Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 20, 2014, 06:24:02 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 517
1  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Christianity on: Today at 06:08:19 am
In any case, most Christians don't follow their religion literally either. If they did, they would be stoning gays in the street. Another thing the eastern religions are superior at. Much less stoning to death of undesirable groups.

...

Yeah, because as we all know, the bible is very gay friendly.
2  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Christianity on: October 19, 2014, 10:42:59 pm
Is that really what eastern religions emphasize? Or is that just what western hippies think eastern religion is about? Somehow I doubt the average practicing Hindu is a paragon of tolerance.

And, just because people don't actually follow the rules of a religion (mostly because those rules are so strict) doesn't make the religion itself less strict.


I am no expert on religion but I think the hippies got it right. "Hinduism" has been corrupted by outside, socially conservative influences for a long time now. Of course there is social conservatism within Hinduism as well, but it's not a religion like Christianity or Islam. There are plenty of Hindu priests who sit around smoking weed in the name of Shiva (one of the main gods) all around India. Eating bhang (edible marijuana) is an extremely common activity during Holi (done by even the conservatives in Hindu society). Indeed, my parents didn't even know bhang and marijuana are the same thing. So yeah, the hippies got it right.
3  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Christianity on: October 19, 2014, 10:28:42 pm
Thank you Clark for your posts in this thread. I don't get how anyone who puts in even the least bit of effort to understand Hinduism would think it is some sort of draconian religion with rules that everyone must follow. I come from a Hindu tradition but the types of rituals and beliefs my family has is likely completely different from another family that lived a few hundred miles away. It is not even one religion if it is understood from a western perspective, but a collection of beliefs in a region of the world that has been categorized as Hindu by outsiders. No wonder the word "Hindu" came from outside India.

Also, speaking of Buddhism, it's key tenets are a good way to live a happy life. If taken literally, it can mean a life of asceticism that would be impractical for most people. But if Buddhism is used as a guiding principle in your life, you can be a happier person. You can't afford the iPhone 6? Great, you don't gain happiness from possessions anyways. That does not mean you need to flush your iPhone 5 down the toilet. That is a very literalist, Christian way of looking at things. In any case, most Christians don't follow their religion literally either. If they did, they would be stoning gays in the street. Another thing the eastern religions are superior at. Much less stoning to death of undesirable groups.
4  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2014 Senatorial Election Polls / Re: PPP-IA: Braley +1 on: October 19, 2014, 04:21:01 pm
When will KCDem be banned?
5  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: What county is most representative of each party? on: October 19, 2014, 03:45:37 pm
These are national parties so having to choose just one county in the country to represent them is almost impossible to do. Coalitions that vote for either party do differ from region to region.
6  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2014 House Election Polls / Re: CO-06: Coffman in the lead on: October 19, 2014, 09:00:21 am
Oh well. Romanoff will be back to spank Coffman in 2016 when Clinton helps the Democrats take the House back.
The Democrats aren't taking the House back any earlier than 2022.  Gerrymandering will see to that.

It's quite possible the gerrymander will fall apart once Obama gets out of office. The gerrymander is based on the political coalitions formed during his first campaign and the presidency. Gerrymanders do tend to fall apart as coalitions change and as there is movement of people within a metro area/state. That is what happened in 2006 and 2008 as the Democrats overcame Republican gerrymanders to win big.

2006 was just a transformative year as Democrats took a lot of traditional Republican-leaning districts as voters tired of George W. Bush. They were able to sustain the momentum in 2008.  That, of course, changed after the Democrats sloppily passed Obamacare and there was predictable pushback in '10.

2012 brought a more favorable Republican Congressional map due to reapportionment and more gerrymandering (although the Republicans lost about 10 seats due to Obama's coattails). The Republicans will likely regain a few of those seats on the fringes in '14.

While it's possible for the Dems to retake the House before '22, their real impediment is the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which forces majority-minority districts. That allows the rest of a competitive state to be sliced with Republican-leaning districts while you have some crazy D+30 districts solely designed to elect either an African-American or Latino candidate.

Most of the gerrymanders in 2000 were also in the Republicans favor. That is why there were so many Republican friendly districts back then as well. What the 2010 redistricting allowed the Republicans to do was to redraw the map to account for the changing coalitions as well as movement of people in order to solidify their gains. The map held up well in 2012 and will in 2014 as well with Obama still as president. I do believe there is a chance it could fall apart in 2016 or beyond if Hillary is able to win with a different coalition consisting of more older, white women. The democrats might be less reliant on urban minority votes in a Hillary coalition.
7  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: US AG put a stop to investigation that could have lead to recovery of dead IDF on: October 19, 2014, 05:20:55 am
This is very strange. The administration doesn't stand up to Israel where it should (settlements) but they won't even do this for them?

They tried to "stand up to" Israel on settlements, with a massive diplomatic offensive in early 2010. A bipartisan coalition of Congressmen and Senators shut him down.

Without his own party supporting him on the issue, all Obama can do is engage in petty acts of sabotage like this.

Well, I suppose it's better than nothing. I would of course prefer the US stand up to Israel regarding settlements because in the end that is the only thing that will save Israel. Currently Israel is going down the road of destruction and friends like the US should be the one stopping them, not aiding and abetting their self-destructive behavior.
8  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: US AG put a stop to investigation that could have lead to recovery of dead IDF on: October 18, 2014, 09:59:20 pm
This is very strange. The administration doesn't stand up to Israel where it should (settlements) but they won't even do this for them?
9  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2014 Senatorial Election Polls / Re: PPP-IA: Braley +1 on: October 17, 2014, 06:00:01 pm
Guys, when you conduct 10 polls of a race where one candidate leads by 1-3 points, you're bound to get 1 or 2 that show the other candidate with a narrow lead. This is totally consistent with what we know, and Ernst is still on track to win.

Agreed. A small Ernst win is within the margin of error of this poll as well.
10  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2014 House Election Polls / Re: CO-06: Coffman in the lead on: October 16, 2014, 06:52:20 pm
Oh well. Romanoff will be back to spank Coffman in 2016 when Clinton helps the Democrats take the House back.
The Democrats aren't taking the House back any earlier than 2022.  Gerrymandering will see to that.

It's quite possible the gerrymander will fall apart once Obama gets out of office. The gerrymander is based on the political coalitions formed during his first campaign and the presidency. Gerrymanders do tend to fall apart as coalitions change and as there is movement of people within a metro area/state. That is what happened in 2006 and 2008 as the Democrats overcame Republican gerrymanders to win big.
11  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Would you rather live in Atlanta or Des Moines? on: October 16, 2014, 05:49:12 pm
I can't believe Des Moines is winning. There is an irrational love for the cold, flat midwest around these parts. Atlanta for me in a heartbeat.
12  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Will the CO GOP finally break the hex this year (Senate/Gov?) on: October 16, 2014, 05:11:17 pm
I think Hickenlooper pulls it out (or at least I hope so) but Udall does not. Gardner comes across to me as moderate in the way he presents himself and how he has campaigned.He is a good candidate for suburban women and they usually decide elections in Colorado.
13  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: In Defense of Obama on: October 16, 2014, 07:15:57 am
There's nothing racist about saying blacks and Latinos vote Democrat. The way you say it is 100% racist, but that's because you're a racist who sees everything through a racist lens.

White urban voters vote the same as black and Hispanic urban voters. The only difference is most whites are suburban/rural while most blacks and hispanics are urban.

Urbanites see the benefits of the government first hand with public transportation, public schools, public libraries, etc. Urban culture is generally aligned with Democratic Party policy.

The thriving progressive urban metropolises of South Texas, West Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Southern Colorado, and the Inland Empire. The progressive cosmopolitan powerhouses in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina.

How can you be from New Mexico, and know so little about minority demography?

OMG, you managed to post an even dumber post in this thread. Kudos, brother, kudos.

What is so dumb there?   It isn't true that racial differences in voting can be accounted for by the urban/rural divide.

There is so much dumb there that I am not sure where to start. First of all, non-white people in Louisiana and Mississippi do not vote Republican. Can we at least agree on that? Like, seriously, we need to agree on that or just commit suicide because there would be no point to living otherwise.

Ok, now that we have gotten beyond the deep south (hopefully), we can start discussing Hispanic voting patterns. Rove figured out in 2004 how to get middle class Hispanics to vote for the Republican party. Subsequently, the Republican party went on a mission to figure out how to repel such votes. If you do not understand that, then you do not understand contemporary American politics. You may want to apologize for the Republican party due to your own personal biases, but you need to understand that going nativist repels Hispanic and Asian votes, even if those individuals own their own businesses making more than $500,000 a year. It is more important to an individual that their success be celebrated and appreciated than them having to pay 3% more in taxes. Does that make sense to you? I know you are not a racist, and you may have a hard time understanding this, but many of your Republican friends and family are. That is why minorities, especially those who are doing well economically, don't vote for you guys.

At this point you may be pissed, protesting vehemently that the Democrats are just as racist as Republicans. That is not how things are perceived though, and perception is reality. I will admit that some Republicans have gotten smart about this, but it remains to be seen how successful this is. The Republicans need to push a message of prosperity regardless of race, ethnicity, religion etc. If they are successful at this, they will be successful in the near future. If they are not, then they won't be, as well off minorities vote Democrat because the alternative is a hostile Republican party.

When are Republicans going to be able to spread that message? Do they even care enough to spread that message? Are the Republicans interested in being the party of white people or well off Americans? That is a question the Republicans themselves need to answer. Are they content with being a fascist party or do they want to maintain themselves as a conservative party? That is something for the Republican party to decide for themselves.

I agree with a good portion of what you said, and it's part of why I'm not enthusiastic about the GOP even if I think a lot of the criticism of them on this board goes off the deep end. But I don't see what that has to do with the post you just said was dumb. Seems like you are responding to something else.  Do you really think that King's explanation of why minorities vote Democrat is accurate?  (From what you just posted it seems like you think it is something else) How does it account for the vote of Hispanics in rural West Texas or the vote of rural blacks in Mississippi to say that minorities vote Democrat because they appreciate urban public services?

(The Republican members of my family are no more racist than I am, btw. Maybe a bit less PC unintentionally sometimes. I'm guessing that was just a throw away phrase but that's kind of a silly thing for you to say.)

I agree with King to a certain extent but not totally. Some of the difference in racial voting is due to where people reside, but that is not always true. It is truer of the white population than it is of non-whites in particular.

Income is also very important in determining one's vote. That is why I don't see the Mississippi delta or Hispanics working in Central Valley farms voting Republican. That being said there are Hispanics who live in exurban/rural areas and are well off that started voting Democrat recently. The inland empire of California and the Central Valley are two examples as well as southern Colorado. I was mostly responding to AG's post though where he implies minorities vote Republican in minority heavy Republican areas. That is absolutely ridiculous in the Deep South and in the other places he listed (Hispanic heavy) would only be true in 2004. Since then the Republicans have repelled such votes from Hispanics. Indeed, in 2004 after adjusting for income and where Hispanics live, there would be almost no difference in the white and Hispanic vote. That is what the Republican Party needs to get back to.
14  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Shut down the EPA? on: October 15, 2014, 12:43:15 am
Either shut them down or their ability to land grab or stop development over some rare rodent species who is probably better off dead.

Do you mean repeal the Endangered species Act?  Or, would you also want to repeal CERCLA?

And, do you really think that most of what the EPA does is protect spotted owls?  Regardless of the merits of protecting our ecological systems, would you really trade polluted air, land and water for the ability to kill spotted owls?  That seems like a bad trade, even if you really hate owls.

I think the point is to look at things from a more realistic perspective. The part of California I grew up in recently approved a plan to massively increase the site of the city by developing hills that had never been touched. There was opposition to the plan, especially regarding some random frog. Fortunately, that plan went through and that city is one of the up and coming places in the San Francisco Bay Area, but what I am really interested in now are the frogs. Unfortunately, the research into this species AFTER the development has occurred is not that easy to get. The development made sure that there was plenty of open space left (not just for the animals, but also for real estate value), meaning that plenty of those frogs live in that area. No one cares about these stories though. It's all about stopping development at all costs, isn't it?

What does that have to do with the EPA?

Did I say anything negative about the EPA? No? Then just lay off, won't you?

When discussing the EPA or anything environment related, it is always smart to stay on top of what is actually going on in that area. In the Bay Area, activists use the environment as a cudgel to stop development. I may be wrong, but aren't you one of those who think development in the Bay Area needs to be increased, not stopped? Trust me, the people who want to stop development in the Bay Area don't give two sh**ts about frogs or vernal pools or any of that bullsh**t. They want to protect their property value. Are you in favor of that?

That's not the fault of the EPA.  I would bet that it's the fault of crazy California laws and their state version of NEPA and requirements involving EIR.

I am not very knowledgeable about those laws but I wouldn't be surprised if you were right.  California needs to chill out a bit about environmental law. Unfortunately, may use those laws for personal enrichment. NIMBY's need to be destroyed. No one has come out with a plan for that.

You really need to quit blaming the EPA for Californian NIMBYism. I suppose you think that the EPA is responsible for all the Republicans suing to stop HSR?

Also, it turns out that frackers illegally dumped 3 billion gallons of polluted wastewater into the groundwater here in California. Is that the EPA's fault too?

http://www.planetizen.com/node/71609

LOL you do realize that I admitted California NIMBYism is the cause of problems in addition to the EPA, don't you. Indeed, I did it in the very post you responded to.
15  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: In Defense of Obama on: October 14, 2014, 11:56:04 pm
Am I too far gone to be helped? Guess what then, so are most minorities who make more than 100k. What is your plan to get around that? Nazi Germany? A final solution must sound nice to you, huh?

I get it now. This is a cry for acceptance and recognition. Simmons was definitely on the right track.

Is Simmons right or are you right? You have rightfully solved all the problems of this universe with your superior white brain, haven't you?
16  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Shut down the EPA? on: October 14, 2014, 11:08:33 pm
Either shut them down or their ability to land grab or stop development over some rare rodent species who is probably better off dead.

Do you mean repeal the Endangered species Act?  Or, would you also want to repeal CERCLA?

And, do you really think that most of what the EPA does is protect spotted owls?  Regardless of the merits of protecting our ecological systems, would you really trade polluted air, land and water for the ability to kill spotted owls?  That seems like a bad trade, even if you really hate owls.

I think the point is to look at things from a more realistic perspective. The part of California I grew up in recently approved a plan to massively increase the site of the city by developing hills that had never been touched. There was opposition to the plan, especially regarding some random frog. Fortunately, that plan went through and that city is one of the up and coming places in the San Francisco Bay Area, but what I am really interested in now are the frogs. Unfortunately, the research into this species AFTER the development has occurred is not that easy to get. The development made sure that there was plenty of open space left (not just for the animals, but also for real estate value), meaning that plenty of those frogs live in that area. No one cares about these stories though. It's all about stopping development at all costs, isn't it?

What does that have to do with the EPA?

Did I say anything negative about the EPA? No? Then just lay off, won't you?

When discussing the EPA or anything environment related, it is always smart to stay on top of what is actually going on in that area. In the Bay Area, activists use the environment as a cudgel to stop development. I may be wrong, but aren't you one of those who think development in the Bay Area needs to be increased, not stopped? Trust me, the people who want to stop development in the Bay Area don't give two sh**ts about frogs or vernal pools or any of that bullsh**t. They want to protect their property value. Are you in favor of that?

That's not the fault of the EPA.  I would bet that it's the fault of crazy California laws and their state version of NEPA and requirements involving EIR.

I am not very knowledgeable about those laws but I wouldn't be surprised if you were right.  California needs to chill out a bit about environmental law. Unfortunately, may use those laws for personal enrichment. NIMBY's need to be destroyed. No one has come out with a plan for that.
17  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: In Defense of Obama on: October 14, 2014, 11:06:20 pm
The current Republican party can't claim emancipation or civil rights.

As for amnesty, what is the current Republican party's view on that? Hell, how do they view immigrants who fought for this damn country? Republicans don't want to let them stay in this country either. The current Republican party is a racist joke. Hispanics looked up to Reagan and Reagan helped them assimilate into this country. The current Republican party is full of a bunch of nativist assholes.

This is the kind of thoughtless, inane yammering that undermines whatever point you are trying to make. In your mind, Republicans tack from progressive race policy to indecency, only to accidentally stumble upon progressive policy, while drafting a neo-segregation bill.

You're too far gone to be helped.

Am I too far gone to be helped? Guess what then, so are most minorities who make more than 100k. What is your plan to get around that? Nazi Germany? A final solution must sound nice to you, huh?
18  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Shut down the EPA? on: October 14, 2014, 10:59:38 pm
Either shut them down or their ability to land grab or stop development over some rare rodent species who is probably better off dead.

Do you mean repeal the Endangered species Act?  Or, would you also want to repeal CERCLA?

And, do you really think that most of what the EPA does is protect spotted owls?  Regardless of the merits of protecting our ecological systems, would you really trade polluted air, land and water for the ability to kill spotted owls?  That seems like a bad trade, even if you really hate owls.

I think the point is to look at things from a more realistic perspective. The part of California I grew up in recently approved a plan to massively increase the site of the city by developing hills that had never been touched. There was opposition to the plan, especially regarding some random frog. Fortunately, that plan went through and that city is one of the up and coming places in the San Francisco Bay Area, but what I am really interested in now are the frogs. Unfortunately, the research into this species AFTER the development has occurred is not that easy to get. The development made sure that there was plenty of open space left (not just for the animals, but also for real estate value), meaning that plenty of those frogs live in that area. No one cares about these stories though. It's all about stopping development at all costs, isn't it?

What does that have to do with the EPA?

Did I say anything negative about the EPA? No? Then just lay off, won't you?

When discussing the EPA or anything environment related, it is always smart to stay on top of what is actually going on in that area. In the Bay Area, activists use the environment as a cudgel to stop development. I may be wrong, but aren't you one of those who think development in the Bay Area needs to be increased, not stopped? Trust me, the people who want to stop development in the Bay Area don't give two sh**ts about frogs or vernal pools or any of that bullsh**t. They want to protect their property value. Are you in favor of that?
19  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Shut down the EPA? on: October 14, 2014, 10:50:29 pm
No (sane), I'd rather not have rivers looking like this:



Are you dumb?
20  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Shut down the EPA? on: October 14, 2014, 10:47:15 pm
Either shut them down or their ability to land grab or stop development over some rare rodent species who is probably better off dead.

Do you mean repeal the Endangered species Act?  Or, would you also want to repeal CERCLA?

And, do you really think that most of what the EPA does is protect spotted owls?  Regardless of the merits of protecting our ecological systems, would you really trade polluted air, land and water for the ability to kill spotted owls?  That seems like a bad trade, even if you really hate owls.

I think the point is to look at things from a more realistic perspective. The part of California I grew up in recently approved a plan to massively increase the site of the city by developing hills that had never been touched. There was opposition to the plan, especially regarding some random frog. Fortunately, that plan went through and that city is one of the up and coming places in the San Francisco Bay Area, but what I am really interested in now are the frogs. Unfortunately, the research into this species AFTER the development has occurred is not that easy to get. The development made sure that there was plenty of open space left (not just for the animals, but also for real estate value), meaning that plenty of those frogs live in that area. No one cares about these stories though. It's all about stopping development at all costs, isn't it?
21  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: In Defense of Obama on: October 14, 2014, 10:25:46 pm
What the hell are you even talking about? Do you think all minorities should be painted with the brush of being dependent on the government? If you answered yes to that question, then you should also be able to answer why most minorities, regardless of income, throw up a middle finger to the Republican party.

Emancipation, Civil Rights, Amnesty, and Bush's guest worker program. Which of those strikes you as most racist?

The current Republican party can't claim emancipation or civil rights.

As for amnesty, what is the current Republican party's view on that? Hell, how do they view immigrants who fought for this damn country? Republicans don't want to let them stay in this country either. The current Republican party is a racist joke. Hispanics looked up to Reagan and Reagan helped them assimilate into this country. The current Republican party is full of a bunch of nativist assholes.
22  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: In Defense of Obama on: October 14, 2014, 10:16:31 pm
What the hell are you even talking about? Do you think all minorities should be painted with the brush of being dependent on the government? If you answered yes to that question, then you should also be able to answer why most minorities, regardless of income, throw up a middle finger to the Republican party.

What are you talking about? I don't think you have a clue what's going on.

And what exactly is your point? Be very specific because it is important.

As a minority whose parents make a lot of money and who will start making a lot of money soon, your points are extremely insulting to me. If you don't understand that, maybe you will start to understand why you are a Republican. If the Republican party wants to get the vote of minorities who aren't dependent on the government, they need to grow beyond racists like you.
23  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: In Defense of Obama on: October 14, 2014, 10:02:06 pm
There's nothing racist about saying blacks and Latinos vote Democrat. The way you say it is 100% racist, but that's because you're a racist who sees everything through a racist lens.

White urban voters vote the same as black and Hispanic urban voters. The only difference is most whites are suburban/rural while most blacks and hispanics are urban.

Urbanites see the benefits of the government first hand with public transportation, public schools, public libraries, etc. Urban culture is generally aligned with Democratic Party policy.

The thriving progressive urban metropolises of South Texas, West Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Southern Colorado, and the Inland Empire. The progressive cosmopolitan powerhouses in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina.

How can you be from New Mexico, and know so little about minority demography?

OMG, you managed to post an even dumber post in this thread. Kudos, brother, kudos.

What is so dumb there?   It isn't true that racial differences in voting can be accounted for by the urban/rural divide.

There is so much dumb there that I am not sure where to start. First of all, non-white people in Louisiana and Mississippi do not vote Republican. Can we at least agree on that? Like, seriously, we need to agree on that or just commit suicide because there would be no point to living otherwise.

Ok, now that we have gotten beyond the deep south (hopefully), we can start discussing Hispanic voting patterns. Rove figured out in 2004 how to get middle class Hispanics to vote for the Republican party. Subsequently, the Republican party went on a mission to figure out how to repel such votes. If you do not understand that, then you do not understand contemporary American politics. You may want to apologize for the Republican party due to your own personal biases, but you need to understand that going nativist repels Hispanic and Asian votes, even if those individuals own their own businesses making more than $500,000 a year. It is more important to an individual that their success be celebrated and appreciated than them having to pay 3% more in taxes. Does that make sense to you? I know you are not a racist, and you may have a hard time understanding this, but many of your Republican friends and family are. That is why minorities, especially those who are doing well economically, don't vote for you guys.

At this point you may be pissed, protesting vehemently that the Democrats are just as racist as Republicans. That is not how things are perceived though, and perception is reality. I will admit that some Republicans have gotten smart about this, but it remains to be seen how successful this is. The Republicans need to push a message of prosperity regardless of race, ethnicity, religion etc. If they are successful at this, they will be successful in the near future. If they are not, then they won't be, as well off minorities vote Democrat because the alternative is a hostile Republican party.

When are Republicans going to be able to spread that message? Do they even care enough to spread that message? Are the Republicans interested in being the party of white people or well off Americans? That is a question the Republicans themselves need to answer. Are they content with being a fascist party or do they want to maintain themselves as a conservative party? That is something for the Republican party to decide for themselves.
24  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: In Defense of Obama on: October 14, 2014, 09:47:25 pm
The thriving progressive urban metropolises of San Jose, Los Angeles, San Diego and Denver. The progressive cosmopolitan powerhouses in Chicago, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.

Whether the white elite live in McMansions in far-lung suburbs or in expensive condominiums in the inner-city, they are dependent on the labor of Latino, Asian or Caribbean immigrants and would have no cultural materials without the tremendous influence of African-Americans on the heart and soul of America. Blacks, Latinos and Asians almost uniformly vote for Democrats because they see the injustice of a system that is dependent on them but uses and abuses them in every aspect of life. Their voting patterns are not an indication of anti-white racism but rather an indication that people of color wish to eradicate racism.

No, that's what silly white people tell themselves. Russel Simmons explained it once upon a time, when he was talking about the difference in rebel subcultures within white and minority demographics. He said white people fight to get out, and minorities fight to get in.

Capitalist conservative WASPs are viewed as the cultural hegemons. Liberals are fighting to get out from under (what they believe to be) oppressive economic policy and extraneous social decorum. Minorities, on the other hand, are not fighting to have a different flavor of middle-class or upper-middle class existence. According to Simmons, they are fighting to get a piece of the existing, established American Dream. Why do you think "spread the wealth around" was so intoxicating, and Obamacare was so lukewarm?

Liberals and minorities have virtually nothing in common beyond mutual distrust of conservative WASPs. Democrats are aware of the situation, and they never let a good race crisis go to waste.

It's as if the more you post in this thread, the dumber your posts get.
25  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: In Defense of Obama on: October 14, 2014, 09:36:34 pm
There's nothing racist about saying blacks and Latinos vote Democrat. The way you say it is 100% racist, but that's because you're a racist who sees everything through a racist lens.

White urban voters vote the same as black and Hispanic urban voters. The only difference is most whites are suburban/rural while most blacks and hispanics are urban.

Urbanites see the benefits of the government first hand with public transportation, public schools, public libraries, etc. Urban culture is generally aligned with Democratic Party policy.

The thriving progressive urban metropolises of South Texas, West Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Southern Colorado, and the Inland Empire. The progressive cosmopolitan powerhouses in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina.

How can you be from New Mexico, and know so little about minority demography?

OMG, you managed to post an even dumber post in this thread. Kudos, brother, kudos.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 517


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines