- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 48,281
- Reaction score
- 25,273
- Location
- Western NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Are you truly denying Obama;s flirtation with Communism?:roll:
Clearly a "socialist party" (and I've seen the sources on THAT and they're garbage) is no better than the KKK. Nice false equivalence you've drawn up there, RD.
I think the employers of these tech workers should threaten to encourage their employees to get POVs instead of taking a bus.Those tech companies are doing those protesting retards a favor by using a bus instead of a **** load of cars.Reading that note you can clearly tell that those retarded protesters think tech workers should be making the same as service workers.Those retarded protesters must also think Rose's neighbors must make the same as service workers. And this serves as an example why people should get their address unlisted.Several reports of this incident have made the news, all trying to re-categorize the protesters as something other than leftist OWS types. This is not far different than the discussion on another thread concerning the Mozilla exec forced to resign.
What are your thoughts as to this type of bullying by the extreme left?
Do you know nothing of The New Party?I have a picture of me at a Yankees game. That must mean I play for the Yankees.
The New Party seems to claim a lot of people as "members."
Do you know nothing of The New Party?
Why does Obama's past come as such a shock to leftists when it was there all the time? Barack Obama and the New Party/Progressive Chicago - KeyWiki
Why does Obama's past come as such a shock to leftists when it was there all the time?
So you continue to believe in BHO despite all the evidence. Your devotion to the man borders on the Jim Jones story."A shock"? I've heard about this New Party stuff before. The vast majority of it strikes me as crap.
So you continue to believe in BHO despite all the evidence. Your devotion to the man borders on the Jim Jones story.
You mean the guy I've flat out said isn't a very good President and I've criticized repeatedly for the NSA stuff, drones, and other things? That Barack Obama? I just don't believe all the nonsense you guys puke up about his "shadowy past." But then again, I don't expect much nuance out of you. I don't constantly flame Obama as the worst human being on the planet = I am a cultist for Obama. You're too much sometimes, Grant.
How exactly did this turn into yet another discussion about how Obama is an eeeeeeeevil soshulist, anyway?
Did someone mention Southern Strategy?
If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.
Here's how propagandists construct the Big Lie. They take some facts, overlook others, and the actually outright lie about the conclusions. What is the Big Lie about the Southern Strategy? Nixon did it. He flipped the South by appealing to their racism. Most of the South went for Wallace in 1968. The traditionally liberal parts of the country went for Humphrey and the rest of the nation went for Nixon. When the rest of the nation supports Nixon there are no nefarious motives assigned, but when a few Southern states follow the lead of the rest of the nation then they're doing it for the wrong reasons. What was their alternative, vote for Wallace or Humphrey and neither of those was palatable. Nixon didn't do anything.
Come 1972, the Big Lie has us believe that Nixon clamped a lock-down on the South. Well, he did the same everywhere except in Massachusetts. Now what happened in 1976, did that lock-down hold? Nope, look at all of those Democratic electoral votes in the South - a solid Democratic victory through every state which should be impossible if the Republicans had a lock on the Southern vote.
Jump forward to the Clinton years and let's see how much of a lock the Republicans have on the South. After the Reagan years, it should have been impossible for Clinton to win many of those states, remember the Southern Democrats were all Republicans now, except for the fact that evidence shows this not to be the case.
So what did happen in the South? This:
The Republican ascendancy in Dixie is associated with the rise of the southern middle class, the increasingly trenchant conservative critique of Communism and the welfare state, the Vietnam controversy and the rise of the counterculture, law-and-order concerns rooted in the urban chaos that ran rampant from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, and the incorporation of the radical Left into the Democratic party. Individual events, especially the freak show that was the 1968 Democratic convention, helped solidify conservatives’ affiliation with the Republican party. Democrats might argue that some of these concerns — especially welfare and crime — are “dog whistles” or “code” for race and racism, but this criticism is shallow in light of the evidence and the real saliency of those issues among U.S. voters of all backgrounds and both parties for decades. Indeed, Democrats who argue that the best policies for black Americans are those that are soft on crime and generous with welfare are engaged in much the same sort of cynical racial calculation President Johnson was practicing when he informed skeptical southern governors that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.” Johnson’s crude racism is, happily, largely a relic of the past, but his strategy endures.
It is hard to build low income housing. Cities don't like it and neither do other people that live in the area. it also tends to bring in a lot of crime.
however you can't blame it on the tech industry. people cry that they want high paying jobs. when high paying jobs come in people complain.
you need to make up your mind.
Pricing them out of their neighborhoods? Is he forcing them to sell or anything like that?
I've never heard of people protesting against prosperity before. Is this something we can now come to expect?
Here's a piece from RealClearPolitics which highlights how deeply ingrained the Big Lie has become:
But in the course of this argument, Bouie makes the following statement: “White Southerners jumped ship from Democratic presidential candidates in the 1960s, and this was followed by a similar shift on the congressional level, and eventually, the state legislative level. That the [last] two took time doesn’t discount the first.”
If you polled pundits, you’d probably get 90 percent agreement with this statement. And if you polled political scientists, you’d likely get a majority to sign off on it. That’s maddening, because it’s incorrect.
I’ve written at length on this, both in my book and here, but it is worth revisiting. In truth, the white South began breaking away from the Democrats in the 1920s, as population centers began to develop in what was being called the “New South” (remember, at the beginning of the 20th century, New Orleans was the only thing approximating what we currently think of as a city in the South).
In the 1930s and 1940s, FDR performed worse in the South in every election following his 1932 election. By the mid-1940s, the GOP was winning about a quarter of the Southern vote in presidential elections. . . .
Perhaps the biggest piece of evidence that something significant was afoot is Richard Nixon’s showing in 1960. He won 46.1 percent of the vote to John F. Kennedy’s 50.5 percent. One can write this off to JFK’s Catholicism, but writing off three elections in a row becomes problematic, especially given the other developments bubbling up at the local level. It’s even more problematic when you consider that JFK had the nation’s most prominent Southerner on the ticket with him.
But the biggest problem with the thesis comes when you consider what had been going on in the interim: Two civil rights bills pushed by the Eisenhower administration had cleared Congress, and the administration was pushing forward with the Brown decision, most famously by sending the 101st Airborne Division to Arkansas to assist with the integration of Little Rock Central High School.
It’s impossible to separate race and economics completely anywhere in the country, perhaps least of all in the South. But the inescapable truth is that the GOP was making its greatest gains in the South while it was also pushing a pro-civil rights agenda nationally. What was really driving the GOP at this time was economic development. As Southern cities continued to develop and sprout suburbs, Southern exceptionalism was eroded; Southern whites simply became wealthy enough to start voting Republican.
When "prosperity" only benefits a few people it does not improve the overall quality of life for a community, it can harm it.
How exactly did this turn into yet another discussion about how Obama is an eeeeeeeevil soshulist, anyway?
Why do leftists so frequently feel the need to talk like hillbillies? Is it a throwback thing?
When "prosperity" only benefits a few people it does not improve the overall quality of life for a community, it can harm it.
No - but some of us (like myself) grew up in the Deep South and could and did talk a bit like that. But no, the 'thing' is that to an extent he's imitating (whether knowingly nor not) the Church Lady.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?