Crime and welfare were serious public policy issues that could be, and were, debated from empirical premises. Abortion and gay marriage are moral, largely religious issues, and are less amenable to public policy debate. They are, for reasons that are entirely understandable, governed more by emotion than by empirical data.Let's acknowledge that crime and welfare were also coded racial issues and people reacted emotionally to them. But, okay, there was empirical data to inject into the argument, and abortion and gay marriage are more philosophical.
Hinderaker says the GOP must "recalibrate" how it handles the social issues and offers some suggestions.
Myself, I disagree with the GOP on these present-day social issues, but I don't like the Democrats either. I'm keeping my distance, which is, currently, alienated from both parties. I have little hope the either party will appeal to me in the near future, so I think I will calmly observe and comment on their struggles. I've avoided the routine election post-mortem articles, which are mostly banal and full of bogus hindsight clarity. But, going forward, I plan to cherry-pick and link to some things like Hinderaker's that strike me as going beyond the usual dull fare.
Posts
489 comments:
1 – 200 of 489 Newer› Newest»Only if you assume what we got last week was an honest count.
Consider.
None of the social policy horrors we are told will ensue if we vote Republican ever materialize, even when they win big. The social horrors we are told will ensue if we vote Democrat often do, regardless of who wins. We just learn to live with them to accept them to lose the horror, to be the horror and eventually to embrace it.
Other than the usurpation of state power by the SCOTUS, what does the federal government have to do with abortion or gay marriage? Not much.
Let's acknowledge that crime and welfare were also coded racial issues and people reacted emotionally to them.
Could we agree instead that they can be and refrain from delegitimizing perfectly justifiable policy preferences?
When my progressive friends tell me the contraception ends poverty, I find it as racial coding as well.
Women like moral dilemmas, so those will be Democrat narratives.
I thought as far as post-mortems go, this article on the SW Counties of WI and surroundings was interesting.
refrain from delegitimizing perfectly justifiable policy preferences?
Who was hurt most by crime and welfare? The black people who were packed away in public housing.
The GOP nominates people, to a not insignificant extent, based on social issues. Until that changes, they will continue to lose elections.
When my progressive friends tell me the contraception ends poverty, I find it as racial coding as well.
Quite so. Republicans and libertarians want blacks to be productive, self-supporting members of society. Democrats want them to self-extinct.
I dislike lots of the social issues that the Republican base gets fired up over. I'd rather we not fight over those issues and focus on ones that the government actually has a chance to write policy over. Alas, that never seems to be what happens, no matter who is in charge. We hear more about how Republicans are pro-rape gay bashers the more Democrats are in charge and the closer we are to an election. I could probably plot a rough chart that would be fairly accurate just by taking those two variables into account.
Why does the party of less government keep tripping over people who want government to be more involved in maintaining the social status quo?
Every few years, the country-club and big-business types in the GOP talk about how much better off they'd be if they could throw the pro-lifers and other disreputable folks over the side once and for all.
The reason these voices don't prevail is because they aren't people who have to win elections; those folks know that the GOP would go the way of the Whigs if ever they actually did this.
Every four years, prolifers give a LOT of votes to the GOP on the increasingly suspect promise that the GOP will do something for them.
So go ahead, GOP, tell the pro-lifers those expectations are foolish.
I agree that generally speaking liberals tend to be more emotionally driven in their decision making. They also typically understand other peoples emotions far better than conservatives do. They're better at appealing to emotions, better at painting their opponents as either ignorant, "bitter clinging", backwoods hicks or evil plutocrats. Because of that, along with the changing demographics, I believe the GOP has to accept defeat on certain social issues. That or forget about winning another presidency.
Conservatives should stick to the fiscal arguments.
"Why does the party of less government keep tripping over people who want government to be more involved in maintaining the social status quo?"
-- The same reason the party of good government reform and oversight is constantly stone walling, scandal-filled and obstinately refuses to compromise with the Republican-opposition. Because sometimes, what a group of people say they are isn't exactly right.
Also, it is Republicans, as a party, want less government. However, try and step back and instead of using snark, think of it from their point of view. When it comes -- specifically to abortion -- if you believe that the fetus is a person, then they aren't asking for -more- government. They're asking government to do its current job and prevent murder. You can disagree with their opinion or reasoning, but if you understand it, you realize that it isn't a more/less government issue here.
Taking a step back and trying to understand how people think instead of making them strawmen is something that Republicans and Democrats both need to do more.
Renee said...
When my progressive friends tell me the contraception ends poverty, I find it as racial coding as well.
So, if you abort and contracept all the future poor people away, there will be no more poverty?
Oh the same old warmed over argument that a hand up is a handout and that social safety nets for those in temporary need will be able to collect freebies forever. There are time limits to AFDC, nowadays ya know, work and training requirements that need to be met.
You lost on the abortion and SSM issues big time, now you're back to pushing the Welfare is Slavery meme. Same old arguments, can't break out and get some new ideas, huh?
If you vote for someone because they "care" about you, you're a moron.
Where Democrats are successful is in making elections about these issues, even when Republicans think they are secondary. The presidential election should have been about the economy but that was a losing proposition for Dems, so abetted by the media, they made it about everything else. People are still talking about Romney's positions on gay marriage, abortion and contraception but Romney never raised these issues himself and never indicated that these were hot-button topics. All my liberal friends could talk about running up to the vote was gay marriage. Obama isn't going to do anything about gay marriage--he has said this both before and after the election. From a federal standpoint, gay marriage wouldn't be any different under Romney than it will be under Obama.
You lost on the abortion and SSM issues big time, now you're back to pushing the Welfare is Slavery meme. Same old arguments, can't break out and get some new ideas, huh?
How's that Great Society going?
"Oh the same old warmed over argument that a hand up is a handout and that social safety nets for those in temporary need will be able to collect freebies forever."
-- The government just slashed the amount of money those on foodstamps will be getting, so, take it up with them, not the people not in power.
Also: See what I said about constructing strawmen to attack. You're doing a disservice to your own position by not engaging what people actually say. It makes me think your position is equally as radical and silly as the one you pretend your opponents hold.
I think social issues are the overwhelming driver of most elections, and I think both sides are completely blowing it by allowing that. Neither really gets what they want. The right just never gets anything and the left only think they won something that's good for them or their society. In the end, we all lose, and totally miss the opportunity to chose useful effective leadership to address the real issues of government.
We are just so easily distracted. When you hire a plumber, you don't ask him personal questions about his social beliefs. If you did, you probably end up with a lying lawyer to fix your pipes. How would that help?
Marriage isn't a moral issue.
It's a meaning of the word issue.
Gays can have everything they want except the word.
During the coming century, it will become manifest that the worldwide contraception and sterilization crusade was the most consequential disaster for human flourishing since the black plague.
The point of no return has long past-- we have set ourselves on the path of a long, inexorable decline--nut just in numbers, but as a civilization. I don't mean the West, I mean the entire human race.
To get a sense of it, take a look at any city with longstanding physical and cultural infrastructure built when that city had a population much larger than now, and that a growing population, skewing young. Now that city has a shrinking population, growing Greer.
I submit for consideration a surmise--based on observation, but not tight analysis: such cities struggle to maintain all that infrastructure, with dwindling resources--people, talent, and money. The city votes higher taxes, hastening the exodus; it seeks grants and tax money from outside, to keep things going, but this is increasingly unstable. Neighborhoods suffer while the "core" is propped up like a Potempkin Village. It can't go on; it won't.the same thing happens with groups and institutions.
Now apply it to the entire country.
Now apply it to pretty much the whole world.
I believe the GOP has to accept defeat on certain social issues. That or forget about winning another presidency.
"or"?
Other than the usurpation of state power by the SCOTUS, what does the federal government have to do with abortion or gay marriage?
The Republican party and it's program doesn't stop at the federal government.
Ms Althouse,
If you are alienated from the Democratic Party, why do uncritically accept their description of conservatives and the GOP stance on social issues?
You were not unaffected by the shrieks of "the GOP is coming to steal your lady parts!!!!!" at first, we're you?
You started out on Ms Fluke's side.
It wasn't until the Dems overplayed their hand that you began to think critically about their claims.
Why don't you learn from that? You aren't a BOCOP (Barack Obama Cult of Personality) member like ARM, harrogate, Inga, et al. Anymore, at least.
@ Althouse. 'but I don't like the Democrats either'
How so? I would imagine that is in requiring abortion for instance to be included in insurance. You can object to that on a micromanagement or free exercise basis.
I think the Dems did very well in deluding some voters into thinking free contraceptives and gay marriage were oh so important instead of the crashing economy. In a sane world with this 4 year recession, halway smart voters would not give a crap what a credible, smart, experienced candidate like Romney thought about those so-called social issues.
Lastly, if you believe we should pay for the contraceptives of Georgetown law students then you are probably a dumb MOFO and/ or a dyed-in-the-wool librul Dem anyhow.
If you abort all the poor peoples kids...well, 35,000,000 abortions since 1972 and we still have poor people.
Also....there are 6 adaptions in my extended family, included my father. Kind of glad Planned Parenthood didn't get their tongs on my father before his adapted parents could get him.
Edutcher, I guess so.
We need economic stability. Technically our family income is just a bit higher then food stamp levels. Thank God we live within our means and have great credit. I know so many people who don't even have a bank account. Yes, they're living pay check to pay check. And they don't have six kids, just trying to care for the one or two.
Welfare is Slavery meme
How has systemic welfare benefitted the African-American underclass over the past 40 years?
What is the current African-American unemployment rate?
What percentage of African-American children are aborted?
What is the incarceration rate of young African-American males?
You think by supporting the policies you support, you "care."
Is "caring" enough?
At least with O'blamo re-selected we won't hear about the homeless for another four years.
Rh, call everything civil unions and require paternity dna tests at birth.
So, if you abort and contracept all the future poor people away, there will be no more poverty?
It's called eugenics. Through various methods you eliminate the rabble. Margaret Sanger championed it.
phx...so you are saying Wisconsin, the state that just elected a militant leftwing homosexual to the US Senate, would outlaw abortion?
I say everyone who voted for Baldwin would not allow any changes to abortion laws. And throw in 18-29 year old men who voted for Thompson, but cruise bars and parties for drunk girls and don't want to deal with a child from a one night stand...you get a large majority who would say keep abortion as it is in Wisconsin.
The white folks are so clever with all of their code words and dog whistles.
Crime is crime since it is (relatively) objectifiable under current laws (to the extent the Criminal Code has NOT become so complex that virtually all people and virtually any activity can be interpreted as "criminal" in some sense).
Crime itself is not a sub-cultural issue, however, tolerance for certain types of criminal acts are sub-cultural issues. Under-age drinking is criminal, yet is tolerated and rampant. Marijuana smoking and (small) dealing is criminal, yet it is (less widely) tolerated and common. Whether the tolerance of these (or any other crimes) is more or less evident in a social group might be examined, and perhaps determinative of something relevant (Youth-vote related, for instance).
Social issue attitudes are more obviously sub-culture determined. At one time there might have been an overriding American culture that held down differing attitudes about these social issues (WASP, old-boy-network values?) but that seems to have been dimished over the last 50 years.
Take heart, though. The Baby Boom, we of the ME Generation, will die quite soon and you younger persons can consolidate your sub-cultures into an overriding mono-culture just as our parents did.
I'm just not sure I want to be here when you do (but then again, it won't happen until I'm not here, so there you go).
Emd. Obama actually addressed these issues, until recently. More fatherhood engagement and more minority teachers (especially male) in the classroom. Obama was in touch with his community on that.
If Obama was pro_life I would vote for him.
The election should have been about the economy, but it wasn't. So now Americans are going to get what they deserve and the last four years will feel like a cake walk. Like the song says, "You don't miss your water till the well runs dry" or in this case the golden goose is about to have a hysterectomy.
I disagree that it was social issues that in fact caused Romney to lose. Certainlys dems trying to promote those social issues will say "aha, that's why repubs lost". but they're trying to find a mandate where there is one.
But the problem with social issues is, which social issue? Polygamy is a social issue. I don't see too many people (yet) saying if we don't move to polygamy that we are bigoted and standing in the way ofhistory.
Supporting traditional marriage is also a social issue. It's not as if one only supports social issues if one is for gay marriage and not against gay marriage. DOMA was a social issue.
American liberals, like Inga, would love nothing more than to disenfranchise traditional, social conservatives.
The problem is, how not to disenfranchise social conservatives while building a political coalition large enough to establish a sustainable, governing majority?
Otherwise, the idiots who won last week will continue to cannibalize America for their short-term gain, but for all of our long term loss.
The Cultural Marxists in the MSM and academe have reduced the value of most those GOP bread n' butter issues by redefining them as subliminal appeals to racism ( cf. Chris Matthews's famous "dog whistles").
Renee....that is what is so bizarre about Obama. His mother was an 18 year old, extremely liberal Atheist college student, banging a foreign student from Kenya. If this was today, Obama would have been aborted.
You'd think he would be a little sensitive to this. Instead we have the man who voted against the Born Alive act in Illinois.
"Obama was in touch with his community on that."
-- And he ended a voucher program that allowed poor children to go to some of the better schools in the D.C. area. He talked the talk, but did not walk the walk.
As an Ex-Republican who has not voted for a Republican, nationally, since GB I, I have a simple solution to electoral victory and relevance outside of gerrymandered districts. Kick out the crazies, tell the racists to go to hell, tell Grover and the other nuts that want to gut social programs to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy to go home and provide a moderate, resonable alternative to the Democrats that is based on true fiscal conservatism and not supply side nonsense. Focus on the economy and shut up about the culture wars. You just piss people off. People who might even vote for you otherwise.
Inga said...
There are time limits to AFDC, nowadays ya know, work and training requirements that need to be met.
Shockingly Inga's quite behind the times. Obama's welfare appointees decided they have the authority to grant waivers. So the domestic policy reform generally considered the most successful of the last 40 years now means whatever the apparatchiks say it means.
Funny how it always works out that way.
I am a Southern Baptist and a Republican and like Hindraker I really don't care that much about the social issues. I understand that they are moral issues of which should not be for the government to address. I believe that Is the same sentiment of many people.
That being said, it is hard to get that point across when the media and Hollywood make it appear as if gay marriage and abortion were the only issues for Republicans. As long as the government does not require that my church condone gay marriage, then I am fine with it. As for abortion, I would like for someone to explain to me why in 2012 is it still being used for birth control? Since it looks like this administration wants to provide free birth control to women, can we then rationally debate whether abortion should continue to be allowed for birth control purposes?
While it seems reasonable to me that people should be able to debate and question, doing so allows the media to call one intolerate, which is the real irony.
phx...so you are saying Wisconsin, the state that just elected a militant leftwing homosexual to the US Senate, would outlaw abortion?
No, I'm just saying that the negative side of the Republican "brand" doesn't stop at the federal level, and it doesn't stop at gay rights or abortion either.
Personally I will be more or less okay whatever policy we enact on abortion, gay rights, taxes, or immigration.
It's the more or less Randian conception of what a human being is that I most don't like about Republicanism.
A couple of reasons why Republicans lost last week?
- I have talked to some non-political types who voted for Obama. They are convinced that Obamacare is nothing other than manditory health insurance. That the gov't is not dictating what insurance you have to buy, what you can't buy, what employers can and can't do. They are totally clueless about the reach and scope of the law.
-Other thing? The "Republicans want to end Social Security" isn't really playing well anymore. But "Republicans want to end Medicare" did work for them. There are millions of people out there who think Medicare is financially sound, and anyone who wants to make changes to it, are just trying to steal money from old folks.
PfMoen said...
"At least with O'blamo re-selected we won't hear about the homeless for another four years."
Or the high unemployment rate.
Or the rising cost of gasoline.
Or rising inflation.
Or increasing health care costs.
Or terrorist attacks on U.S. Consulates.
Or increasing deficits.
Or increasing national debt.
The next president will inherit an America that is "surprisingly" much worse off than the America Obama inherited.
"GOP would go the way of the Whigs if ever they actually did this."
Regardless as has been stated at political blogs the past (20) years, the abortion issue is a cash cow to Reps ... and recently for Dems as well. :D
Fr Martin Fox wrote:
Now apply it to the entire country.
Now apply it to pretty much the whole world.
You can see some of what you're talking about in China. CHina doesn't value girls. China also has a one child policy. Thus, what ends up happening are more girls get aborted than boys (i.e. if you can only have one child, you don't want the girl) As such this artificially skewing of the demographic has led to a dearth of women in society. So, now China is dealing with a myriad issues that occur when women a minority (for example, suddenly there are no women for men to marry. ooops).
And yet, abortion is supposedly empowering to women. Not to female babies, that's for sure.
"There are millions of people out there who think Medicare is financially sound, and anyone who wants to make changes to it, are just trying to steal money from old folks."
This election proved, once and for all, the idiots are the governing majority in America.
The election was an intelligence test.
America failed.
The only hope is, that which is left in four years maintains enough residual intelligence, moral character, courage, strength and wealth to rescue itself.
I doubt it.
And as always re: presidential politics, the bottom line $$$, is the bottom line $$$.
Although Willard's over-saturation of the airwaves w/24/7 negative ads may have had a negative effect! :-P
Go figure ...
so you are saying Wisconsin, the state that just elected a militant leftwing homosexual to the US Senate, would outlaw abortion?
And yet the entire State Legislature is quite red, and we have a Republican Governor. (Who, coincidentally, was elected -- twice -- with very little mention of social issues, but plenty of mention of economic issues).
The Republican Party will never actually outlaw Abortion. It's their bread and butter.
Shiloh....yup. Heard from someone in Minnesota. Minnesota voted down a consititutional amnendment to keep marriage between 2 people, and those 2 would be a man and woman. The gays activists got excited and now are calling for a repeal of the law keeping marriage as said above.
But Democrats won't touch that with a 20 foot dildo. They know that once they get gay marriage, then many of the more moderate gays will no longer have a reason to stay in the Democrat party.
@Chuck66,
Thanks to Roe and PP and the other subsidized abortion million we'd have 35m more Dem/Obama voters, so there's that.
And it's 35 million less potential criminals, welfare mothers, prison inmates, probationers, drug addicts, welfare collectors, extremely fertile baby mommas, and assorted lumpen. Count your blessings.
Chuck 66 wrote:
Renee....that is what is so bizarre about Obama. His mother was an 18 year old, extremely liberal Atheist college student, banging a foreign student from Kenya. If this was today, Obama would have been aborted.
You could make the case that every pro choice person on the planet is lucky that their parents weren't. or decided not to make the choice for them that they think women should make for their kids.
But for choosing life, they wouldn't exist.
Or the Southern Leadership Poverty Conference (or whatever they are called)....you can tell when their bank account is getting down (those conferences in Vegas are expensive) as they find a new badguy to raise funds around.
Hinderaker is thinking too much & too hard.
It's hard for political junkies to understand how little politics matters to many folks in the country, and how little attention they pay to it until they have to.
The political types have chosen sides, and they've bought into their favorite brand. But, for many of the rest, God only knows what they base their votes on.
I think Obama takes much of his base & beyond because he's the "cool" candidate. Do not underestimate the "glam" factor, the endorsements from the glitterati on the minds of those who aren't political. Especially young women.
Republicans run old white guys with impressive credentials, and they aren't cool. Besides, the younger generation has no idea what competence looks like if it bit them in the ass, but they know what cool looks like.
If you think I'm making this up, why did the Obama administration work so hard at lining up celebs to stump for him? In a rational world, no one would give a shit how the Kardashians vote. We don't live in that world.
I remember in 1988 when the pundit class was worried that the Democrat Party would never be competitive in a presidential election.
I remember in 1994 when people were utterly shocked that Congress went GOP in the first time since forever.
We will be arguing about a whole new set of issues, as well as the existing set of issues at a different intensity four years from now.
It is funny to read people still using the term Marxist decades after Marxism quit being a relevant political ideology. Old habits die hard. I am sure those using the term could not provide a definition much less a detailed example of just how Obama, MSNBC or anyone else for that matter actually is doing or saying anything that fits the definition.
Intended to write "abortion mills" in 11:17 post.
"The Republican Party will never actually outlaw Abortion. It's their bread and butter."
Democrats too. Every four years there's a new crop of 18-21 year old women to frighten about losing their abortion rights.
If one looks at Hispanic, black and female voting trends this election it pretty much confirms all the negative stereo types of them.
Inga said...
Oh the same old warmed over argument that a hand up is a handout and that social safety nets for those in temporary need will be able to collect freebies forever. There are time limits to AFDC, nowadays ya know, work and training requirements that need to be met.
You lost on the abortion and SSM issues big time, now you're back to pushing the Welfare is Slavery meme. Same old arguments, can't break out and get some new ideas, huh?
Tell me again how well the War on Poverty worked.
After all, which is the Party of Slavery and always has been?
shiloh said...
Although Willard's over-saturation of the airwaves w/24/7 negative ads may have had a negative effect! :-P
The little weasel projects again, and, while we're on the screen, where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?
Wanking off to Margaret Sanger's love letters to Der Reichsfuhrer-SS?
phx wrote;
Personally I will be more or less okay whatever policy we enact on abortion, gay rights, taxes, or immigration.
It's the more or less Randian conception of what a human being is that I most don't like about Republicanism.
So wait, you could care less on whether we have abortion or don't have abortion? Whether gays have rights or don't. Whether taxes are high or low? It's the Randian concepts you are agaist. You will HAVE to explain that, because that makes little sense.
YoungHel....yup. You said it well.
Such as Paul Ryan talking about Medicare. His full spiel is about a 5 minute presentation on what is going to happen to Medicare if we do nothing, and what his plan is. If you listen to it, it makes sense. At very least, it is a starting point to come up with a plan to save Medicare.
What is the Democrat plan? I have a neighbhor who has this bumper stick high up on the back of his SUV: "Save Medicare. Vote Democrat".
Guess which one won last week.
"I think Obama takes much of his base & beyond because he's the "cool" candidate. Do not underestimate the "glam" factor, the endorsements from the glitterati on the minds of those who aren't political. Especially young women."
Good point....Gore and Kerry were certainly not cool and look where it got them. So who will be the "cool" Donk in 2016? Is Deval Patrick "cool" enough to get people to vote for a MA governor for President?
He is probably way more cool than Andrew Cuomo.
Here's a mind blowing election fact for you:
The last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Bush or a Nixon on the ticket was 1928.
Charter Schools are a scam. They only take the children who were going to do well anyways. Charter Schools should be able to pick and choose. Children the most at risk with instability or an IEP do not get in. I send some of my children to a Catholic, but I still fully support public schools. If the school is publicly funded, it should be publicly run as well.
@ Pragmatist,
Here's my nutshell of why you're wrong about Marxism being extinct.
Post-WWII liberalism is way different from Classical Liberalism. Liberalism was replaced by Cultural Marxism in the late 1960s. They kept the name but changed the content so that there were two Liberalisms – Classical and New. New Liberals changed the nature of the ideology into what we now see as Identity politics and political correctness, just to give two examples. The politics have changed, but not the name.
well, 35,000,000 abortions since 1972 and we still have poor people.
40 x 1.5 million/yr = 60 million
Funny how we don't keep close count of trivialities, isn't it?
Darrell, but what's 25,000,000 abortions......I mean unviable tissue masses.
EMD said...
You lost on the abortion and SSM issues big time, now you're back to pushing the Welfare is Slavery meme. Same old arguments, can't break out and get some new ideas, huh?
How's that Great Society going?
Great!!!
Who want's more BBQ aborted fetus!
Oops 'shouldn't be able to pick and choose.
Renee said...
Charter Schools are a scam. They only take the children who were going to do well anyways. If the school is publicly funded, it should be publicly run as well.
A) It is not true that Charter schools only take the best students. This union propoganda has been debunked many times.
B) Public charter schools are publicly managed: essentially as a district of one usually not subject to unions.
phx wrote:
It's the more or less Randian conception of what a human being is that I most don't like about Republicanism.
You are against individualism? You are a Borg?
Example of a difference between Democrat state leadership and Repubican.....I talked to a guy last month who is involved in businesses in western Wisconsin.
He said under Doyle, if he wanted to do a project, the state (DNR, EPA, whoever) would just say "NO". And there was no further discussion.
Under Walker, the DNR (or whoever) would say....we have some issues with your plan, so here is what you need to do to satisfy us. Make these changes and come back to us.
That is how Republicans create jobs, while still protecting the enviroment.
Notice there is no hard right position involved? Demcrats are the extremists ("NO"), Republicans are the centrists ("No for now, but make changes that will satisfy us").
MadisonMan said...
so you are saying Wisconsin, the state that just elected a militant leftwing homosexual to the US Senate, would outlaw abortion?
And yet the entire State Legislature is quite red, and we have a Republican Governor. (Who, coincidentally, was elected -- twice -- with very little mention of social issues, but plenty of mention of economic issues).
The Republican Party will never actually outlaw Abortion. It's their bread and butter
Yeah. It's like electing pro gun control democrats to increase gun sales.
The social conservatives need to break off from the GOP and form their own rump party. They are fair-weather friends to the larger party, and drive away those voters who might otherwise support a party devoted to smaller and more responsible government.
11/13/12 10:34 AM
Blogger Renee said...
" When my progressive friends tell me the contraception ends poverty, I find it as racial coding as well."
When Freakonomics says that the decline in crime is due to abortion, it's obvious racial commentary.
Margaret Sanger would be proud.
As I recall, the 1968 "law and order" campaign was also aimed at a lot of white hippies smoking pot, dropping acid and demonstrating. Even stuff that wasn't agains the law just looked anarchic.
It wasn't all about race.
So wait, you could care less on whether we have abortion or don't have abortion? Whether gays have rights or don't. Whether taxes are high or low?
I didn't say "I could care less." I generally favor MOST but not all Democratic platform points over Republican - I'm generally a moderate on policies. Even when policies are enacted that I disagree with I'll survive them. Taxes go up, they go down, unemployment goes up, it goes down...I'm not put the knife to my brother's throat b/c he's voting for someone whose policies on these issues I disagree with.
I want to see a MODERATE middle on the SC.
I want to get away from ideas that we're the big guy standing after the cold war so we get to do what we want in international affairs - I thought that was a big mistake from the GOP.
We have a bad problem with poverty. This problem is way more complex than "it's poor people's fault" or "it's the Dems fault." We have a serious systemic problem that we need to work together on.
I've met many brilliant, wonderful and caring Republicans and wingers, but there's a lot of them whose ideas of what it is to be human and share this space with each other are just awful - you can see some of them here. I don't want to be on that team.
Scott......social conservatives benefit from small gov't. They tend primarily just want to be left alone.
Example....Obamacare's abortion and birth control mandates.
Or look at the war on the Boy Scouts. Instead of forming a gay Boy Scouts, the Democrat pary has pledged to destroy the BSA.
Social issues don't matter....until they do.
Scott said...
The social conservatives need to break off from the GOP and form their own rump party. They are fair-weather friends to the larger party, and drive away those voters who might otherwise support a party devoted to smaller and more responsible government.
They are fair weather frinds, but this last is not true. There are at best a few percentage points of moderates that would consider voting with a republican party excised of social cons.
Michael K...the left hates that arguement because that puts a human face on abortions. That we really are eliminating undesirable humans.
Republicans just need to call themselves something different. The unpopular Iraq war was renamed The Surge. The unpopular Republican Party renamed itself The Tea Party.
Wonder what they could rename themselves? The Coffee Party needs members.
garage, just like sexual preference was renamed sexual orientation. The word preference sounds like a choice. So the marketing minds in the gay rights movement changed the language.
Garbage Mahal
There's your new name right there.
A better Republican talking point would've been to say they want to keep Medicare from committing suicide.
To some extent, the GOP is a victim of its own success on crime. The policy of throwing a lot of people in jail really has reduced street crime, to the point that most people don't worry much about it these days. A far cry from the late 80s and early 90s when there was a perception that crime was spiraling out of control.
Marxists-->Liberals-->Progressives
Still a rose that stinks. . .
60 years of indoctrination and inculcation in our K-PhD of leftist thought and social policy is not societal evolution. Oh wait.
Chip...excellent! I was trying to think of something that fits on a bumper sticker, to get across the point that Medicare will die unless we make changes.
Maguro....it was like Bush's "illegal warrentless domestic spying". Bush prevented more attacks in the US, so Americans felt there was no need for security.
Proof that his plans worked....Obama kept most of them after campaigning against them.
"When my progressive friends tell me the contraception ends poverty, I find it as racial coding as well."
And if there's one thing that we don't need, it's another little hungry mouth to feed...in the ghetto.
And his momma cries.
Thus, Planned Parenthood.
Metha.....in late August, when Obama was wayyyy ahead in the polls, that is what National Review was saying.
How can Romney/Ryan be so far behing Obama? Well, conceading all of our educational institutions to the left for the past 2 generations is coming back to haunt us.
Nursing care for seniors and permanently disabled needs to be spun off from Medicaid. That's currently a bit more than 25% of Medicaid's costs.
Then Medicaid, SNAP, Section 8, School lunch, etc. need to be placed on the same five-year lifetime limit as TANF. We have had intergenerational poverty in this country. A safety net is a safety net, not a way of life.
Let the states, local governments, and private charities subsidize the dependent. It is not the proper role of the federal government.
Bryan, but wouldn't it make more sense to kill the kids when they are older? To wait and see how their lives are turning out before we exterminate them?
If a tough stance on crime is sending a coded message, why isn't a liberal stance on abortion sending the same message?
Half the Democrat party is blacks and latinos, most of whom are dependent on government.
Half the GOP is white Evangelicals, most of whom believe the federal government should enforce a certain moral code.
That leaves half of Democrats and half of the GOP to form a new party.
Was talkking with a 27 year old woman the day before the election. She told me of course 3rd trimester abortions afe illegal, which she was all for, but that she didn't want all abortions banned , which the evil rascally Republicans wouild do.
I described a partial birth abortion to her. Then tiold her it could bee done up until minuted before actual birth, as long as it was to protect teh mother's health. And then described the loophole- if a shrink said it would hurt her mental well being it was enough to go ahead. She was shocked.
The MSM defines Republicans by its most extreme elements. Never mentions Democrats who would allow live births of disabled babies to be killed, such as Peter Sanger (sp?) to define Democrats.
Most people don't know the issues, and vote on what they don't know.
Let's acknowledge that crime and welfare were also coded racial issues and people reacted emotionally to them.
So you drank that Kool-Aid, did you, Althouse? You are aware, are you not, that more African-Americans die annually from Black-on-Black homicide than lynched during the entire Reconstruction/ Jim Crow century from 1865 to 1965. Does that change your closed mind? Didn't think so.
McCullogh, excellent suggestions!
Nursing homes costs should also have limits, $6,000 a month is extremely excessive and a reason that the Long Term Care industry is a multimillion dollar industry. Warehousing of the elderly is very lucrative.
That leaves half of Democrats and half of the GOP to form a new party.
Trouble is, most of them believe it's racist to deny the minorities their freebies.
Should be multi BILLION dollar industry.
I would argue that other than abortion, social conservatives would be happy with just a smaller gov't.
Example? When was the last time you heard of a conservative group going to San Francisco or Madison and trying to us the courts to force their viewpoints on the leftwing people there?
Yet it happens all the time with leftwingers. Think about Atheist hate groups that operate out of Madison.
More good news.
Willie says his "foundation" is going to interest itself in health care.
OK, ladies, feet apart wide and spread 'em.
And don't forget to say, "Aaaahhhhh"!
Oop and leslyn can't wait.
Everyone else, not so much.
Inga....I've always wondered about that. Taking care of old folks isn't easy, but knowing what the employees make there, the numbers just don't make sense. You'd think someone is getting rich off of this.
Edutcher being a swine again, ho hum, swines gotta snort.
Chuck , yes someone IS getting rich off of old folks and it isn't the staff.
Garbage Mahal
There's your new name right there.
That's actually quite old. I think it's supposed to be an insult.
"Chuck , yes someone IS getting rich off of old folks and it isn't the staff."
Sen. Claire McCaskill D-Mo is one, but that's OK, she supports Obama, Obamacare and abortion.
I should say old folks as long as they are private pay, but at $6,000+ a MONTH, their money doesn't hold out long, then they switch to Medicaid, so YOU and I are making warehousers of elderly and disabled RICH. Many conservatives focus on how blacks are stealing all your tax dollars in welfare, start thinking out of your box.
We have a serious systemic problem that we need to work together on.
You're getting above the level of most of Congress there.
I don't want to be on that team.
"I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member" - Marx (Groucho)
Campy,
The racism canard (which is pretty similar to Althouse's silly "coded racism" remark about crime and welfare in the 80s (back when the black illegitimacy rate was less than 50%, now it's 72% and rising) is losing its power now that we're broke. California has about 1/8 of the population but 34% of welfare recipients. California is very broke and will soon have to decide how to make the trade offs between how much to cut unionized state retirees pension and benefits, how much to cut higher education funding, and how much to cut welfare.
The blue coalitions are going to turn on each other in blue states where the Democrats are going to have to make the tough choices. They will come begging to Congress for a bailout (along with Illinois, major blue cities, and likely New York). Pass the popcorn. The blue coalition is about to blow up.
Chuck , yes someone IS getting rich off of old folks and it isn't the staff.
easy peasy. how much does your old folks home charge per month?
It's the usual crap that the Republican Party has to move left. And since the Republican Establishment is perfectly happy with that there will soon no longer be a Republican Party. An unapologetic conservative party, call it the Tea Party, will be in a position to pick up the pieces when all but the most protected Americans, such as Althouse, will turn to those laughably outdated conservatives values, economic and social, after the great implosion engineered by our darling enlightened Left.
I think it's supposed to be an insult.
It's hard to insult some people as almost everything is a compliment. In a previous life garage's moniker was stable mahal, then the automobile was invented.
I called him "garb" for a while, but he though I was talking about clothes. Down south, mahal means "my hall". To find my dorm room in college, you took a left off the elevator and went down mahal to the third door on the right.
Glad to read that Althouse finally has some distance from the Republicans and will no longer ignore their foolishness. And I would suggest links to such publications as the New England Journal of Medicine which has an interesting perspective on Recognizing Conscience in Abortion Provision in the Sept. 13 edition by Harris.
@mccullough,
The blue coalitions are going to turn on each other in blue states where the Democrats are going to have to make the tough choices.
One of the most amazing facts of US state governance in the late 20th-early 21st century is how many blue states are now on the edge of insolvency. This situation is routinely ignored by many liberals and the MSM.
Right now, it's only the wing-nuts who talk about secession. If a Democratic federal government starts talking seriously about moving the needed monies from one state to another,e.g. Texas to help California, secession talk will suddenly become mainstream. Except maybe if the monies are accompanied by structural changes, such as the destruction of public sector unions, that a Democratic administration couldn't ever abide.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, leftism and leftist ideology is easy and requires little to no thought as evidenced by our resident leftards on this blog alone. If you have to think about real policy issues, then you might get dirty and make some hard choices if necessary, but oh no, not for a leftist. Why, that would be racist, bigoted, homophobic, prejudiced, and any number of other sundry pejoratives that they will trot out to ridicule and suppress any opposing viewpoints with that they think will shake up their ideological status quo.
Inga said...
Many conservatives focus on how blacks are stealing all your tax dollars in welfare, start thinking out of your box.
That's a funny statement coming from you. Since after all, you are an advocate for an ever larger 'safety net'. Seriously, what are you trying to prove here?
Let's acknowledge that crime and welfare were also coded racial issues
Let's acknowledge that crime is not a coded racial issue and is actually where you come home from work and find that your house has been invaded and valuable personal belongings have been stolen or, you are walking down the street and find yourself surrounded by thugs who demand your wallet, etc. What race are these people? That's right, they are members of the criminal race.
CBS' Nancy Giles - "Maybe that's why they're trying to eliminate all these abortions and stuff. They're trying to build up the race."
Always looking at everything from a single perspective can turn you into an idiot, at best.
"If a Democratic federal government starts talking seriously about moving the needed monies from one state to another,e.g. Texas to help California, secession talk will suddenly become mainstream."
The succession talk is overblown hype.
However, every single Democrat senator from a red or swing state to include Tammy Baldwin would vote against that. They know that is several bridges too far and they would lose their re-elections before they even ran. Some may think it would be worth it, but too many others have self-preservation in mind. Lots of Dems thought "healthcare for all" was worth it, nobody is going to die on the "Bailout of Illinois" hill.
YH,
The red states aren't seceding. California, Illinois and New York are going to "secede" on paper so that the U.S. government can appoint their governors and abolish their failed system of government. It will be like the South during Reconstruction. And before we re-admit them to the union they are going to create state constitutions that will prevent their fiscal incontinence from ever occurring again.
I think Mitch Daniels will be an excellent governor of California during Reconstruction II.
I think
has anyone performed a study related to the consequences of the social policies that have been enacted? For example, what are the consequences to civic society of the increase in out of wedlock births? A study with no commentary such as this is bad or this good, but X action produces Y result?
Also, Ralph L said, "what does the federal government have to do with abortion or gay marriage?" His answer was, "Not much". However, in the case of abortion, that is murder. Just my opinion. In the case of gay marriage, we realize that there are two different marriages, right? Gay marriage advocates seek this union for the purposes of securing governemtn benefits and the ability to pass property to a loved one in the same manner as a traditional married couple do. The church marriage is spiritual in nature. NOw, why don't we just call all marriages recognized by the state as civil unions for the legal purposes, and if you can find a church that recognizes gay marriage in a spiritual manner, have a church wedding there, rather than bashing a church for the exercise of their beliefs? As an aside, Islam, which seems to be the darling of the media as a religion of peace, must like Indian yogis were the darling of the counter-culture in the late 60's, does not allow homosexuality.
Blacks aren't stealing tax dollars (other than a few corrupt politicians). The U.S. government, and many state governments, have incentivized and created a culture of dependency among blacks and other poor people (Latinos as well have a 53% illegitmacy rate and climbing and whites now have a 29% illegitimacy rate and climbing). Asians are the only race with a relatively low illegitmacy rate (13%).
Basically, the U.S. needs to get rid of policies and create policies that incentivize and encourage people to act like Asians -- family and education first.
DADvocate, the level of ignorance on display in that video is simply staggering. MSM newsprops raise the eternal question, Ideology, ignorance, or stupidity?
"All of the above" remains the most compelling answer.
Glad to hear that Althouse finally has some distance from the Republicans and will no longer ignore their foolishness.
Wow, it's really looking up for you, Althouse, now that you've garnered the approval of quintessential smug shit Roachy.
McCullogh, yet Asians voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Interesting isn't it?
We have a bad problem with poverty. This problem is way more complex than "it's poor people's fault" or "it's the Dems fault." We have a serious systemic problem that we need to work together on.
But we really don't have a problem with poverty in this country in the sense you're thinking about. With the exception of the absolute poorest people, the very bottom >1% which are largely made up of the mentally ill, the overwhelming majority of "poor" people in this country eat regularly (if not always perfectly healthily), have a roof over their heads, and most even have certain luxuries like cell phones and flat panel TVs.
The people who are classified as poor in this country live better, longer lives than 99% of humans in all the past historical eras, and better than the poor in 3rd world countries.
And that would beg the question, what did Asians see in Obama and the Democratic party to make them vote for Obama in higher numbers than even Hispanics?
the overwhelming majority of "poor" people in this country eat regularly (if not always perfectly healthily), have a roof over their heads, and most even have certain luxuries like cell phones and flat panel TVs.
Problem solved, huh?
That's not what "begging the question" means, Inga.
"All of the above" remains the most compelling answer.
Yes, it is. It's hard to believe that stupidity can land you a good job. Giles can't even fix her hair.
Can't wait to hear the WH response to the secessionists demands. Should be good. "Um, thanks for your inquiry, but it's not really possible nor in your best interests".
Thankyou Chip. Continually trying to discredit your opposition didn't win you the President you wanted, did it?
If "discredit" = "arguing against, w/ logic and evidence," then yes, you're exactly right, Inga.
BTW, you promised to ignore me.
mccullough said...
California is very broke and will soon have to decide how to make the trade offs between how much to cut unionized state retirees pension and benefits, how much to cut higher education funding, and how much to cut welfare.
This seems optimistic. I find it much more likely they are going borrow as much as they can and increase taxes to cover the rest.
garage, IIRC you've argued here before that the red states are leeches that suck federal revenue from the blue states.
So why not let them secede?
Garage, I found this VERY interesting, regarding Secessionists
Chip, you first.
Inga continues to demonstrate her opposition to the 1st amendment, now lowering the bar for legal action from riling up Muslims to offending lefties.
Problem solved, huh?
There's always gonna be "poor" people (unless you're into the whole wealth redistribution thing). But if poor people are living longer, better, happier lives than ever before than it's a good thing.
Inga continues to demonstrate her opposition to the 1st amendment,
And garage wants to restrict your freedom to what's deemed to be "in your best interests."
One of the explicit arguments prolifers make--and it is profoundly frustrating to them that this argument hasn't been more successful--is to point out how many more babies with darker skin are murdered by abortion than white babies.
That, coupled with the racist motives of Margaret Sanger which the media are too delicate to delve into, should be sufficient rebuttal to those who assert prolifers have racist motives.
The social issues martyrdom soap opera is complete foolishness. Nonexistent.
There really is only one social issue, and that's abortion.
The gays and women were never persecuted. That martyrdom narrative happened in soap opera movies and TV shows, and not much anywhere else.
For 50 years now, women have had the upper hand in family court and divorce, and the schools have been catering to them to such an extent that women are now by far the majority in colleges.
This is just silly stuff. Gays and women enjoy bitching and they enjoy the portrayal of themselves as deserving martyrs. There is nothing else there.
Continually trying to discredit your opposition didn't win you the President you wanted, did it?
Everything I know about mathematics tells me that reality will discredit the opposition. And well before 2016.
So sayeth Shouting Thomas. I guess millions of people didn't see it your way.
Problem solved, huh?
Yeah, pretty much. How high a standard of living do you think it is feasible to provide on a universal basis? Should the government give everyone a new car every other year or something?
What did Asians see in Obama and the Democratic party to make them vote for Obama in higher numbers than even Hispanics?
@Inga, you're asking a question that puzzles me, too. There is absolutely no group of Americans more disadvantaged by affirmative action than Asian-Americans. Absent hidden quotas Berkeley would be close to 100% Asian-American, except for the athletic teams. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (yes, "hyp(e)") would be close to 100% Asian-American except for wealthy legacy kids. And I think that would be a good thing. Some Republicans agree with me, but no Democrat does.
So sayeth Shouting Thomas. I guess millions of people didn't see it your way.
As usual, Inga, you are Exhibit A.
You love to attack other people viciously. But, you start to suggest that you're the victim of some sort of "harassment" when people respond to you in kind.
Your idea of "fairness," is "What's yours is mine and what's mine is mine."
I'm not worried about the poor and unemployed, their numbers will multiply and I have faith that Obama will lead them to the promise land. That's what I told my six employees last Friday as I handed them pink slips. "Have faith", I told them.
I guess millions of people didn't see it your way.
Another online lesson for Inga: argumentum ad populum.
How long will it be until the dead brained stupor introduced by the indoctrination starts to fall apart?
Women have the advantage in almost every way, and have had the advantage for 50 years.
A white man, the despised bottom feeder in the racial and sexual quota system, can ascend to favored beneficiary of the quota system by declaring himself homosexual.
Reality has to make some impact at some point. Continuing to pretend that it's still 1968 cannot hold for much longer.
So sayeth Shouting Thomas, who is Exhibit A as an out of touch white male conservative.
No, I'm just saying that the negative side of the Republican "brand" doesn't stop at the federal level, and it doesn't stop at gay rights or abortion either.
29 Governors (58%)
31 Upper State Houses (62%)
29 Lower State Houses (58%)
The Republicans don't have a brand problem. They have an Obama problem.
Why did Asians vote for Obama in greater numbers than Hispanics?
I ask again.
I guess millions of people didn't see it your way.
But that doesn't make it right, does it? No matter how many people vote that pi should be 3.0 instead of an irrational number, yet reality says it is irrational and has a value somewhere between 3.1416 and 3.14159.
phx said...
the overwhelming majority of "poor" people in this country eat regularly (if not always perfectly healthily), have a roof over their heads, and most even have certain luxuries like cell phones and flat panel TVs.
Problem solved, huh?
Actually, for the most part it is solved. Unless of course, you have another standard by which you have in mind?
We have a bad problem with poverty. This problem is way more complex than "it's poor people's fault" or "it's the Dems fault." We have a serious systemic problem that we need to work together on.
I got some good news and I got some bad news. Back in 1964 or 5 President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. Since then more than a trillion dollars has been spent to alleviate the plight of the poverty stricken. The Social Security Trust Fund was raided to provide programs for the poor.
The bad news is we lost. For some bizarre reason poor people continue to make the poor life choices that insure their poverty.
I've met many brilliant, wonderful and caring Republicans and wingers, but there's a lot of them whose ideas of what it is to be human and share this space with each other are just awful - you can see some of them here. I don't want to be on that team.
Yeah I feel the same way about demorats and left wing nut jobs.
So sayeth Shouting Thomas, who is Exhibit A as an out of touch white male conservative.
Inga, you might want to cool it with the belief that your God, the government, stands triumph.
You will lose elections in the future. You're old enough to know better.
If Barack Obama was Jeff Johnson, a white Democrat from Illinois, who was presiding over an economy with 7.9% unemployment and $16 trillion in debt, and annual $1T deficitis, would he have won?
Inga? Would he?
Inga,
continually discrediting the opposition did work in the last election. maybe conservatives should stoop to the liberal level.
Why did Asians vote for Obama in greater numbers than Hispanics?
I ask again.
Honestly? Don't know. Do you know any up there in Wisconsin you could ask?
Why did Asians vote for Obama in greater numbers than Hispanics?
So that the Obama administration, and Democratic administrations around the country can punish them with quotas that restrict their ability to gain entrance to elite high schools and colleges.
Asians get their reward from Obama.
Corrollary to Hinderaker's logic is that it seems obvious that the evolution of social issues from crime and welfare to abortion and gay marriage has helped the Democratic Party. They are the party of crime, welfare, abortion, and gay marriage. They are proud of those accomplishments, so let them own them.
"Why did Asians vote for Obama in greater numbers than Hispanics?"
Well if I used leftist reasoning I'd say they are RACIST!
We will always have poor people no matter what we do.
We will always have the high number of poor people that we do because it is in one political party's best interest.
It's not that they hate the poor -- they like their votes. They also like the thousands of middle-class jobs they create for those who administer programs to the poor.
The poor aren't people to this party, they are a commodity.
The poverty-industrial complex
ST, I'm an agnostic, politically as well as spiritually.
Why did Asians vote for Obama in greater numbers than Hispanics?
This is a good question. I only have an anecdote.
Two good friends of mine are a couple from China. The husband is a physicist at a top university in the UC system.
We were discussing the election this summer, and the guy was a big Obama supporter. He told me that this was a dominant opinion among US Asians. In his case, he was simply worried about cuts in fed funding for his lab. But when I asked him incredulously why Asians--who were big-time losers from affirmative action--supported the Dems, he couldn't explain it. Just shrugged his shoulders and said, "That's how they feel."
THis may have already been written, but why are "crime and welfare" coded racial issues? There you go again!!
Re: Asians.
Your answer
They live where most people vote D.
Chip, my feeling about Asians and quotas is this...
At least among my Asian friends and family, bitching about any sort of "injustice" as an excuse for why you haven't accomplished something is seen as very bad form.
The quota system is generally seen as something that smart people figure out and get around.
Sorry, that map was just Chinese-Americans.
I did not want to insinuate that Asians as a group all think and act alike.
Page 12
Inga said...
ST, I'm an agnostic, politically as well as spiritually.
You often seem driven out of spite, as if to get back at your evangelical upbringing.
My theory is that Asians voted for Obama in greater numbers than even Hispanics are wait for it.......social issues. Asians are not Evangelical Christians in any great numbers, they don't buy into the anti abortion and anti gay issues that the Religious Right has shoved down the throats of the Republican Party. They didn't like the look of the Party of the Old White Male.
Only my opinion.
Inga answers her own questions, but not mine.
Vietnamese are still majority-Republican, tho less so among the second generation.
The schools and the MSM are working on them.
Chickelit, not spite, but concern that these people have wayyyy too much influence in a secular government.
My theory about recent Chinese immigrants is that they were raised as commies.
My theory is that Asians voted for Obama in greater numbers than even Hispanics are wait for it.......social issues. Asians are not Evangelical Christians in any great numbers, they don't buy into the anti abortion and anti gay issues that the Religious Right has shoved down the throats of the Republican Party. They didn't like the look of the Party of the Old White Male.
Or they could live in Tennessee rather than Seattle and vote differently!
You're opinion is completely wrong, as usual, Inga.
Marrying a white man is very high status among Asians. So, that shoots down that one, doesn't it? Asians that I know are very outspoken about the benefits of marrying a white man.
White women, on the other hand, seem to take an insane stupid pride is dissing their own men.
No other group of women that I know of does this. It's a peculiar stupidity of white women.
maybe some asians like what abortion and the welfare state have done for other minorities.
Inga proved my point when she said less than a minute after I noticed what motivates her: Asians are not Evangelical Christians in any great numbers, they don't buy into the anti abortion and anti gay issues that the Religious Right has shoved down the throats of the Republican Party.
Have some sympathy fellows--Inga has daddy issues.
So sayeth ST, an old white male.
So sayeth ST, an old white male.
Well, so sayeth Inga, the drunken old white hag.
Chickelit, you don't know me well enough to make such a proclamation.
So why not let them secede?
I would like to see them try. Of course they could secede anytime they like, nobody is stopping them.
I seen a poll recently that if the secessionists self deported, Texas would have gone to Obama.
So sayeth ST, an old white male who prefers Asian women who prefer old white males, who will become their "daddies" and allow themselves to be ruled.
Inga said...
Chickelit, you don't know me well enough to make such a proclamation.
Just a working hypothesis, Inga. I'm not making a diagnosis.
Inga - are Asians a monolithic bloc of people?
Post a Comment