artie_fufkin wrote:

"Obviously I don't want the south to secede"

Why not?

You may get your wish

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elizabeth-crisp/residents-of-missouri-other-states-sign-petitions-for-secession/article_39e847c5-31ca-5639-88ba-08856a1b6ab6.html

forsberg_us wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Obviously I don't want the south to secede"

Why not?

You may get your wish

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elizabeth-crisp/residents-of-missouri-other-states-sign-petitions-for-secession/article_39e847c5-31ca-5639-88ba-08856a1b6ab6.html

I'd love for New Hampshire to be in a different country, so we can put up a fence along the border and keep out the Cement Heads.

Last edited by artie_fufkin (11/12/2012 6:16 pm)

"We've reached the point where a majority of the people in this country are either
1) perfectly happy accepting government handouts for their entire lives or
2) perfectly happy enabling the others."

A majority do one of those two things?  Do you have data for that?

Next, even if that were true, what on Earth does that have to do with the two touch-key issues for secession, gay marriage and taxes on millionaires? 

Even if I were to accept that government largesse for the poorer half was the one key burning issue, why wouldn't Republicans say fuck abortion, gay marriage, gun control, school prayer and the rest.  You can have all those, just let us kill social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and food stamps, and we'll call it even?  Maybe I have mischaracterized your argument and caricatured it, and if so, please educate me.

Ah . . . because everyone who voted for Obama did so because he gives us free stuff?

Well, the post-election analyses are very interesting.  Apparently many conservatives are so deeply caught within their own echo chamber (nifty return to the subject header) that they did not see defeat of any kind coming, let alone the walloping they took.  Some will stick to the Kool-aid, but the GOP as we know it will soon be defunct unless a critical mass of the leadership gets back to reality.  Obama is easily and demonstrably far far right of Richard Nixon, and yet he is pilloried as a socialist and communist?  America is way more liberal than the current political infrastructure and if and when the GOP dies, we won't need a new conservative party--the Democrats are a well-functioning center-right party by either historical or international standards--we'll need a new liberal party.

Now this is weird.  Maybe even asserting that Obama won because he gave away free stuff is just a flat out bad idea for Republicans . . .

"Bobby Jindal calls Romney’s ‘gift’ comments ‘absolutely wrong’"

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/bobby-jindal-calls-romney-gift-comments-absolutely-wrong-014142107--election.html

so you're sticking to the factually accurate argument?  51% of voters selected Obama because he gives them free stuff?

What you said was:

"We've reached the point where a majority of the people in this country are either
1) perfectly happy accepting government handouts for their entire lives or
2) perfectly happy enabling the others."

The data "It was [sic] collected and counted last Tuesday."

Furthermore, you imply it was factually accurate, what Romney said about Obama winning because of gifts to minorities and young people.

I read a great post on facebook yesterday in response to this: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=559350960757086&set=a.116898608335659.16274.108038612554992&type=1&theater

"Romney did a great job. You guys should nominate him again in 2016. I am sure he will beat the pants off the Clinton/Warren ticket! The Republican party needs to change nothing. They have great ideas. They just need to go farther right. The pale Protestant patriarchal penis people will once again take back control of this great nation. Just you wait and see!"

Last edited by Max (11/15/2012 10:32 am)

I was agreeing with you, Fors, that you did not say precisely that "that 100% of the voters fell within category #1?"

Where we are now, is that "in part" it is true some people voted for Obama because of entitlements.  It would be silly to claim otherwise, and what might be "'wrong' for election efforts" are not necessarily "factually inaccurate."

So let me contrast, and thereby put Jindal's comments in perspective.

Romney received as many votes as he did in part because of racists who cannot abide a black person who steps out and above the roles that the racists feel blacks should stick to.

Factually accurate, but horrible for election purposes, and Obama did not make such a statement, in spite of its factual accuracy.

Anyhoo, "Romney did a great job. You guys should nominate him again in 2016. I am sure he will beat the pants off the Clinton/Warren ticket! The Republican party needs to change nothing. They have great ideas. They just need to go farther right. The pale Protestant patriarchal penis people will once again take back control of this great nation. Just you wait and see!"

"The second isn't going to happen, so the Republicans only chance in 2016 is Obama's failure these next 4 years.  Not entirely out of the question."

Alas, this has indeed been the GOP strategy, dating back to Clinton.  Who was it who said that universal health care must be blocked, lest the GOP remain out of power for another 40 years?  Rove or Gingrich?  Not to mention the now infamous comment of the #1 priority being to see Obama fail!

Anyway, I am glad we can agree on those points. Jindal is simply saying, we need end the language of divisiveness that turns so many away from the party. 

So, just out curiosity, do you think social security is a bad thing?  Even if it is an entitlement program for poor elderly?

Last edited by Max (11/15/2012 12:14 pm)

I'm guessing you've never lived anywhere for any length of time that does not have a social safety net for the elderly. Your opinion might change if you saw what life was like without it.

Oh no, the language of divisiveness is unappealing from either side.  I realize that I can be as much of an unlikeable divisive asshole as Rush Limbaugh in unguarded moments, and I don't condone.  Neither do I profit it from it, as does Rush.  And I'll also say that people who are quick to throw around accusations of prejudice, bigotry, and racism are not helping us reach the end game that I would like to see us reach.  And certainly there are those who pervert the situation for personal gain. That's all sickening to me.  But when the situation devolves into a tit for tat between empowered and disempowered, I think that it is the entitled who need to step back, apologize if need be, and ask for a new dialogue.

In the struggle for equality among the sexes, I would not take the line that it should be women who step back, thank us men for the opportunities we have given them, and then ask for a new dialogue.

In the struggle for equality among the races, I would not take the line that it should be blacks who step back, thank us whites for the opportunities we have given them, and then ask for a new dialogue.

In the struggle for equality among the genders, I would not take the line that it should be gays who step back, thank us straight-folk for the opportunities we have given them, and then ask for a new dialogue.

So, on the balance, the race-baiting from the conservatives is more damaging, I feel, because the integrity of the charges is compromised by the appearance that it is the empowered seeking to maintain their entitled status over the disempowered.

Actually, I think you have my argument a bit backwards.  I think it is very damaging when black people are quick to yell "racist" etc., or cop the "I'm a victim of society" argument.  Likewise, it is damaging to for Romney to say that gifts to minorities were part of Obama's election success.  Of the two, the latter is the worse.

What we white males debate among ourselves is another issue, in that context.  But I am of the opinion that each self-identified demographic group is largely responsible to get their own house in order.  It doesn't do a lot of good for white people to yell at black people to get their house in order.  That's just my experience.

"But at least as importantly, do you think that when anyone, Olbermann or Jindal, calls out for a society that is less sexist, less racist, less homophobic, that they are NOT on the side of the righteous?"

Not always.  Race, sex, sexual orientation get used as an excuse--a crutch.  There were plenty of people from the left screaming that people opposed Obama because he was black.  For some that may be true.  But not for all.  Racism was used as a shouting point to quiet critics, even when it wasn't justified.  Opposing Obamacare or any of Obama's other policies doesn't make you a racist.

I've heard people try to argue that blacks can't be racist because they're black.  Bullshit.  Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton and Rev. Wright are just as racist as a KKK grand dragon. 

MLK spoke about people being judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.  Making special preferences for people based on skin color (or gender or sexual orientation) is equally wrong.