The Oxford English Dictionary defines "granular" to mean:
Consisting of grains or granules; existing in the condition of grains or granules....A "granule" is "A small grain; a small compact particle; a pellet."
Mountains, which consist of lime stone or marble of a granular or scaly texture....
Having a granulated surface or structure....
On the [foot] pads or cushions of the cat, the cuticle is rough and granular.
Of the nature of a granule or granules....
Their [geckos'] skin is studded above with very small granular scales....
1652 W. Charleton Darknes Atheism 45 Those Granules of sand, which suffice to make up the vast bulk of the World.
Posts
172 comments:
Perhaps he meant to say fungible.
No, the GOP should have made the decision to support white males without apology. And nuclear families without apology. And restricted immigration and growth economics without apology. And freedom without apology.
Too late for them...and the country.
But here's some parting advice to the GOP: "If you give the people a choice between electing leftism and leftism, they'll choose leftism. Or stay home."
Obama lied, people died, the country fried, and Hillary hides.
Enjoy the decline, people!
Oh yeah...have you heard that Obama now is going to unilaterally take guns away, with or without Congress's approval?:
http://whiskeysplace.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/called-it-obama-to-seize-guns/
Talk down to cereals.
It makes perfect sense to me, what the guy is trying to say.
We are no longer Americans. One can no longer assume principles are uniform.
As an example, there was a guy who joined a large tech company I worked for. He had zero problem telling me that Americans had not shed enough blood for the oil we want from the middle east. The guy had a green card only.
It's an interesting perspective, but not one I think is particularly good to have in potential American citizens. I doubt, though, that is a particularly unusual thought, shared by many on the left.
Granular = handouts to certain grains, er, groups.
IOW, to buy votes, the Reps should become as racist/special-interest(ist?) as the Dems.
The republicans are not good at explaining economics, but that's the MSM's job, and the reporters are uniformly morons.
And the republicans show no signs of understanding economics anyway.
It sounds like he's suggesting Republicans adopt the Democratic tactic of dividing people into small, discreet interest groups, identifying the key issue of each group, and catering to it.
I agree with whoreofheinternet that whatever the Republicans decide to do, they should do it without apology. Bill Whittle is rght that one of the Republican Party's greatest faults is that the Republican leadership doesn't believe in Republican values.
An odd thing is that Priebus' history of taking the job is an example of the smooth and non-granulated face of the GOP.
The art of politics is making ones circle of friends larger than the other guy's circle of friends.
To do that one must accept outsiders into the circle. But the GOP is quick to exclude others on ethnic differences.
Don't ask me why. It is a mystery to me to this time. And it does include a dose of racism and class consciousness.
It may partially come from a religious feeling of a need to separate oneself from the unholy.That extrapolates politically into avoiding the poor and the foreign cultures.
But whatever the reason, it is perceived by immigrant cultures as a wall hat they are excluded by, and so they go next door to the Democrats whom accept all comers...like politics works.
"Granular" is very popular in my line of business, finance, especially with the more corporate types. Must be MBA speak. I think, like all MBA speak, it's meant to sound impressive, while saying little. Filler.
The other day I heard Charlie Rose refer to Marco Rubio as a "flat earther".
The Republicans could learn that the media are agenda hacks looking for and using any gotcha moment they can find. Even if that moment is manufactured and blown way out of proportion.
The Republicans could learn to answer non-political questions (like those pertaining to how old the earth is, their religious beliefs etc..) with a boiler plate answer: "I agree with Barack Obama"
and end it.
I take such political navel-gazing with a granule of salt.
Yes, granular is said quite often in finance. So I guess I'm guilty of being a corporate type when I say I don't mind it. When used properly, it's a more precise way of saying "detailed".
@traditional guy.
LMAO
You try being a masculine, straight white male who demands people take responsibility for their actions, stop seeking government handouts, stop aborting children, and that people stop picking his pocket for their pet projects.
You'll see how "welcoming" the Demon rats are.
The Demon rats are built on hate of western culture, and particularly, straight white religious males who demand personal responsibility.
Te symbol of the Demon Rat party is OJ Simpson.
Enjoy the decline, shitheads!
Granular is the word used when one has to descend into the weeds in finance. It is different from worrying about the fly shit in the pepper but can lead to it.
Whoresoftheinternet has it exactly right. The Republican party today resembles the Democrats of the 1970s and is as without backbone as an overcooked noodle. It should be clear to all that we have come to the point where the parties are both populated with politicians whose only ambition is to keep their individual positions. Very much time for a constitutional amendment limiting the terms of all politicians from county commisioners to senators.
Michael, it never occurred to me to worry about fly shit in the pepper.
Thanks for nuthin...
In software development we use granular all the time.
Usually it refers to the level of specialization within a class or component.
What about the GOP being granular with the gays too!
Tim: If you are in a business that involves contracts and thus lawyers, sooner or later you will meet one whose role in life is to ferret out the one piece of fly shit in the twenty pounds of pepper.
Approaching individuals as though their concerns are entirely determined by their ethnicity is foolish. Approaching individuals as though they are individuals is the right way to deal with them.
Why should that be a difficult concept for a university professor to understand?
@Big MIke:
lol. Are you serious?
Approaching individuals as though their concerns are entirely determined by their ethnicity is foolish. Approaching individuals as though they are individuals is the right way to deal with them.
---The history of the Demon Rat party since 1964 has shown that only is that a way to have all of you legislative dreams passed, but ow incompetent racial groups can gain power they don't deserve and avoid all criticism.
Why should that be a difficult concept for a university professor to understand?
---Being nice and noble doesn't work.
Enjoy the decline, evil-helper!
Agree with codeweasel, you hear granular a lot in programming.
Here, Priebus wants to tailor the message to the group, as the Demos do.
Don't think it's gonna work 'cause the Demos were there first. You need to work on their aspirations, not fears and greed, the way Reagan did.
I loath whoresoftheinternet's approach and rhetoric. But, in this particular way he/she/it's right. Republicans will continue to lose by being Democrat lite. Better to lose by being strongly conservative and standing for something. At least then we'll clearly know what the people have chosen.
Reince Priebus?
Sounds like he spends a lot of time at the Country Club. He'll be golfing this afternoon with Thurston Howell, Buster Poindexter, and Skippy Golightly.
At least then we'll clearly know what the people have chosen.
And what they continue to reject.
I guess we need a few more election rounds of Republican losses for any lessons to set in.
And to make matters worse, it's in response to this Buckley-style (ca. 1957) gem:
...incompetent racial groups can gain power they don't deserve and avoid all criticism.
Like, for instance, white people?
Wow. Just keep it all up. Let those true colors all out.
It had to happen sooner or later.
"Republicans will continue to lose by being Democrat lite. Better to lose by being strongly conservative and standing for something. -- Wyo Sis
Don't those two sentences contradict each other? I have to disagree with the first. If Americans wanted fiscally prudent politicians in office, they would elect them. We have the government we deserve, and, as has been said, we are going to get it ... good and hard.
As to the second sentence, I suppose it is right that one should stand by principle no matter the consequence, but if we do put up principled conservatives they will lose.
What MadAsHell said at 9:26.
But it's worse. It's a name of over-the-top Teutonic proportions that almost almost sounds like what you'd order someone to do before you soap them down (or while lining them up in front of a gas chamber): RINSE! And it starts with an "r". It's not a stretch to imagine it being rolled in a guttural way, by a screeching voice.
The guy might as well call himself RAUS! Sounds very similar, is just as inviting and historically meaningful.
"Like, for instance, white people?"
Ritmo's right, there is only one type of racism permitted. Thanks for reminding us, Ritmo.
If Americans wanted fiscally prudent politicians in office, they would elect them.
(Chuckles while actually remembering The Republicrazy vs. Democratic record on spending).
As in Get Down to the Nitty Gritty.
@whoreoftheinternet, actually you're right for a change -- the Democrats did get there first. But not in the way you imagine.
In the flush of victory after the November elections the people who worked on data mining for the Obama campaign weren't at all shy about describing their work. Among other things, it included identifying individual voters and their specific issues, as well as whether the the voters were regular readers of blogs and newspapers (high information voters) or the type to be pretty uninterested until the last minute.
If you are of voting age I am reasonably certain that you, personally, are in their database. Real name, mailing address, phone number and possibly cell phone numbers, all of the aliases you use on the Internet, the blogs you visit (with alias), the YouTube videos you download, your favorite porn sites, a full list of the Google searches you've run since you entered their database, and a profile of your hot button issues based on what you've accessed and sentiment analysis applied to your tweets and blog comments.
Since the Obama campaign targeted the low information voter, they made certain to get targeted Emails and tweets and snail mailing out to them, individualized to each person's hot buttons. And if they were reasonably certain that the voter had swallowed their tailored messages hook, line and sinker, then make sure they got to the polls. All in all a nice piece of computer work.
But two can play that game.
And I laugh out loud at the implication there are any fiscally prudent Democrats, Ritmo.
O Nomen! Thanks for reminding us about how horribly oppressed the majority is by the minority and how we really, really, REALLY need to do something about the political mistreatment of white by blacks!
And the political mistreatment of the wealthy by the poor!
Oh woe is us!
I suppose that had you been alive during the slave rebellions you would have really freaked out and lost your shit. And aim those cannons on the Birmingham protestors! They're a THREAT to all us ordinary white folk!
Exactly what der Fuehrer thought, too.
Defend your poor, beleaguered race, Nobleman! Don that pointy white hat!
And I laugh out loud at the implication there are any fiscally prudent Democrats, Ritmo.
(Laughs at the excuses Reagan and W. must have made by blaming their record spending habits on Democrats!).
You guys really are anti-math, aren't you?
I'm pleased that reality-denial sees itself as a potent political force. And gladder to know how exposed, weak and ignorant it must now feel.
"Thanks for reminding us about how horribly oppressed the majority is by the minority and how we really, really, REALLY need to do something about the political mistreatment of white by blacks!"
When did I say or imply that, Ritmo? Why is it always necessary for Leftists to lie?
(Chuckling at Big Mike's advice for Republicans not to fear as long as they can target the low-information voter).
O Ritmo Segundo said...
At least then we'll clearly know what the people have chosen.
And what they continue to reject.
No, just whose vote was stolen.
If Americans wanted fiscally prudent politicians in office, they would elect them.
(Chuckles while actually remembering The Republicrazy vs. Democratic record on spending).
Try again. And you want us to believe Governor Moonbeam's version?
O Nomen! Thanks for reminding us about how horribly oppressed the majority is by the minority and how we really, really, REALLY need to do something about the political mistreatment of white by blacks!
And the political mistreatment of the wealthy by the poor!
Hate to tell him, but, since some congressional districts' makeup if Federally mandated, that's exactly what happens.
And I laugh out loud at the implication there are any fiscally prudent Democrats, Ritmo.
(Laughs at the excuses Reagan and W. must have made by blaming their record spending habits on Democrats!).
You guys really are anti-math, aren't you?
No, but, like all Leftist shills, Ritmo is anti-facts.
And facts are a bitch.
When did I say or imply that, Ritmo?
Because your outrage only makes sense if someone were to accept that anti-white racism were as dangerous as anti-minority racism.
Maybe they're both ignoble sentiments. At least theoretically. But one has a much more pernicious history, and I'm sick of Republicans denying that.
Shorter edutcher:
Republicans win elections. Demonrats steal them!
Keep telling yourself that. Keep sucking on that pacifier.
"I'm pleased that reality-denial sees itself as a potent political force."
Why don't you reread my post, jackass, and then tell me where I denied reality? Here is the crux of what I wrote, you mendacious twit: "If Americans wanted fiscally prudent politicians in office, they would elect them. We have the government we deserve, and, as has been said, we are going to get it ... good and hard."
This was in regards to all politicians that we elect. Hint, Ritmo, that includes Republicans.
Do you have any understanding at all of the thread of this conversation, or are you trying to be a douchebag?
Not having gone to the link, I would think he means that instead of viewing groups as solid no-no blocs, the Republicans should sift the conservative individuals from each bloc, and there are lots of them.
They elected them in 1994, Nomen, but that was before Dick Cheney someone showed his insanity by claiming that the lesson of the Clinton years was that "deficits don't matter".
In any event, the record of the last six or seven presidents is clear, and their party affiliations evident. Republicans lie about being interested in fiscal "prudence" so that they can woo (but not win) wealthier voters with promises of costly tax breaks as an answer to everything.
And if you want to go back to the intended thread topic of gaining minority votes, be my guest. I didn't bring up spending, you did. What I said was in direct response to your own quote. So if you didn't like it, you didn't have to bring it up.
Maybe they're both ignoble sentiments. At least theoretically. But one has a much more pernicious history, and I'm sick of Republicans denying that."
No one is denying it, fool. However, I find it ironic that a Democrat would accuse Republicans of racism's "pernicious history," given it is histroically the Democrats who have been the ones responisble for the pernicious acts of slavery and segregation, and it has been the Repulicans who have fought, spilled blood, and died to end the pernicious acts of the Democrats.
"And if you want to go back to the intended thread topic of gaining minority votes, be my guest. I didn't bring up spending, you did. What I said was in direct response to your own quote. So if you didn't like it, you didn't have to bring it up."
In other words, "I'll build all the straw men I want to make the point that I want, regardless of what anybody really says or implies."
And anyway, if you want to get to the crux of the post, being "granular" in the GOP approach to minorities can easily be interpreted (despite Ann's fix on OED-based nuances) as divide et impera. If Republicans divide various minority groups into separate interest groups to which they can, then, appeal to further, they might make inroads among them, or so they reason.
It's actually a perfectly legitimate political idea, as far as it goes. If there is any way that they can convince these groups to screw their entire communities over for the sake of the wealthier among them (as Republicans had convinced white voters to do all this time), is a separate matter, however.
We will see how it works. But at least he's coming up with ideas... or what counts among Republicans as "ideas".
Granular/granularity - It's a data thing. It use to be "drill-down". Maybe that sounded too aggressive, painful. That was after we "sifted" through the data. But, then we could always take a "closer look" after we "break this down". Break - that sounds painful too.
Some like to add "color" or "texture" to their granularity.
All I see is the millstone coming closer and closer.
Cheers
...it is histroically the Democrats who have been the ones responisble for the pernicious acts of slavery and segregation, and it has been the Repulicans who have fought, spilled blood, and died to end the pernicious acts of the Democrats.
And the thread topic is as ironic as this statement, because the historical lesson is that political ideologies and strategies change more frequently than do cultural currents.
In 1865 (and not before) Republicans were anti-slavery. Started as a radical faction that the majority opposed as a threat to the larger, pro-Union cause. But that's a long time ago. FDR was excoriated for not only being a "traitor to his class" (same thing the Republicans went after Clinton for), but for hiring blacks to the White House in greater numbers than any other president. And without Lyndon Johnson's wrangling House votes, Civil Rights would have never passed.
Learn your history, Sir.
As far as racism as an idea, apart from political rights, Buckley's 1957 quote proves that many conservatives still believed in theories of racial superiority/inferiority all the way up to that late date. Also, the parties BOTH had conservatives and liberals. Ideological purity in the parties is a more recent phenomenon, thanks to Reagan and Rove.
After Civil Rights, the undisputed history is that Republicans won the white votes the Democrats lost (by passing Civil Rights, read Johnson on how he knew he was losing the South for a generation), by coded appeals. Lee Atwater was clear on this and "converted" on his death bed... (or "repented") for using blatantly racial images and languages to say what he couldn't spell out. It worked.
And as of 2013, this is still the legacy.
How do Republicans want to transcend their "Southern Strategy"? Do they care to?
Or do they want to never challenge what it meant to rely on an every-shrinking "white vote", let alone how they came to that sort of reliance in the first place.
Questions, questions.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Shorter edutcher:
Republicans win elections. Demonrats steal them!
Keep telling yourself that. Keep sucking on that pacifier.
Lessee, now,
Jack Kennedy
Al Franken
Christine Gregoire
The Secretaries of State project.
No, the Demos don't ever steal elections.
As I say, Ritmo/some phony folksy/Diamond, etc. is anti-fact.
Don't forget:
Barack Obama...
2012 election...
2010 election...
Elizabeth Warren...
500,000 less votes in 2012 for House Republicans despite their retention of the majority...
So unfair.
So, so unfair.
Waah.
Democracy is unfair when we don't get our way.
Bush 2000...
Faulty voting machines owned by Republican donors...
Wah.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Don't forget:
Barack Obama...
2012 election..
Statistically impossible 100% vote in big city precincts
140% turnout in FL city
98% inner city turnout
10% of voting machines flipping Romney vote to Zero - software written by companies in which Soros heavily invested.
Out of state voters bused into WI, VA, ME.
Bush 2000...
Faulty voting machines owned by Republican donors...
Wah.
Tell me; you guys are still crying even though it was shown the count still went for Dubya.
As I say, Ritmo/some phony folksy/Diamond, etc. is anti-fact.
PS The Rs really don't need any more granularity if they can get the Democrat crooks and liars out of the process.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
They elected them in 1994, Nomen, but that was before Dick Cheney someone showed his insanity by claiming that the lesson of the Clinton years was that "deficits don't matter".
Dick Cheney said no such thing, you illiterate boob.
Shorter edutcher:
Demonrats made up the idea that blacks and minorities EXIST!
(Conveniently forgets Republicrazy pollsters overestimating the share of the "white vote").
Poor edutcher. Sad, sad edutcher. HAPPY edutcher. Sad edutcher.
Party of Rove lecturing on statistics. What a laugh.
500,000 less votes in 2012 for House Republicans despite their retention of the majority...
I love how you keep tying this as if Obama didn't get 4 million + fewer votes than in 2008.
Of course you're a stupid shit, so there is that.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Bush 2000...
Faulty voting machines owned by Republican donor
Hysterical.
If it weren't for lies, stupid shit, you'd have nothing to say.
Oh great. Jay's here.
Time for him to descend, unhinged, into an argument over the meaningful difference between kindergartners and first-graders while he defends the 2nd amendment rights of whomever would seek to kill them.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
while he defends the 2nd amendment rights of whomever would seek to kill them
Yes stupid shit!
Because I totally did that!
REALLY, I did!
And, and, and, as long as you keep making stupid assertions like that, it maintains the distraction that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Pussy.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Time for him to descend, unhinged, into an argument over the meaningful difference between kindergartners and first-graders
Hey stupid shit, I'm not the one droning on about a topic on which I'm unfamiliar with the facts.
For you, that is merely par for course.
Of course you're a stupid shit, so there is that...
Hysterical...
If it weren't for lies, stupid shit, you'd have nothing to say...
If it weren't for your ability to repeat the same thing over and over, you'd have nothing to say.
But we have examples of your species from the animal kingdom, so there is that.
I first became familiar with that term "granular" as a function of data entry into an electronic record a few years ago. That was back when the big stimulus package shifted the software development goals from producing a product helpful to patients and doctors to one that is helpful for government and third party payors. I could not find an electronic record that was easy to enter my thoughts and observations because everything had to be entered in a "granular' fashion. Thus, a separate window for each body part and specific words for every finding.
I think he means they are going to suck up to interest groups in a very data driven way.
I love how you keep tying this as if Obama didn't get 4 million + fewer votes than in 2008.
Oh. And what did I "tie" it with? Your shoelaces? The ones you tripped over?
"Deficits don't matter" is the Democrat mantra, much like "Character doesn't count", "Bush lied, people died", and "I did not have sex with that woman".
Getting granular means you have no idea what your plan should be. Thus ever with hispanics for Republicans.
YES!
Whores is right, I suggest you conservatives continue to listen to his words of wisdom and march ever further to the right>>>>>>>> and as Wyo Sis said, who cares if you have to lose, lose BIG!
Ritmo,
Leftists in America dispise blacks. They all know it. Look how they treat them, keeping them enslaved to the government. Observe how patronizing they act with them. They clearly think they are as children, to be taken care of, and slaves, to be used to increase their power. Most Republicans our proud of Lincoln and the party's anti-slavery history. Fuck you and your ilk for trying to rewrite it. Being pro-welfare or pro- affirmative action does not make you anti-racist, just like being anti-welfare or anti-affirmative action does not make you racist.
Screw you and your BS words about Republican racisim. To hell with Leftist actions towards blacks, which are totally self-serving. Let's look at the real results of words and deeds, shall we? Republican actions: freed black slaves and constitutional guarantees of liberty. Democrat actions: Enslavement for blacks, revolt against the threat of the loss of those slaves, the Ku Klux Klan even up to the modern era (remember Sen. Robert Byrd?), and re-enslavement via welfare and widespread disarming of blacks.
The problem with getting "granular" is that it won't help with the low-information (i.e., the ignorant) voter. Thanks to a media, Hollywood, TV and music industry which drenches the culture in a 24/7/365 drumbeat of leftist propaganda, what little political ideas this type of voter has absorbed by the osmotic process that comes from merely participating in daily life means that he is hardly a tabula rasa open-minded to logical arguments proffered by the right. Rather he is more or less a lost-cause; having ingrained predispositions to the entreaties emanating from the fever swamps of the left that are not easily susceptible to change. The saving grace for the right in years prior is that this group did not, as a rule, vote heavily. Obama and advances in technology changed all that.
However while the technology will still be there for the next Presidential election, Obama won't. ONLY an Obama could have galvanized both the black base to vote in massive numbers while simultaneously appealing to a type of otherwise apathetic "low information" white electorate who heretofore could not be bothered to vote, but were stirred to action by a) visions of expiating "white guilt" over America's "racist" past, or b) celebrating our current celebrity-centric culture as represented by Obama's "hipster cool." This double-barreled whammy of "ethnic hipsterism" is almost impossible to fight given the zeitgeist of our times.
The only hope of the right is that absent an Obama both the black and low-information voter base participation in national elections will shrink back to historic norms. Being either singularly Black or singularly a hipster, while necessary, will not be sufficient. One must be both. One or the other won't cut it alone. That cultural idiosyncratic fact is the right's saving grace..
O Ritmo, lol, you so live in hatred of whitey, as well as in denial of the truth:
..incompetent racial groups can gain power they don't deserve and avoid all criticism.
Like, for instance, white people?
----So, you see: 1) white people are incompetent to liberals, and don't deserve power, and never get criticized.
Meanwhile, a group of people who make up 40% of all criminals despite being 12% of the population, have a 1STD lower IQ than the rest, and blame whitey for all their problems, while bankrupting and destroyign every city, state, and country they get a hold of...
Are perfect in O Ritmo's eyes, and can do no wrong.
Eny the decline, shitheads!
We are no longer Americans. One can no longer assume principles are uniform.
IF that's what he means then he is completley wrong. Rather than try to appeal to blacks as "blacks" they should try to show how "blacks" equals Americans, and stress color blindness as a civil rights positive.
In other words, start quoting some MLK and saying we don't want to put blacks in a box, we want them to be judged on the content of their character (as well as all other minorities and majorities).
O Ritmo wrote:
Hey stupid shit, I'm not the one droning on about a topic on which I'm unfamiliar with the facts.
You're not? What do you call your posts on this topic? (and all other topics)
You know what galvanized Democrats to come out to vote in the numbers they did? It wasn't so much an "Obama" as it was the specter of being governed by the ever increasing extreme end of the Republican Party, who Romney would have been beholden to. He wasn't a strong enough leader to move his party back toward the center.
If the Republican Party can't control their more extreme members in Congress, and conservatives buy into the notion that they lost because they weren't far enough right, well then I can't wait to see what happens in 2016.
Ritmo,"In 1865 (and not before) Republicans were anti-slavery. Started as a radical faction that the majority opposed as a threat to the larger, pro-Union cause."
The Republican party was founded in 1854 as the anti-slavery party.
Somehow you think FDR is a race hero for hiring more negro domestic servants, something he most likely learned from southern democrats.
LBJ did finally get the civil rights legislation tough congress, but how many times did he and his party block it since WWII.
Southern strategy worked not because of racism, but because the Democratic party abandoned federalism. Like you said "both parties had liberals and conservatives". Tell me again why a conservative would stay in the democrat party? Of course it's all about racism, everyone knows all the folks in the south are nonthinking racist. Everyone knows all the red states are racist and blue state republican voters are racist.
Ritmo, you might want to ask the dealer for a new deck, that race card is pretty tattered and dogeared. little
Not my words.
Atwater's:
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it.
And Buckley's:
...the central question that emerges... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.
I've got a newsflash for you, nomen. Blacks in America in 2013 can read.
Not only that, but they can tell that these writings occurred long after anything bad that you can point to any Democrats in the 1800s doing. (Not that you bothered to. Appeals to facts are not your thing).
But the history is there, the quotes are there, and the strategy never changed. So you can either come to terms with it, or these pesky "minorities" of whom you speak will do it for you. I can already tell you don't like the reckoning.
So sputter vulgariously into seething, frothed-mouth foaming obscenity! Rail against me! Wax illustrative on your descriptions of plantations and the like.
But never, ever, EVER stoop to reminding yourself of this one thing:
Once those blacks got OFF the plantations, they learned to read. (Promoting education, not something Republicans are known for doing, helps). And they can read those words written by Buckley, said by Lee Atwater, and they wonder:
What do Republicans of today have to say about that?
To which Nomennovum wittingly responds:
FUck that obscure and anonymous commenter Ritmo guy and MAKE the minorities vote for us without expecting so much as an accounting for the summaries of modern Republican thought and strategy anyone can READ!
Yep. That's a winner.
Keep losing.
Asshole!
In an effort to promote reading, jr misquotes at 11:21 by erroneously attributing "Jay's" comment to me.
That's a smooth move. For someone taking Ex-Lax.
Sad.
Show how affirmative action is evil because it's racist, not because Republicans hate minorities.
After all, Asians are a minority and they are hurt by affirmative action.
Show how its dems balkanizing their voters by putting them all into their requisite groups along racial and sexist lines. There's the women voters who much march in lockstep with the women issues the blacks who much march in lockstep with the black issues.
Minorities are "the other" to dems. THey're just there to be pandered to racially or sexually to get their vote.
Repubs should be stressing to minorities how the Prize that they fought for during the civil rights movement was not in fact the separtion of races, but the American Dream.
And that requires they give up being pigeonholed and pigeon holing themselves as blacks or whites or reds.
That's been the conservatives message all along at least in the past 15 years or so but they haven't necessarily done a good job showing how their idea in fact is a far more open tent than the democrats one.
It's the old melting pot versus multicultural argument all over again.
After all, Asians are a minority...
One that seem to excel at the same science that Republicans hate.
Yeah, I think Asian Americans might hate Republicans for that.
O Ritmo,
Hey you're right. I misattributed it to you as opposed to Jay.Sorry.
Here's my amended quote:
Jay said:
"Hey stupid shit, I'm not the one droning on about a topic on which I'm unfamiliar with the facts."
Agreed. What do you call all of his posts on this topic? (and all other topics)
Happy now?
O Ritmo wrote:
One that seem to excel at the same science that Republicans hate.
Yeah, I think Asian Americans might hate Republicans for that.
First of all that's a stereotype of Asians, you racist.
And a stereotype of conservatives you bigot.
But which side is suggesting that Asians, who are excelling in many cases in school, should only be given a certain number of slots in school because they are Asians.
Hmm, bigot?
Well, jr, I'm happy that you corrected your comment. But the fact that you hope that "Jay" might say anything that a parrot can't say is still very sad.
@jr565/
And notice that "multi-culturalism" ALWAYS breaks down into a series of "acceptable" mono-cultures, i.e., La Raza, Black Nationalism, etc. It's a one-way street with that crowd. ALL mono-cultures are seen as acceptable/legitimate save one--the one that founded this nation..
@jr565/
And notice that "multi-culturalism" ALWAYS breaks down into a series of "acceptable" mono-cultures, i.e., La Raza, Black Nationalism, etc. It's a one-way street with that crowd. ALL mono-cultures are seen as acceptable/legitimate save one--the one that founded this nation..
Inga, a lot of things are coming down the pike before 2016, an inevitable recession, Obama-care taxes and regs, GM back for bailout or bankruptcy, $5 gasoline, the threat of gun confiscation, the inevitable sovereign credit down grade, ETC. We don't have a fucking clue where we are heading politically in 2014, screw 2016. Hell by 2016 everything could have crashed, economies built on sand do.
Oh yes, jr. Asians so resent and decry as "racist" the fact that they are more successful in the sciences and science-based professions than lazy, white Americans are.
Yeah, see, you might want to stay away from these sorts of social analyses. I can see why Republicans go to such lengths to avoid them. They have no idea of how to avoid demeaning people and instead make them feel respected.
That, and they seem to love losing elections.
As to conservatives being anti science:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/01/05/fracking-safe-in-ny-state-says-leaked-report/
You're not down with that science,dipshit?
As Kerry Emanuel wrote:
Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice, but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures. Until this profound and well-documented intellectual homogeneity changes, scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank.
Yet, it seems like your "science" is simply your groupthink which is really your agenda which you describe as "science".
Closed minded group think pushing an agenda that is really all about politics and not science. Yup, that's Ritmo's scientific view.
jr:
A scientifically illiterate says what?
O Ritmo wrote:
Oh yes, jr. Asians so resent and decry as "racist" the fact that they are more successful in the sciences and science-based professions than lazy, white Americans are.
Lazy WHITE Americans? If I said lazy black americans or lazy Hispanics, I'd imagine I'd get an earful from you.
Again, with the racism. Truly, you're a despicable person.
But ok, we're establishing now that Asians are doing better than lazy whites and I suppose you'd also have to agree lazy blacks too. Right? Since blacks are even worse at science than the whites, they must be even lazier correct?
You bigot!
If that is so, then why would affirmative action penalizing Asians when getting into school not be a bad thing? Am I suggesting that Asians should only get a certian number of spots in college enrollments, bassed purely on their race?
So, who's the bigot, bigot?
Actually, jr, I disagree that blacks are lazy and poorly accomplished. They do much better in the arts (relative to their numbers) than lazy whites, (like yourself), do.
You can see where all this talk is getting you. I suggest you stop it. The War on Whites is as mythical as The War on Christmas, other than for the fact that it showcases how obtuse conservatives are when it comes to social reasoning in general and their wish to avoid details in favor of over-the-top generalizations.
Yes, you can stop at any moment. Or just get, as REINCE-cycle suggested, "granular" - i.e. "detailed".
But it might help if you stopped missing the point, first. Which you never will.
O Ritmo wrote:
jr:
A scientifically illiterate says what?
You want me to say WHAT, like I don't get it. Is that it?
Ritmo: Wha wha wha (doing an impersonation of Ritmo playing Garth).
By the way, that was a joke that really backfired on Garth didn't it?
Get rid of Priebus, put Gohmert in his place, that's my suggestion. Yup, that's what will save the Republican Party and ensure a Republican win in 2014 and 2016!
O Ritmo wrote
Actually, jr, I disagree that blacks are lazy and poorly accomplished. They do much better in the arts (relative to their numbers) than lazy whites, (like yourself), do.
You can see where all this talk is getting you. I suggest you stop it. The War on Whites is as mythical as The War on Christmas, other than for the fact that it showcases how obtuse conservatives are when it comes to social reasoning in general and their wish to avoid details in favor of over-the-top generalizations.
read your commentary again, and youll see who's engaging in over the top generalities.
O Ritmo wrote:
A sphincter says what?
Wayne's World? That's your go to put down? I haven' seen anyone quoting Wayne's World since I don't know, 2000?
Nothing more current? Like maybe Wayne's World 2 even?
read your commentary again, and youll see who's engaging in over the top generalities.
I'm just trying to speak to you in the language of your own ideological strategy, if only to point out how pointless it is.
O Ritmo wrote:
Actually, jr, I disagree that blacks are lazy and poorly accomplished. They do much better in the arts (relative to their numbers) than lazy whites, (like yourself), do.
I never said blacks were lazy and poorly accomplished. I responded to your assertion that whites were lazy. Pot meet kettle. Racist douche.
Nope. Nothing more, dude.
I never said blacks were lazy
Actually, that's exactly what you said.
When digging yourself into a hole, jr, the first step is to quit digging.
O Ritmo wrote:
I'm just trying to speak to you in the language of your own ideological strategy, if only to point out how pointless it is.
And yet you are the one pointing out how races are a certian way. Whites are lazy. Asians are good at science. etc etc.
That language is your own language. If you think you're trying to speak to me in my language then you don't really speak the language at all.(Sphincters say what?)
But this is classic projection on your part. The evil you seen in others is really your own. Bigot.
And yet you are the one pointing out how races are a certian way. Whites are lazy.
I only said that to piss you off.
Not all whites are lazy. But all whites are socially privileged in ways that you resent blacks for lacking.
O Ritmo.
F You.
I said this:
Lazy WHITE Americans? If I said lazy black americans or lazy Hispanics, I'd imagine I'd get an earful from you.
Note the word, IF. note that I'm responding to your bigoted assertion by pointing out it's bigotry. You absolute cretin.
I also said:
But ok, we're establishing now that Asians are doing better than lazy whites and I suppose you'd also have to agree lazy blacks too. Right? Since blacks are even worse at science than the whites, they must be even lazier correct?
You bigot!
This again was in response to your claim of the lazy whites being bad at science. Statistically, blacks are worse than whites at science, so what does that mean, they're lazier than whites? Again, I am not stating that blacks are LAZIER I am merly using your own example to show that you are engaging in racial stereotypes.
You're sputtering again, Junior.
And digging your hole deeper and deeper.
It's time to get microgranular. I do not see a white voter or a black voter or a Hispanic voter or an older voter or a younger voter, I see the smaller commonalities of heart, brain, lungs for shared air, and penises of varying sizes.
For women voters I see all of the above save the last. However, whether I picture them with clothes or without their votes still count the same, penis or not.
" But all whites are socially privileged in ways that you resent blacks for lacking."
Tell that to the whites on welfare and food stamps. A number that dwarfs the number of blacks.
O Ritmo wrote:
only said that to piss you off.
Not all whites are lazy. But all whites are socially privileged in ways that you resent blacks for lacking.
NO, NOT ALL WHITES ARE SOCIALLY PRIVILEDGE IN WAYS THAT I RESENT BLACKS FOR LACKING. Again with the stereotypes. You are aware that a lot of whites are dirt poor, no? And that a lot of blacks are privilidged,no?
I don't resent blacks for having priviledge or lacking it. I don't resent blacks at all.
This is like that joke from Chris Rock where he suggests that the white bus boy wouldn't change his status to that of Chris Rock's (who's rich) because he's white.
THis is not the 60's anymore with separate drinking fountains.
We have a black president who's been reelected. We have black CEO's blacks sports stars, black celebrties, and blacks working in companies all down the line with other whites and minorities.
Yet Chris Rock really thinks that smoehow a white busboy would rather be a busboy than Chris Rock who's a millionaire simply because he's white? That's absolute crap.
Jr. You have trapped our poorly educated friend. Perfectly.
Really Ritmo,
How many racial stereotypes are you going to engage in today?
Ritmo wrote:
I only said that to piss you off.
Not all whites are lazy. But all whites are socially privileged in ways that you resent blacks for lacking.
Are you white?
Tell that to the whites on welfare and food stamps. A number that dwarfs the number of blacks.
Which is, I'm sure, precisely what Newt Gingrich had in mind when he called Obama the "Food Stamp President".
Jr's incoherently ignorant ramblings trap nothing. But his innocent naivite is more charming than Mikey's Gordon Gecko Smarminess and Amorality.
Here's a link to a great article about the legacy of where the extremists have taken the party of Goldwater.
Grow up and enjoy the day.
No, just whose vote was stolen.
The edumbshit lunacy tour continues.
O Ritmo wrote:
Tell that to the whites on welfare and food stamps. A number that dwarfs the number of blacks.
Which is, I'm sure, precisely what Newt Gingrich had in mind when he called Obama the "Food Stamp President".
Actually he was commenting on the fact that Obama's America has led to a profound increase in the number of people using food stamps (but not getting jobs) and how this disparity is a bad thing.
Yet, your comment undercuts the racial aspect of Gingrich's point (which I'm sure you'll throw his way) since after all a lot of Whites are on food stamps.
The issue then is the increase in food stamps under Obama, not who's using them. Understand?
Ritmo. Dont run off just because Jr spanked your ass. Stick around and help us enjoy the day!!
Ritmo is in a way actually right. The republicans are too stupid to play the divide and conquer style of politicking like the democrats.
If only they had some smarts and some guts they could flip it back on the democrats with a vengeance. There is such a target rich environment for them to work with if they really tried and didn't care what the left would say.
C4 capitalized Jew. Mighty white of him.
Ritmo. Thanks for the link to the article! What sanctimonious turds you and the author are. Stunning.
The issue then is the increase in food stamps under Obama, not who's using them. Understand?
Nope. Gingrichey, (who loudly, shamelessly and dissemblingly lashed out at John King in South Carolina to dare question him about the lies and cover-ups regarding his marriage, er, "arrangements" - Newt quietly apologized for this in the next few weeks) was trying to say that the black president (or Luo tribesman) wanted to make food-stamps the preferred method of eating in America.
The appeals are becoming more frictionless, but they still die hard.
Yep Michael. A conservative who learns from his adolescent past (and writes very well and insightfully about it) is a "sanctimonious turd".
You are really one hell of a gutless wonder. I bet you didn't even bother to read it. And tell me, what are your own political insights and ideas?
I bet you're way too slippery to have anything resembling a coherent philosophy on anything.
Slippery slug Michael. Go slither back into your underground mansion. And commiserate with "RINSE".
Michael said...
Tell that to the whites on welfare and food stamps. A number that dwarfs the number of blacks.
Hysterical.
I think you ought to dig into this idea of "percent of the population" and get back to us.
Thanks.
Granular: a grain of sand gets stuck in an oyster and becomes a pearl. Who does the pearl vote for?
Was the grain of sand smothered by the oyster and only became socially acceptable by becoming pearl white?
Was the grain of sand an example of fortitude, of making value through persistence?
Was the oyster oppressive or nurturing?
Sometimes a clam is just a clam.
Study showing that colleges which ban Affirmative Action have less racial segregation:
Study: colleges in states that ban affirmative action in admission see less racial segregation
Court decisions dating to the 1950s theoretically ended racial segregation of higher education in the United States. But data to be presented today at the annual meeting of the American Economic Association show that the pace of desegregation has slowed over time. And in a finding that could be controversial, the study finds that states that ban the consideration of race in admissions may see the pace of desegregation accelerate.
The study is by Peter L. Hinrichs, an assistant professor of public policy at Georgetown University. He focuses on black and white students, not those in other racial and ethnic groups, and he examines “exposure” and “dissimilarity” (defined below) of black and white students as two measures of desegregation. Hinrichs uses federal data from every college, filed since the era in which desegregation started. He argues that these measures illustrate the extent to which colleges are truly desegregated, which may not be reflected simply by increases or decreases in black student enrollments (which can be concentrated at certain institutions).
Exposure is the percentage of black students at colleges attended by white students, and vice versa. Here he shows that from 1968, the typical white student attended a college that was 2.3 percent black. But by 2009, the typical white student attended a college that was 9.8 percent black. This percentage gain is much larger than overall black enrollment during this period, which also rose, from 5.5 percent to 13.7 percent.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/05/study-colleges-in-states-that-ban-affirmative-action-in-admission-see-less-racial-segregation/
WHy are you for more racial segregation O Ritmo?
I love watching ritty the retard, total cracker, get all sanctimonious about race.
Remember, the party she votes for is for minorities!
And that makes ritty the retard a good person!
It doesn't matter what I'm for, Jay-Jay. It matters that you can't get the votes you need. This is because you insult, demean and don't listen to the people whose votes you might want. (If you weren't such a racist).
I heard that parrots are also very good at losing elections.
Maybe someday your mascot will look like this.
Retard!
Sounds like Surferspeak to me:
like, totally granular, Duuuude
Is Priebus from Socal?
Ritmo. Having been active in the civil rights movement in the south in the 1960s and having taught in an historically black university for a number of years i am not inclined to be lectured to by some kid yankee cocksucker on racial matters. Your sanctimonious bullshit is nauseating. You are a phoney and are as racist as the slimiest redneck I have ever encountered.
Sputter away, Michael. It's better than watching you slither.
Northerners and Californians (like the author of the article that you berated) are entitled to a different understanding for how to come to terms with progress, including race-relations. That is their legacy as non-parties to America's most troubling institutions of slavery and Jim Crow.
You can either accept that or resent them for it as you wish.
Governor Walker seems or be listening to Reince Priebus. He's moving toward the center, he is no longer ideologically pure.
He's going to run in 2016 and he's reading the handwriting on the wall, unlike the purists. Very interesting. I could see a dynamic duo of Walker as VP and Christie as Prez ticket.
But the extremists in your Party won't allow any move to the center, too bad for you, good for us.
'E' on the Creosote curve.
Ritmo. I am not sputtering you turd, I am making the point that you are a racist. Your sanctimony is based on some absurd absolution granted to you for America's racist past based on the accident of where you fucking live? You think you are not a "party" to institutional racism because of the region you live in? You are not only a racist you are a stupid one. The absolute worst kind.
O Ritmo wrote:
It doesn't matter what I'm for, Jay-Jay. It matters that you can't get the votes you need. This is because you insult, demean and don't listen to the people whose votes you might want. (If you weren't such a racist).
And yet you just made a racial remark about lazy whites with the sole intent to piss people off. Again, pot meet kettle.
It's pretty much a given that when Ritmo says something about the lack of civility or meanness or stupidity of his opponents as a tactic, that in fact he is really referring to his own conduct.
He's just too stupid to know otherwise.Or is just a real douche. (and those aren't mutually exclusive Ritmo. In your case I'm willing to accept that you are both stupid and a douche).
O Ritmo wrote:
Northerners and Californians (like the author of the article that you berated) are entitled to a different understanding for how to come to terms with progress, including race-relations
Again, this is O Ritmo's elitism at work. Because he has come to this understanding then all other states need follow suit.
I question your actually coming to an understanding on anything, considering how mired you are in racialism and racial epithets.
Also, I'm also from a NOrthen State, and I think you're full of shit.
Geez Michael -
That sure sounds like a hot, steaming load of sanctimony that you just dropped on me.
I happen to think that culture matters. Culture is more than just geographic accident. It carries with it the history of a place. There's a lot of history in this country, north and south, and what happened in those places and the customs the people there abode by have ways of influencing the present.
I think that when no American generation is within living memory of conditions that existed anywhere in this country prior to 1965, then we might be given reason to say that racism no longer affects our national politics at all.
Until then, I have every reason to suspect that some series of laws passed at that time, no matter how sweeping, did not do away with how every, single American relates to the ideas and problems that they addressed.
If it did, then there would have been no John Wilkes Booth to assassinate the Great Emancipator. He hoped to influence a course of history that you would want us to believe was irreversible. And in some (small) measure, he did.
Why do you disagree? Why do you think that a law changes a culture overnight?
As an investor, do you think that laws in themselves can change human nature or human culture? Do you oppose regulations that go against what you defend on the basis of some natural human "instinct", no matter how immoral or amoral? Or do you defend laws that put a curb on long-standing, if decidedly wrong practices?
You cannot come to terms with what you think of progress and race-relations unless you can answer that.
Junior might be an inhabitant of a Northern state, but one who has to go to Althouse's cyberspace cafe to find anyone who understands what he's saying, let alone anyone who agrees with him.
In case it's not clear, Michael seems to want to blame the existence of slavery and/or racism in America on sanctimonious northerners and Californians.
And I guess that could constitute an "absolution" of sorts.
The very worst sort.
O Ritmo wrote:
Until then, I have every reason to suspect that some series of laws passed at that time, no matter how sweeping, did not do away with how every, single American relates to the ideas and problems that they addressed.
Do you think you will ever have an instance where there is literally zero racism in the hearts of a single American anywhere?
Perhaps you have unrealistic expectations.
And you're not exactly practicing what you're preaching. Essentially you're arguing that until everyone thinks like you, we need to continue to have racial policies that divide the races or pigeonhole people based on race. To fight racism.
Seriously, look at your own view first. It's not exactly helping you NOT view everything along racial lines.
Why not, accept color blindness in your own heart, as we have, and stop preaching the opposite under the guise of "not being racist".
You're pusihg racial identity politics. That's racist/racial. Don't look into changing other peoples hearts. Change your own first. Racist.
Do you think you will ever have an instance where there is literally zero racism in the hearts of a single American anywhere?
Nope. But I think that perhaps in 100 years after 1965 you wouldn't have any appreciable proportion of the voting electorate admitting that they'd not vote for a guy named "Barack Obama" on account of his race, let alone the 5% or so who've said as much now.
And we know where those votes were cast, Jr.
O Ritmo wrote:
Nope. But I think that perhaps in 100 years after 1965 you wouldn't have any appreciable proportion of the voting electorate admitting that they'd not vote for a guy named "Barack Obama" on account of his race, let alone the 5% or so who've said as much now.
How about the 95% of blacks who voted for Barack Obama beacuse of his race?
They voted in similar numbers for Bill Clinton and other white Democrats so the idea that their "racism" hurts the political and social prospects of whites is simply the dumbest idea ever put forward in the history of the planet, quite frankly.
That 95% number may not be entirely accurate, but the point is many blacks voted for Obama specifically becaus he was black.
You might have a problem with people NOT voting for someone because of race, but the flip side is that there is just as much of a problem with people voting for someone BECAUSE they are a certain race.
Whatever, Jr.
See my 1:58 reply and have a pacifier.
Enjoy the rest of the day. I'll check on how many sucker punches were thrown later on.
O Ritmo wrote:
They voted in similar numbers for Bill Clinton and other white Democrats so the idea that their "racism" hurts the political and social prospects of whites is simply the dumbest idea ever put forward in the history of the planet, quite frankly.
And similarly roughly the same number of conservatives voted against Obama as against Clinton. So, the idea that they did so simply becuase he was black can't be proven.
Do you think that if there were a white candidate who espoused and did exactly what Obama said and did that somehow conservatives would be on board BUT for the color of his skin??
All the pundits talking about how the first black president would be killed (there's an old joke by David Chapelle how he wouldnt mind being a black presidnet but he woudn't want to be the first. Because he'd be killed. And thats's why he'd nominate a mexican as his VP.Well, none of that came to pass.
No racial rioting in the streets. No lynching. The klan isn't on the march in the south.
It's businesss as usual since of course, your whole characterization of America as this racist cess pool is only a figment of your bias.
Notwithstanding the fact that there is still racism in the world. But its nto the same world that Abe Lincoln lived in. Its not the same world that MLK lived in.
Segregation is as old as the Beatles. If you grew up after the 60's you would never even have witnessed it's occurnence. And yet you race baiters keep going on and on as if its the same world. Get over yourself.
Obama was elected TWICE. That's the end of the argument. You lose.
They voted in similar numbers for Bill Clinton and other white Democrats so the idea that their "racism" hurts the political and social prospects of whites is simply the dumbest idea ever put forward in the history of the planet, quite frankly.
And those voting against Obama also voted against Clinton with roughly the same number. So what does that say about their racism?
THe fact is though that a number of blacks voted for Obama specifically because he was black. I can even see the appeal. Doesn't mean it's not still racial. But I can see the point.
But, if Caine were the republican and say a white dude were the nominee for the democrats and you RItmo didn't vote for Caine, what would it say about your racism?
(well, considering you are racist it might be a qualifier).
Would all the dems not voting for Caine be racists straight up? Like Jeanine Garofolo?
Would she be required to vote for him simply because he was black and to not vote for him would mean she was a racist? ISnt' that, I don't know..... kind of racist?
Granular is a buzz word used about statistics. Like if the "statistics" say that Obama won a majority of electoral votes then more granular statistics might say that Obama won huge unbelievable majorities in big cities which overcame widespread opposition outside those cities. Then a granular approach might say that what the Republicans need to do is focus on those parts of cities which share countryside concerns - not go over to tax and spend idiocy or wholesale vote stealing - but sell a certain message in certain areas.
I'm extremely sorry the Republicans lost however it happened. But I'm not sorry the Republicans are in turmoil trying to work out what to do. The world is changing and the party that is trying to adapt will be the ultimate winner.
To me the Democrats are just like the Magnificent Ambersons - just unable to believe that social change has been so substantial that they themselves must change. Or maybe like Gatsby they just don't believe that people change. JFK stills reigns.
I love the human race, so please don't pigeon hole me with your race mongering granularity. It's very unhuman of you.
Cheers
So Ritmo engages in blatant racism, projects on others when called for it, and then claims moral superiority. Inga chimes in to say that if only and until the republicans take leftist positions and abandon their principals they are extremists and doomed. This sadly is the leftwing base, and the Obama administration in a nutshell.
It does not matter how "granular" you get. There are people in this world like the trolls on this site, and while most of the democrat coalition is not as blatant, they are just as unreachable. The only way that fiscal responsibility will be restored to the United States government will be for the economic misery and true cost of the massive government bloat and runaway spending to hit the moocher class. They have been spared reality, but the re-election of Obama ensures that the free ride will be coming to a screeching halt. Then perhaps another generation or two of reasonable prosperity until the whole sad cycle repeats itself and the moochers return with a new post "progressive" branding.
Maybe the sad truth is that for a good percentage of the electorate MLK was just a cornball brother.
whore is an idiot as usual. If the GOP is going leftist it only reflects where Americans are going. I don't think the American people are anti-capitalist by and large as much as they are pro handouts. Basically there is a 60% majority that believes you can have unfettered capitalism and a welfare state at the same time. Logic need not apply.
Someone pointed out to me that Ritmo and Inga work together to destroy every thread that they appear in and that is the goal of their comments.
Ritmo stated his goal as such.
It is working.
It's not the thread that I'd seek to destroy, but the stupid ideas contained within one, Zemo.
Too bad if that conflicts with your own objectives.
O Ritmo wrote:
"It's not the thread that I'd seek to destroy, but the stupid ideas contained within one, Zemo.
Too bad if that conflicts with your own objectives."
And yet why are you then inserting stupid idea after stupid idea. If you had just not spoken in the first place, there would be far less stupidity to wade through.
Just an observation dude not a criticism.
It gets kind of boring after a while though.
In the words of Homer Simpson "BE MORE FUNNY!"
Good advice, Baron.
Jr. - Listen to Baron Zemo and lighten the heck up.
I mean what is funnier than Hillary Clinton having a stroke.
That's comedy gold right there.
No dear Baron, that's not my goal at all. I'm here to be that niggling little voice in the back of your heads that wonders if perhaps, you could be wrong.
I'm the voice of your better angel. ;)
But I could be that devil in a red dress too.
Inga - have you ever considered the notion that you were ever wrong about anything?
Baron - Not as funny as Hillary coming down with a testicular cyst!
Not as funny as Baron coming down with a case of mastitis.
Not as funny as Whores coming down with a case of elephantitus.
Elephantitis, sorry Titus.
How about that Governor Walker?! I think perhaps I was wrong about him Alex.
Oh.
So Governor Cheeshead's going to become more moderate.
I guess that goes to show the diminishing returns of unlimited Kochsucking.
Maybe Papa Koch cut him off.
His mouth was circumcised from the bell end of Papa Koch.
And Inga and Ritmo have succeeded in spiking the thread.
Good job, assholes. Forward!
Dinner's ready, kids.
And if you don't eat your peas, you can't have your pudding. :P
Statistically impossible 100% vote in big city precincts
Ah, edumbshit resumes his ignorant gibberish about statistics. Simply put, a 100% vote is not a statistical impossibility. And yet edumbshit will repeat that claim ad nauseam like a good little parrot.
140% turnout in FL city
It never happened. Sorry edumbshit, but facts trump fantasy.
98% inner city turnout
It didn't happen. edumbshit's fantasy rolls on!
10% of voting machines flipping Romney vote to Zero.
Didn't happen. edumbshit is simply pulling shit out of his enormous ass.
One of the Althouse lemmings should take edumbshit to the vet and have him put out of his misery. Please don't let him continue to whine like this for the next four years.
Jake
I await your next post condemning Ritmo of intellectual dishonesty or stupidity for quoting WFB and Lee Atwater out of context.
It wasn't Lee Atwater yelling "nigger" in 1954, Atwater was 3 years old and a republican president was forcing school integration in the south and trying to get congress to take up a civil rights act. It wasn't republicans lynching blacks in the south or yelling "nigger" in the 1960s.
Anyone with any intellectual understanding of WFB's life or philosophy would know WFB was not a racist. To posit such is either ignorant, dishonest, politically desperate or all the above.
Inga said...
Maybe Papa Koch cut him off.
FYI, Papa Koch died in 1967.
Post a Comment