, it is only in your mind that it is a fixed principle that the rights of women are superior to the rights of children and men.
Shouting Thomas: I think thou protest too much.
Bob, the vicious tactics you are using are repugnant. You're an oaf.
Here is an example of Republican pragmatics:Extending the estate tax cut would benefit the estates of the wealthiest 0.3 percent of Americans who die in 2013 — about 7,000 people. Ending the tax credits would hurt some 13 million working families, including nearly 26 million children, many of whom live at or near the poverty line.
"rights of men?" LOL. Men have no rights when compared to women.
When I had my vasectomy I HAD to have a SIGNED RELEASE from my wife.
But I have NO SAY in if she has an abortion.
Men's rights. PPFFFFFTTTTTT!
traditionalguy: "@ Bob Hurbert...The Confederate States lost the War and underwent a shameful re-construction by the GOP, so they voted solid Democrat for the next 115 years."
I'm not a big fan of Newt (or his utterly failed House leadership tenure after an arousing victory after 40 years of dem house control) but I always enjoyed his explanation of how he became a republican (since it closely mirrored my thinking).
Newt was the son of an Army officer (ugh, Army, don't get me started....LOL).
His family was moved to Georgia in the 1960's.
The very time period that Bob the idiot is referencing.
And what did Newt see when he got there?
A bunch of racist democrats.
Newt knew then that he could never be one of them so he became a republican.
If Newt (and by extension other current day republicans near the same age) were actually racists, why wouldn't they have joined the racist democrat party?
Why did they join the party of west coast Republicans (Reagan/Nixon) and east coast Rockeffer republicans?
It makes no sense.
But then, none of the left is preaching makes any sense...unless you're a big fan of Castro and Chavez and Ortega and Che and Mao and Kim and ....
You get the idea.
"Do you think that everyone of them changed what is in their hearts?"
Sure. Most of them are dead.
Bob Hurbert said...
Do you think that everyone of them changed what is in their hearts?
Of course not. In their hearts they are, and always have been, Democrats.
Bob the hopeless: "Shouting Thomas: I think thou protest too much."
I think you'll find that when you falsely accuse someone of something vile the accusee will often respond vigorously.
Anyone over the age of 18 should know this.
R/V, I know it seems clear to you that economic redistribution is easy to do, and has no possible negative consequences.
Unlike you, I remember the history of the 20th century.
Would you like me to recount it for you in detail?
This comment I found in Der Spiegel today has me convinced Romany will win:
"The truth is that we simply no longer understand America. Looking at the country from Germany and Europe, we see a foreign culture. The political system is in the hands of big business and its lobbyists. The checks and balances have failed. And a perverse mix of irresponsibility, greed and religious zealotry dominate public opinion.
The downfall of the American empire has begun. It could be that the country's citizens wouldn't be able to stop it no matter how hard they tried. But they aren't even trying".
Drago, when I became of voting age in 1978 I deliberately refused to register as a Democrat because of the overt racism of the Democrats I knew. I eventually moved out of the state for that same reason. But I am PROUD of the Republican party's race record, and that is a big reason I became a Republican.
How the Democrats managed to rewrite history to the point that the average 20 year old in this country is shocked to learn Abe Lincoln was a Republican is a mystery to me.
Gosh, R/V, if the Europeans don't like us, we are truly doomed!
I'm quite sure that Germany doesn't feature huge corporations with massive influence.
r/v: "Ending the tax credits would hurt some 13 million working families, including nearly 26 million children, many of whom live at or near the poverty line."
Yes r/v, we all understand that you think every dime earned by every individual is owed to the government and therefore every dime not confiscated by the government is money "stolen" from the poor.
Yawn.
Can't we get a better quality of lefty troll? Something above middle school level?
Where's garage? Is he playing canary in the coal mine again?
"Can't we get a better quality of lefty troll? Something above middle school level?"
Does such a thing exist?
I think if your economic knowledge rises above middle school, there's a word for you.
"Conservative."
I won't have any excuses if Romney loses.
But I will be hunkering down thereafter. Health care layoffs and wage cuts and rationing are less than a year off. Not even sure my 20 years will matter for much.
My dad lost his job at my same age, and it practically killed him. here I am, facing the same thing, all engineered by Democrats.
So I will grieve, to be sure. Then comes the planning on where to move when Obamacare really gets going in 2013.
The meetings I am going to now are full of anxiety. Not quite panic, but you can smell it in the near distance. Nervous laughter for now. Furrowed brows to follow. Then swearing, and flailing. Then grim acceptance, should you still be around.
Just my guess.
He was a fine candidate — and so was Ryan — even with the media spinning everything they could against him. And if R&R win, their victory will be spun as negatively as possible.
The right is quickly becoming known as the representatives of the whiny victims.
دردشة ومنتديات عراقنا said...
I love that guy.
My new favorite commenter. Never with the sarcasm. Always respectful. Does not use the N word in public. A regular guy.
Marshal, The point is, that the people who were racists in the 1960's, may have passed their prejudices on to the next generation. Not everyone of course, some have indeed changed their hearts.
But not everyone. The point is that racism still exists, even if it is less than in the 1960's. Althouse's original post seemed to brush racism aside like it was gone forever.
I hate to get you all worked up and leave, but I have to get back to work. See you...
Am I missing something? All signs are pointing to an Obama win, not a Romney victory.
Polls are consistently showing Obama as ahead. 538 and RCP aggregates have Obama as the solid winner.
It's going to take a lot for Obama to lose, but hey, we'll see.
Der Spiegel only relects the German left. The rest of that country will get on board once they understand Mittbestimmung.
r/v: "This comment I found in Der Spiegel today has me convinced Romany will win:"
LOL
I would recommend the germans spend more time figuring out how they are going to handle the continuing implosion of the EU.
The greeks now routinely refer to the germans as nazi's. Why you ask? I'm glad you did.
Because the germans are getting tired of extending the retirement age of germans so that german taxes can be paid to greeks who want to retire at 80% of wages at age 50.
And Portugal, Spain and Italy are very close behind the greeks...
Yeah, that's what we need more of: perpetual double digit unemployment, 1-2% GDP growth and ever increasing areas of cities that the french and german police/fire units won't go into.
Who is it that said "Fascism is always descending in America but is always landing in Europe"?
Sums it up.
Bill, the latest polls show a very tight race. Taking the polls at face value it appears Obama will win by 20 or 30 electoral votes.
However, the question is whether the polls should be taken at face value.
The polls in 2010 did not show a massive Republican victory in the shaping either.
دردشة ومنتديات عراقنا said...
شات عراقنا
Good point. I guess Other Barry really has been a good president and deserves reelection based on merit after all.
So, apparently, Bob's theory is that only certified non-racists should be allowed to vote.
Who does the certifying?
Who is it that said "Fascism is always descending in America but is always landing in Europe"?
Tom Wolfe, a man all of you should read more of.
Bill: "Am I missing something?"
No Bill.
You're not.
Go back to sleep now. Nothing is happening. obama has this in the bag.
It's a piece of cake. No problemo. Start thinking about getting your invitation to the obama's reelection in DC. Better book your hotel early.
I'd recommend doing it tonight to avoid the "rush" tomorrow.
Yep.
All is well.
All is well....
Seven: "Tom Wolfe, a man all of you should read more of."
I loved his "Bonfire of the Vanities" and "The Right Stuff" and his "Radical Chic" book is not to be missed.
barrysanders: "Good point. I guess Other Barry really has been a good president and deserves reelection based on merit after all."
According to Bob Hurbert, I only want to support the white half of obama.
Shorter Bill: Romney won? I don't know anyone who voted for Romney.
Also, that 538 is objective. You betcha, chief.
Well, Bob settled the question Althouse posed, didn't he?
Vote for Obama or you're a racist!
Where's garage? Is he playing canary in the coal mine again?
He's sitting with his finger hovering over the mouse button so that he can hit "Publish Your Comment" as soon as he gets confirmation that Governor Walker has been indicted this afternoon, the timing of which is being done to destroy Romney's chances of winning Wisconsin.
ST: "Who does the certifying?"
Well, if we follow the current Justice dept lead, I would guess the New Black Panther Party would be left's first choice for "certification overseer's"...
...see what I did there?
I used "overseer" in a sentence about the New Black Panther Party.
You thought it could only be used as a reference to the slavery/antebellum south.
But I used it in a way that conjures up the current plantation mentality of the modern left.
You thought I was going the other way, but I didn't...
(Billy Crystal posting homage)
"What's with the 'we'? You got a mouse in your pocket?"
Leaving aside your inscrutable quip about a pocket mouse, don't you consider yourself an American, one of "we, the people?"
Or, assuming you do, do you not consider those with different creeds or political ideas than you as belonging to "we, the people?"
ST: "Well, Bob settled the question Althouse posed, didn't he?"
These lefties are like windup toys...which of course makes them perfect lefty drones.
Currently on RCP Wisconsin is +4.2% for Obama, it was +0.4% for Kerry and +0.2% for Gore. Those numbers don't make Ryan look like a positive to me, but maybe we are using different definitions of the term.
What's missing from that list? Oh yeah, Obama's 2008 result: +13.9%. Tell me again about Ryan's impact?
Robert Cook: "Leaving aside your inscrutable quip about a pocket mouse, don't you consider yourself an American, one of "we, the people?"
We used to, but then obama informed us we were the enemy and that "his" side should punch us in the nose or something.
@alan marcus: Wow. I heard it here first.
"Am I missing something?"
Quite a bit actually.
Oversampling Ds in the polls
Huge enthusiasm gap favoring Rs.
22 pt. R advantage with independents.
Economy in the toilet. High unemployment, etc.
That should get you started sonny.
Robert Cook: "Leaving aside your inscrutable quip about a pocket mouse.."
yeah, that "quip" is really "inscrutible".
I mean, who could possible discern the meaning of that "quip"?
lol
We used to, but then obama informed us we were the enemy and that "his" side should punch us in the nose or something.
You righties always get your feelings hurt when lefties get partisan. Like you're afraid we'll tease you about your education or something.
Bob Hurbert said...
Marshal, The point is, that the people who were racists in the 1960's, may have passed their prejudices on to the next generation. Not everyone of course, some have indeed changed their hearts.
Interesting. I think the point is your first set of accusations are obviously wrong and rather than admit your error you've fallen back to your next prepared position. But it's not a retreat, it's a strategic redeployment. It's pretty obvious racist ideas are far less prevalent than in the past, with many of these children you cavalierly assume to be racist proving you wrong every second of their lives.
There are racists and likely will be for any length of time we can understand. This isn't the issue (there are people who are turned on by fantasizing about cooking people alive also - so what). You seem to think that if racists exist the remainder of your beliefs are therefore true. The assertion that Republicans / conservatives are racist or their ideology is based on racism is simply false and you have presented no argument that even begins to support it.
Here's the truth about Southern political migration:
Democrats have always been the party of Tammany: votes in exchange for goodies. Immediately after the Civil War this practice combined with Southern antipathy to the party of abolition resulted in a grand bargain: Southerners vote Democrat in exchange for Jim Crow. In the 60s the Democrats refused to continue that trade. Since the bribe keeping the south Democrat was no longer available southerners began to vote for their natural preferences of freedom from Washington and cultural conservatism.
phx: "You righties always get your feelings hurt when lefties get partisan."
My feelings weren't hurt. I was just addressing Cooks observation/point.
Did you miss that part?
I'll bet that happens alot, right?
phx: "Like you're afraid we'll tease you about your education or something."
By all means, proceed.
This should be interesting.
Of course, the Politico libs can't accept that Romney is just a better candidate and kicked Obama's butt in the 1st debate.
As with the Star Trek movies, I believe it is the even numbered excuses you've given that will be considered "canon", i.e. #2 BushBushBushBush, #4 Dirty Koch Bros/Citizens United, and #6 the shadow KKK, otherwise known as all whites who don't vote Democrat party.
Also, you gotta figure anything short of a blowout will be in litigation by sundown.
Drago,
I've never heard it before, so it's a mystery to me. Even assuming it is meant as a salacious double entendre, it makes no sense in this context.
Drago: Okay, nyah nyah nyah nyah!
Drago:
"...obama informed us we were the enemy and that 'his' side should punch us in the nose or something."
Well, shit...Obama's on the same side as Romney...on the side of Wall Street and the big banks and the plutocrats.
BTW, if the American south is still so gosh darn racist and horrible etc, why is there significant and widely discussed reverse (North to South) black migration?
http://atlantablackstar.com/2012/10/01/african-american-reverse-migration-means-more-political-opportunity-for-black-community/
This has been going on for many years now.
I wonder why that is?
It's almost as if every premise held by the left is not actually grounded in reality.
"Just look at the current national electoral map. Does it look familiar? It is the same map in your history book, how the nation was divided during the Civil War"
Just look at New York City. The Copperheads are hoping to keep Clement Vallandigham in power. How a Vallandigham was ever elected, I don't know.
Robert Cook: "Well, shit...Obama's on the same side as Romney...on the side of Wall Street and the big banks and the plutocrats."
The plutocrats!!
LOL
Wasn't that a Disney movie?
Poor Cookie. He really never has recovered from the breakup of the Soviet Union.
Pity that.
Before going to easy slandering of southern Democrats, it is advisable to read Zell Miller's book " Corps Values: Everything You Need to Know I Learned In The Marines."
Zell is a tough and smart man. Zell has been the Keynote Speaker at both the Democrat and the Republican conventions.
Character does count.
Henry: "Just look at New York City. The Copperheads are hoping to keep Clement Vallandigham in power. How a Vallandigham was ever elected, I don't know."
Thread winner.
crap.
So if the predictions hold, we get the same president, the same Senate, and the same House.
Why? Because this has worked so well the last few years and we want more of the same. Exactly the same. If we voters do this, we deserve the ass fucking we will get. At least this time the left is aware that Obama is not the Messiah but rather is a very naughty boy. Barry the god-myth is now exposed as the petty and small and defective person that he is.
That sneering leftist German is right that we have no willingness to confront or fix our problems.
But enough doom and gloom! Romney 270, false Messiah 268.
This blog is off the charts in its selective idiocy.
Are you saying Althouse is a conservative?
You don't understand edgy.
If Romney wins, I think the real post-mortem on the election is likely to be something other than what anyone is talking about.
I don't think it will be the "enthusiasm gap", nor do I think it will be the "independent gap."
No, I think when the final numbers are tallied and the final analysis is taken...
If Romney wins it will be because of Democrats who defected and did not vote for Obama.
Cook: "I've never heard it before, so it's a mystery to me. Even assuming it is meant as a salacious double entendre, it makes no sense in this context."
Ok, training time out (for snark).
When someone asks if you have a mouse in your pocket after you use the "royal "we"", it means they don't believe you are truly speaking for a large number of "folks" (as Bill O'Reilly says).
Nothing more or less.
Quite common actually. No offense meant.
Barry the god-myth is now exposed as the petty and small and defective person that he is.
Only petty, small, and defective? You act like Barry's laid a tax on epithets.
phx: "You act like Barry's laid a tax on epithets."
Hey, you want to hold it down idiot?
(looks around nervously)
...don't give him any ideas....
--"The truth is that we simply no longer understand America.--
When did they ever understand America?
You know what the tax on "idiot" is these days?
You need to remove your names for me to some off-shore holdings.
Listening to anyone from Europe pontificate on America is laughable. I care about as much about what Europe thinks about American politics as I do about what my dog thinks about my daily schedule.
In Boxing Terms Romney fought this fight as Billy Conn. He fought a defensive fight to win on points. He didn't give Obama a chance to land a haymaker. He didn't go for the knockout. That's a lot more fun. But you still win when you win on points.
Obama fought like Mike Tyson. He thought he just had to show up and glare at his opponent and he would quit. But what happened with Tyson is when he went up against someone who didn't just quit....well he got his ass kicked. You see that's what happens when somebody fought a smart fight.
I care about as much about what Europe thinks about American politics as I do about what my dog thinks about my daily schedule.
Maybe your dog is smarter than you, too.
JUST KIDDING!!
"JUST KIDDING!!"
The eternal request that everyone knows means "I'm an ass but JUST DON'T HIT ME!!"
Cosmic Conservative said...
If Romney wins it will be because of Democrats who defected and did not vote for Obama.
I have a hard time reconciling this to the polls. I've seen the chart showing 13% of Obama voters aren't voting for him. But contrary to some Obama defenders even if every single one of those people either voted for a third party or didn't vote at all Romney should have a bigger lead. Obviously the defection effect is offset by people who didn't vote for Obama last time and now intend to, but how many of those can there be? There are some new voters 18-21 who were too young to vote last time (and have never tried to get a job). But the number of McCain voters switching to Obama seems like it would be vanishingly small.
"I didn't vote for Obama last time, but I appreciated the romance of his election. It really was a sea change in electoral politics, and the night of his victory was a fine moment. It validated the processes of democracy and fulfilled the hopes of a lot of people......Well and good, but it's four stagnant years later. His reelection will not be the achievement of some ideal but the completion of a cynical bargain. I would greet news of his reelection with the same sinking feeling that I greeted that of Ray Nagin and Sharpe James." - William
Well said. Worth repeating.
You wouldn't hit a leftie would you?
So, referring to "we the people" is using the "royal we?" I am an American citizen, as are you, and, presumably, all or most of those who comment here, and, unless some here are among the 1%, we are all in more or less the same boat. Whether Obama or Romney wins, we all will lose.
You may not think so, but then, ignorance does not trump reality.
Cosmic: "If Romney wins it will be because of Democrats who defected and did not vote for Obama."
By definition, dems who defect from obama did not vote for him.
Further, there are alot of factors in play.
-The defecting dems (in some polls/analysis that's a 10-15% #).
-Shift by suburban whites from obama to Romney in key counties
-Significant dropoff of obama votes in key demographics: 18 to 29 yr olds, working class catholics, depressed latinos and african americans, etc.
-Significant (beyond 2004 #'s) increase in the turnout of evangelicals in key states (Ohio being prominent among them)
-Inability of obama to generate the same pre-election day lead among early voters (which has always been where winning dems have racked up insurmountable margins prior to election day)
That's just a few of the key factors.
And there's evidence for each one of them.
Can obama still win?
I have to say "yes" since we're talking about human beings and those darn humans sure are unpredictable.
However, if obama wins it will be an astonishing outlier given the array of economic facts weighing against him. No other president would even be in the race right now.
An obama reelection win would be absolutely historic in terms of overcoming economic conditions.
Okay if you're gonna hit me anyway then I wasn't kidding!
Robert Cook: "You may not think so, but then, ignorance does not trump reality."
Which you prove daily.
phx: "You need to remove your names for me to some off-shore holdings."
??
I think you were shooting for something funny here.
Do you want to try again?
phx: "Okay if you're gonna hit me anyway then I wasn't kidding!"
Exactly.
If you're going to take the hit anyway, you might as well own it!
Surest sign Obama will lose big: goofy leftists here are already pulling out the trope that the South is a bunch of racist rednecks.
It's blacklash, people. Your Seven Machos called it circa December 2008. You can look it up.
Drago, never EVER go backwards. Keep moving no matter what is my motto.
"Wasn't that a Disney movie?"
You're thinking of "The Aristocats." (If it were "The Arisocrats," it would be a Vivid Video production.)
Given the income inequality in the country today, and the concomitant inequality in influence over the direction of government--thems that has the money calls the tune--I'd say "plutocrats" is entirely apt.
The Aristocrats movie I know of is definitely not a Disney movie.
althouse you fool. obviously, they're going with racism and stolen election.
Wow, MSNBC test graphic for tomorrow night:
Romney 55%/Obama 43%
Obama 280 EC/Romney 257 EC
Early election results, via MSNBC
althouse you fool. obviously, they're going with racism and stolen election.
I'm trying to figure out if you're talking about Romney supporters after Obama wins, or Obama supporters after Romney wins.
You must mean either.
I have spent a significant time in europe and have several family members from there.
Whats always most amusing is how every single european thinks they have an encyclopedic understanding of America and, in reality, they have no clue about even the most basic aspects of our culture, population, and yes history as well.
The europeans have the market cornered on conceit and the fact of the matter is that europe has been living off it's historical legacy (particularly the french) without imparting much of any value (save science) since prior to the 20th century.
Based on this blog, the Democrats are the party of the ignorant and racist.
Robert Cook: "You're thinking of "The Aristocats." (If it were "The Arisocrats," it would be a Vivid Video production.)"
No, I wasn't.
LOL
This is typical of the lefties. Someone on the right makes a play on words or a snide reference and suddenly the left is all about being rigorously literal.
Hilarious.
phx, you're good with the result of the election being the same as what we have now?
I suppose if you think what we've had the last 4 years is largely success, then you want to double down. President and Congress the same to ensure consistent results.
If you think what we've had is failure, then presumably you want the change one of the variables. Obama had two years of a pliant Senate and House and two years of a pliant Senate but hostile House. Easy to say you want Speaker Pelosi back, but even Nate Silver says that's not going to happen.
So we're stuck with the same and that's a good result because why, Romney will make it worse?
Double down on failure because someone else might fuck it up worse. Hey -- there's your enthusiasm gap that can't even disappear with a latex-wrapped bimbo strutting around a stage in Milwaukee.
Yes, small and petty describes Obama and his campaign.
I'm sorry, but if one has never heard the quite common phrase "mouse in your pocket" they are barred from ever, and I mean EVER, demanding anyone else's credentials or questioning their education or literacy.
phx: "You must mean either."
Yes of course because the weight of evidence for both is so darn "equal" over the last 16 years!
"Drago said...
phx: "Okay if you're gonna hit me anyway then I wasn't kidding!"
Exactly.
If you're going to take the hit anyway, you might as well own it!"
Exactly indeed. If you're going to be an ass, just be an ass. Don't be a waffling, cowardly ass.
love of communism, doesn't know colloquialisms, no sense of humor.
Cookie, are you commenting from the basement of the Kremlin?
I'm trying to figure out if you're talking about Romney supporters after Obama wins, or Obama supporters after Romney wins.
Point: phx.
The people who lose the most in this elections are the conservatives. Romney is not a conservative. He is a Rhino. He will be a big disappointment to the conservatives who will turn out in droves just to get rid of the Jug Eared Jesus.
It's like having a mediocre pitcher on your team. You want an ace. A guy who will twenty games. A fireball thrower who will knock down and knock out the other side.
Instead you get a junk baller with a bunch of trick pitches that just slides by on the edge of tolerable behavior.
You want Sandy Koufax or Bob Gibson.
Instead you get Larry Gura.
Rocketeer: "'m sorry, but if one has never heard the quite common phrase "mouse in your pocket" they are barred from ever, and I mean EVER, demanding anyone else's credentials or questioning their education or literacy."
This is another thing I've noticed about the left.
One of the first things many on the left do when there is a discussion is enter into a credential/bona fides war. They are always demanding that you provide your academic status or military history prior to your being "allowed" to comment on some matter.
It's long been my practice that before I will provide any of that info from someone demanding that is for that person to first provide their credentials.
More often than not that shuts down the conversation.
You saw it earlier in the thread when, out of the blue, phx offers up a tongue in cheek "threat" (no, not a REAL threat!) to start insulting my "education".
LOL
It being understood that the sound a mouse makes is often spelled "we", --Have you got a mouse in your pocket was part of the punchline to a common joke.
The lone ranger and Tanto (his sidekick) are out in the wilderness and Tanto has just finished figuring out the situation with his ear to the ground. "Kemosabe (the lone ranger) many armed braves are coming"! Lone ranger, "we better get out of here"! Tanto, "You got a mouse in your pocket paleface"?
If you think what we've had is failure,
I don't think Obama's failed these last four years. I definitely wanted comprehensive health care reform and he delivered for me.
He kept the economy, so far, from falling into a depression, which I believed was in imminent in 2008.
Romney will make it worse?
Yes, in my opinion Romney is likely to make things worse.
Yes, small and petty describes Obama and his campaign.
Maybe. It would then also be fair to say from where I stand, Romney's campaign is big and vague.
Aristocrats?
Hey libtards. Very safe for work. Just sayn'
I also don't want the government prying in my family's health care decisions either.
Or supporting the repeal of Roe v. Wade.
And I don't want a Republican like Romney making the next SCOTUS appointments.
dbp: "The lone ranger and Tanto (his sidekick) are out in the wilderness and Tanto has just finished figuring out the situation with his ear to the ground. "Kemosabe (the lone ranger) many armed braves are coming"! Lone ranger, "we better get out of here"! Tanto, "You got a mouse in your pocket paleface"?
The variation to this joke is "What do you mean "we", paleface"....
Instead you get a junk baller with a bunch of trick pitches that just slides by on the edge of tolerable behavior.
Round here, until September, that was Randy Wolf. He's gone now.
"Just look at the current national electoral map. Does it look familiar? It is the same map in your history book, how the nation was divided during the Civil War, the Confederate States are voting for Romney. And that is not a coincidence."
In the Civil War WV separated from Virginia in order to support the UNION - it's now RED. In the Civil War KY, MO, KS were Union; they are now RED. Arizona was pro-CONFEDERATE, it is now BLUE. IN was Union; now it leans RED. PA, OH, MI, WI were UNION; now they are TOSS-UPS. So I think you can't match who was for the Confederacy and who is for Romney - eleven states are different and there were only 37 then.
Plus I think you are forgetting that Obama said he could help us as a country get over some lasting divisions. Your argument amounts to saying that he did not do that at all.
phx: "I also don't want the government prying in my family's health care decisions either."
Every bit of confidential patient information will be held and reviewed by government bureaucrats under obamacare.
Every single bit.
The rest of you - sorry, BarrySanders20 asked me a good question. The rest of you is just sniping at me.
What?
Don't you like irony?
wildswan, you are wasting your time.
The left needs their "Southern Strategy" meme to be "true", therefore it is non-falsifiable.
There is no amount of evidence or cajolery that will change Bob's mind.
Every bit of confidential patient information will be held and reviewed by government bureaucrats under obamacare.
Every single bit.
I'm not worried about the confidential information as much as the government telling women who want birth control services to go fuck themselves.
"Don't you like irony?"
My wife does all that.
I tend to leave burn marks on the shirts.
phx: "The rest of you is just sniping at me."
Stop speaking to us as if we are the collective!!
LOL
It all comes back to race... There's grousing and blaming in the offing if this iffing is happening.
If that is true then it means Obama was a failure.
If Politico wants to say that Obama failed... who am I to stop them?
He did promise to slow the rise of the oceans... Sandy had other ideas.
phx: "I'm not worried about the confidential information as much as the government telling women who want birth control services to go fuck themselves."
LOL
Having single women pay $9/month for birth control is = "telling women who want birth control services to go fuck themselves."
LOL
Hey, I'll bet you're real upset with the obamacare requirment that pap smears for women be reduced from annually to every 3 years, aren't you?
What?
Let me guess: you didn't know that did you?
Let me guess again: "it's a lie!"
Nope.
Next step: "it's out of context!"
Nope.
Next step: "racist!"
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/14/health/brawley-cervical-cancer-screenings/index.html
This is right on top of the other "recommended" reductions in annual tests (particularly mammograms) which lead to too many (in the words of obama admin officials) "false positives" and "unnecessary biopsies".
Yep.
Good old obamacare!
But remember, the rallying cry of the left is "allow no politician to come between you and your reproductive health decisions!" when, in reality, the left is advocating for the politicians to come between you and ALL your health decisions.
And you won't be able to "opt out".
Good grief, Charlie Brown. Weep for the oppressed, the Republican voter. Liken your vote to the ultimate patriotic rebellion! Man the barricades!
Don't you ever see Fox News, NBC News, or read the Weekly Standard or National Review? Visit the Cato Institute or AEI?
Are you DEAF and BLIND?
Merrily we roll along, roll along, roll along,
Wrapped in bunting, millions strong,
Our long guns in our hands.
"Look at the mobs of white people out of their minds with hatred towards blacks in the 1960's. Just because they should be allowed to go to the same school as whites. Then realize many of those people are young, and still alive today and raising children."
Someone's not so good with the maths.
leslyn: "Good grief, Charlie Brown. Weep for the oppressed, the Republican voter."
And this comment relates to.....?
Having single women pay $9/month for birth control is = "telling women who want birth control services to go fuck themselves."
No. Appointing Supreme Court justices who want to strike down Roe v. Wade is.
Even more than the fact that Romney/Ryan was a fine ticket, the left will never ever admit that voters are repudiating their policies.
This is the third conservative electoral rebellion of my lifetime - 1980, 1994 and 2010/2012 - and the left still does not get it.
I just wish the center of the center-right electoral majority in the United States would remember this the next time a Democrat runs for election as a post ideological centrist or conservative.
Yes, Ann, this last comment was directed to you.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me three times, shame on me.
I'm trying to remember how the media spun the results of that Supreme Court case that overturned Obamacare.
phx, spoken like a true demagogue.
All striking down Roe v Wade does is leave the decision up to the states.
"No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO G-D!"
Some wag on WLS said that Illinois is in play. I know Cook County is leaning Romney, but if Illinois is in play then it's as good as over for Obama. It means that Chicago, Peoria and Springfield can't create enough bogus votes to prevent a Romney win.
Did you see Boardwalk Empire last night?
There was good irony there let me tell ya!
Off topic...
Tank, you icon is all wrong. Socialism is the blue guy taking the red guy's money. The red guy pulling a Glock on the blue guy to get it back is...something else.
Baron Zemo said...
The people who lose the most in this elections are the conservatives. Romney is not a conservative.
Conservatives are taking it on the chin this election to oust Obama and Joe "whole load" Biden. I do think the handwringers worried about SCOTUS appointees are overblowing it.
I also don't want the government prying in my family's health care decisions either.
and
I definitely wanted comprehensive health care reform and he delivered for me.
These statements are mutually exclusive.
You cannot have universal health care without the delivery of health care being politicized.
The only danger of Roe v Wade being overturned is that it was stupidly ruled in the first place.
Hoist by your own petard. Live by the sword, die by the sword. You reap what you sow.
The point is, if Roe v Wade is overturned, it just goes back to the states, and abortion is too entrenched to be made illegal in any state within the next 100 years.
So basing your voting even just mainly on that one issue is a little silly, considering what you lose in return.
All striking down Roe v Wade does is leave the decision up to the states.
Sorry, I don't believe in leaving human rights, such as the right to privacy which Roe v. Wade is founded on, up to the states as Romney and the Republicans would.
@Bob Hurbert:
News flash, nimrod. Racism exists everywhere on the planet. Always has, and it always will. You can't wish or legislate it away.
Deal with it.
Sorry, I don't believe in leaving human rights, such as the right to privacy which Roe v. Wade is founded on, up to the states as Romney and the Republicans would.
But you do prefer to have human rights dependent on a badly-written, arbirtrary legal decision, instead of in a Constitutional Amendment?
...fascinating.
phx, you are under the impression that abortion is a "human right".
Not everyone agrees.
Drago said... leslyn: "Good grief, Charlie Brown. Weep for the oppressed, the Republican voter." And this comment relates to.....?"
THE POST.
@phx,
A series of serious questions, along with an apology for a thread swerve:
How do you resolve competing human rights?
What happens when one person's rights to, say, convenience or preference, cause another person to be denied their right to life?
Do you default to the more basic right being more important?
Can you even consider the right to convenience/preference to be a right, or the right to life to be a right, if another person's right can trump it?
The reason I'm saying this is that the rights actually, specifically mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution don't take anyone's rights away from anyone else, so there never is any conflict.
My right to vote can never take away your right to vote.
My right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can never take away your right to bear arms.
My right to freedom of religion, association, and speech can never take away or otherwise infringe on your right to not incriminate yourself.
So something seems a little off with your designation of a human right.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the ones that should never be infringed under any circumstances.
phx,
The more autonomous and powerful the states are (i.e. the more we stress federalism and decide things like abortion rights at the state level), the more likely it is that our federal government remains a republic rather than an oppressive one party "democracy" (i.e. in name only) that pushes one political flavor for everybody in the USA.
Of course some people will not vote for him because he is black.
If Obama were white you would never have heard of him. He would never have been admitted to Columbia or Harvard. If he went into politics he would have ended up a low-level Chicago Democratic party apparatchik. School board, say, or alderman.
Democrats voted for Obama because he was black. They never bothered to check into his background and ignored indications he doesn't have the right temperament for the job and didn't have enough experience. People who voted for Obama because he is black think it's a litmus test proving they aren't racists. But in reality the opposite is true.
And immediately after the excuses...
...we'll suddenly start again seeing "Another Grim Milestone" casualty counts and homelessness updates .
" Blogger Andy R. said...
I don't recall the last time a VP candidate got less face time.
The Romney camp is keeping him out of sight, for obvious reasons. "
Yes, they're hiding him in front of crowds of 30,000 voters.
"Sometime check out the documentary film: Eyes on the Prize. Look at the mobs of white people out of their minds with hatred towards blacks in the 1960's. Just because they should be allowed to go to the same school as whites. Then realize many of those people are young, and still alive today and raising children"
Yes, and they all moved north and joined unions and support Obama for the free stuff.
Good luck with that meme.
Bob Hurburt: It is the same map in your history book, how the nation was divided during the Civil War, the Confederate States are voting for Romney.
Yup, Indiana and West Virginny, the HEART OF DIXIE!
"Der Spiegel today has me convinced Romany will win:
"The truth is that we simply no longer understand America. Looking at the country from Germany and Europe, we see a foreign culture. The political system is in the hands of big business and its lobbyists."
That is no doubt the reason why my friend the German plumber and his midwife wife had to wait in a lottery for years so he could come here and start his own business. He told us that there was no chance he could start his own business in Germany.
Com'ere Toto.
Are you trying to tell me that this whole time all I had to do is click my heels and say I want to go home? Goddamnit.
BANG!
phx, you are under the impression that abortion is a "human right".
Not everyone agrees.
I believe privacy is a human right.
The more autonomous and powerful the states are (i.e. the more we stress federalism and decide things like abortion rights at the state level), the more likely it is that our federal government remains a republic rather than an oppressive one party "democracy" (i.e. in name only) that pushes one political flavor for everybody in the USA.
That's a respectable argument for states rights. But even granting the bulk of your argument we can all agree that certain rights need to be protected and guaranteed by the federal government.
phx, the idea that having an abortion is "private" is an issue with many people.
You feel there is one human being involved, the woman.
Others feel there are at least TWO human beings involved, the woman and the man.
And some feel there are at least THREE human beings involved, the man, woman and child.
What makes you think YOU get to decide whose "privacy" is involved?
What makes you think YOU get to decide whose "privacy" is involved?
I don't get to decide that. Neither do you. The Supreme Court gets to decide that. Which is why I think it's important to cast my vote for Obama tomorrow.
"That's a respectable argument for states rights. But even granting the bulk of your argument we can all agree that certain rights need to be protected and guaranteed by the federal government."
Uh. No. Apparently not phx. Not when you actually start describing those rights specifically.
That's when agreement becomes disagreement. Unfortunately that's also the only time it matters.
phx, at one point the SCOTUS itself decided this differently. At some point in the future it might decide differently again.
Fortunately for humanity I believe that this disagreement will eventually be made moot by technology. Until then, it's not likely to be an issue that people will agree upon.
Uh. No. Apparently not phx. Not when you actually start describing those rights specifically.
I was upholding the principle that some rights need to be guaranteed and defended by the federal government. I understand that people will disagree which rights those are. That's one reason I'm voting for Obama.
phx, at one point the SCOTUS itself decided this differently. At some point in the future it might decide differently again.
Don't say that as if you expect me to disagree with you -- I don't.
Sorry I pushed your buttons earlier Cosmic Consciousness. I think when the discussion turns to stuff this sober, respect for one another should be maintained if at all possible.
phx said...
phx, you are under the impression that abortion is a "human right".
Not everyone agrees.
I believe privacy is a human right.
So's life. In fact it's an inherent right.
Drago said...
Robert Cook: "Leaving aside your inscrutable quip about a pocket mouse, don't you consider yourself an American, one of "we, the people?"
We used to, but then obama informed us we were the enemy and that "his" side should punch us in the nose or something.
Old Urkel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCMDur9CDZ4
Sounds like the new Urkel. It's all the same schtick, the same drivel, the same leftard platitudes that the thumb suckers on the left lapped up like good little sheep.
Last thing you will hear from Urkel on his way out, "Did I do that?"
phx,
I understand that abortion rights are a hot button issue to many both on the left and the right. My point is that preserving/restoring our democracy as defined by our constitution is more important than any single issue.
Simple mathematics should make it obvious that federalism will lead to a more satisfied electorate than a non constitutional "democracy" where 50.1% can push around 49.9%. Federalism permits states to define policies that suit them rather than submit to policies that are inflicted on them from the feds. Under federalism you can always move to a state with government and culture that you find agreeable.
The guys who wrote the constitution were geniuses, they understood that governments tend to be tyrannical unless they are bound by checks and balances. We should be following the constitution rather than bypassing it.
Re: the supreme court deciding abortion rights, that is a clear violation of the constitution. The vision of the guys who wrote the constitution (as explained by them in the Federalist Papers) was that the judiciary would be the weakest branch of government and that the judiciary's role was mainly technical (i.e. to check that laws conformed to the constitution). They said that an activist politicized judiciary would be a disaster. It is definitely not up to the Supreme Court to define abortion rights for the USA.
I was upholding the principle that some rights need to be guaranteed and defended by the federal government. I understand that people will disagree which rights those are. That's one reason I'm voting for Obama.
And I defend, to the death if necessary, your right to do so; and to argue for doing so in forums like this.
Fairly stated by you.
how the nation was divided during the Civil War, the Confederate States are voting for Romney.
And yet, the only KKK member elected to nationwide office was a Democrat.
Weird, huh?
I was upholding the principle that some rights need to be guaranteed and defended by the federal government.
The First and Second Amendments are negotiable ...
I wonder how they can afford to bring the entire Mormon Tabernacle Choir to DC to sing at Romney's inaugural events.
Maybe they can rent themselves out do some paying gigs like the Redskins' pregame national anthem.
Seriously, Ann Romney has been a real trooper. She is going everywhere Mitt goes and smiling her special presence at the crowds. That much travel is not easy for an MS sufferer because they tire out easily.
@alan markus
The closeness of the polls is at least partially the fault of people like me who refuse to answer them.
Historically, elections have been skewed by people staying home because - "oh, he's going to win/lose anyway." Not gonna contribute to that.
"Probably the single most accurate thing you can say about the state of this election is that Romney has not managed to get a lead that is beyond the margin of fraud.
Thus Romney loses."
Sadly this is probably true.
"Probably the single most accurate thing you can say about the state of this election is that Romney has not managed to get a lead that is beyond the margin of fraud.
Thus Romney loses."
Sadly this is probably true.
Setting the tone for the whining and excuses from the Republican side.
Kathy K,
It is not just your fault. When I get polled, I lie. I once got polled three times in one day; it was awesome. My favorite was when the caller asked who my Presidential pick was. When I answered with, "Jill Stein." The caller's response was, "Who?"
I hate polls and do not want politicians to change their position based on them, thus, I lie.
Something strikes me as very odd about the way liberals talk about abortion.
Instead of just saying they're in favor of a woman's right to abortion, they use euphemisms like "a women's right to make decisions about her health" or "the right to privacy which Roe v. Wade is founded on", to cite two that have been used in this thread.
I'm totally in favor of women's (men's, too!) right to make decisions about their health care--which is why I oppose Obamacare. And I'm equally in favor of a right to privacy, though I'll admit that it's not obvious to me where exactly that turns up in the Constitution. But I can also see that overturning a SCOTUS decision that is based on a right to privacy does not per se deny a right to privacy. It simply might hold that the mother's right to privacy does not give her complete dominion over her fetus.
The things that I consider fundamental human rights--things like the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness--are things I'm proud to proclaim my belief in. I don't look for anodyne phrases to hide what I'm advocating.
Why are liberals so reluctant to state clearly what it is they're advocating in this case?
The things that I consider fundamental human rights--things like the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness--
In my view the right to abortion, which is founded on the right to privacy, is a fundamental human right, predicated on liberty.
But I can also see that overturning a SCOTUS decision that is based on a right to privacy does not per se deny a right to privacy
I don't see that as a disreputable argument. I see it as a reason for me to get out and vote for Obama tomorrow.
Bob Herbert wrote:
Bob Hurbert said...
Drago, Sometime check out the documentary film: Eyes on the Prize. Look at the mobs of white people out of their minds with hatred towards blacks in the 1960's. Just because they should be allowed to go to the same school as whites. Then realize many of those people are young, and still alive today and raising children.
who has fought the idea tht whites and blacks shouldn't be attending the same schools? I want even born in her sixties, and I've been to the south like three times in my life. And I bought the whole notion that MLK preached, namely we should judge people based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin. A lesson lost on you apparently. What are you doing but judging people based on the color of their skin?
Seriously dude. You're quoting Eye On the prize? Such was the world back then where black people couldn't even eat at the same lunch counter. And now we have a black person running the country. With no one assassinating him or lynching him. The difference in the world is so profound, it's like a different world entirely. Does hat mean no white anywhere is racist? Of course not. But that doesn't mean that if you oppose Obama its because you're a racist.
Thee is in fact something racist in our assertion, because you are acting very paternalistic toward a black leader. Either he can do the job or not do the job. Either you're going to like the results or not. But to suggest tht one can't be critical of Obama beaue of his race, otherwise you're a racist, in fact makes Obama into a token black hired to fill the quota position for the black guy.
Shouldn't we judge Obama on the content of his character, or the outcomes of his policies? Or should we not say anything because he's black and we can't hold him to the standards we would hold another president? Thats racist!
You have no ability to discern the inner workings of the human mind and neither do I. So ascribing racism to other people's actions is merely projection on your part.
Even Obama said, if he couldn't get the economy under control by the end of his first term tht he was looking at a one term presidency. In other words, he's saying he should be judged on his ability to do the job and not on the color of his skin.
If I think he's doing a terrible job, why is it racist to vote for another guy who I think will do a better one?
I don't see that as a disreputable argument. I see it as a reason for me to get out and vote for Obama tomorrow.
And nothing just screams privacy like getting fedgov.org involved in every aspect of a woman's reproductive cycle.
Way to go on those critical thinking skilzzz there, phx.
phx said...
In my view the right to abortion, which is founded on the right to privacy, is a fundamental human right, predicated on liberty.
There is no "right to privacy". There was a limitation on government powers until the left "interpreted" it out of existence. It's amazing the left supported the switch which eliminated a vast swath of our rights, but manages to pat themselves on the back for coming up with with the weak gruel of abortion. As if getting rid of 96% of our rights is fine as long as the 4% isn't endangered.
Nathan Alexander, quoting and responding to someone else:
"'I also don't want the government prying in my family's health care decisions either.'
and
"'I definitely wanted comprehensive health care reform and he delivered for me.'"
"These statements are mutually exclusive.
"You cannot have universal health care without the delivery of health care being politicized."
1) Obamneycare is not "comprehensive health care reform."
2) Obamneycare is not "universal health care."
So, both Nathan and the person he quotes are mistaken.
Noted Robert Cook. Thanks.
Post a Comment