In fact I can. Ronald Reagan, on the campaign trail in 1980, saying in Mississippi "I believe in states' rights" (a sentence the New Statesman later described as "perhaps the archetypal dog-whistle statement"), described as implying Reagan believed that states should be allowed, if they want, to retain racial segregation. In 1981, former Republican Party strategist and Reagan campaign manager; Lee Atwater, when giving an anonymous interview discussing the GOP's Southern Strategy said:The Reagan speech. Im sure you can corroborate the liberal race baiting and dog whistle theories with actual quotes from the parties involved in setting up the event right? Oh. You cant
You start out in 1954 by saying, "N, n, n." By 1968, you can't say "n" 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. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N, n. There is an audio recording of this.
My, how liberal of them.McCain and Rubio working on immigration reform that can pass. Several notable Republicans signing onto the gay marriage brief.
Yeah...that really won them over didn't it? Even after all that nonsense 74% of Latinos voted against you.How about the HHS flap over contraceptives and the Catholic Church, that may matter to a great many Hispanics.
Right. It's also true.This pile of piss and wind.
Again you say "that". What is THAT which you're saying you didn't say? You're quoting me in which I haven't said that you SAID anything. My response that you quoted comes from you claiming that I need to be right on everything. I told you I know that I could be wrong about a lot of things. Can you? So what is THAT which you're referring to?I didnt say any of that, thats you projecting again.
What's my ideology? Haven't you seen my sig? I don't subscribe to or hold ideologies. You seem to be suggesting that a person without an ideology has an ideology of not having an ideology. That's like saying that atheism is a religion of non-belief in religion. It's pretzel logic.Your a hardline ideologue portraying yourself as an intellectual free thinker.
And...you would know so much about "free thinking". I can see what an authority you are on that subject.You aren't, not even close
My criticism points directly at absolutist statements because the people making them are really nuts, and they're easy to take apart and stand in the way of truth. So yes, that's my opposition. I oppose bull**** and expose it for what it is. That's my only interest. Is something logical and rational, or more fictional beliefs or absolutist dogma. The criticisms are aimed at only one thing; Is the claim true of false. Assertions are always claims and they must be justified rationally. If they can't be demonstrated as being true...then what makes them worth accepting as true? What are they based on? And then, what justifies that base, and what is that justification based on. All ideas are open to criticism. There are no sacred cows. Unless you're an ideologue in which that becomes "sacred ground". Like I said, I could be wrong. So I can be willing to put my own to that same criticism. If they're wrong, I dump them for something that is true.Your criticism flows one direction and thats at your opposition.
Can you demonstrate the circular logic that you refer to? I mean just saying that means nothing. Give me an example.Btw, your circular logic here assumes from the start with little logical basis.
I haven't presented any as if they are yours. I'm not speaking for you. The only reference to you personally would be this: " If you ever had any interest in the truth...you'd look at your ideology and ask yourself, what is it based on? When you find out..then ask what that base is based on. You'll find yourself in a dilemma of infinite regress vs your dogma. You'll always be looking for another basis to justify the one that comes next. It's a black hole, and theres no way out of it, except to say I believe it because I believe it, which is circular reasoning." It's called Modus Tollens. IF/THEN. IF you had any interest in the truth, THEN you'd look at your ideology and ask what it's based on. What part of that is false?Plus you present a whole host of thoughts and positions as mine that I have not presented. How many fallacies you want to go for in one paragraph?
Show me one. Apparently you can list a bunch. I'm just asking for one.How many fallacies you want to go for in one paragraph?
Nope. Racism always has a conservative element to it. Racism isn't a liberal concept. Nice try, and I'm sure it makes you feel better to think that, but its not true. A conservative wants to preserve institutions and slavery, and Jim Crow, and Segregation were all conservative institutions. Liberalism is always a challenge to those institutions. Conservatives institutionalized racism. Liberals fought to eliminate it. The Civil Rights Act was a liberal idea. Not a conservative one. They fought against it. I find it amazing that on the very day that Rosa Parks statue is enshrined in the Capital Statuary Hall, the first women to be enshrined there, a woman from Alabama...and just down the street two Conservative Senators from Alabama sponsor Shelby County Alabama in a challenge to the Voting Rights Act in the Supreme Court. The very thing that Rosa Parks led the way toward. The timing was perfect. I'll tell you this, if the African/American community felt that liberalism was racist, why do you think 94% of them vote for liberals? They know where that hate comes from.So does liberalism.
They don't run the Republican Party. Conservatives do. They nominated a "severely conservative governor". Remember? And there isn't a single Republican that doesn't call himself a conservative. If you aren't a conservative, you're destined to be primaried by one more conservative than you are. That's ideology run amok.Extremism in full bloom.Establishment republicans arent very conservative.
Actually, by Tea Party standards, it needs to be "small enough to drown in the bathtub"- Grover Norquist. It can't be small enough unless it's completely gone. It'll never be small enough to the Tea Party Conservative, until everything is dismantled. The problem is that the people don't want that. That's why you're losing elections. Which is also why it's not a smear. It's the truth as stated by people like Norguist. When the TeaParty conservatives tell me they hate the government; that goverenment is the problem; that they want to cut it to the bone, then this statement "Join the TeaParty and take down the entire government of the United States, and it'll be every man for himself", is no smear. Because if that's the goal, then that's going to be the result.Maybe we ought to try it and see if it works before looking down nose dismissal begins.
Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.
Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.
Obama's record is a disaster but because he tells you what you want to hear you buy the rhetoric and ignore the results. You are easily swayed by rhetoric and that makes you part of the problem and not part of the solution. You never answer direct questions and always strive to change the discussion to other topics. Tell me how Obama policies are going to reduce the 16.6 trillion dollar debt, put the 22+ million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers back to work full time paying full taxes, reduce the numbers on taxpayer assistance, and creates more than .1% GDP growth?
Yes, the lefts obsession with gun control is nothing new. Obama's choice to ignore thousands of gangland murders which includes way more that 20 kids reaches a new level of demagoguery and selfishness.
Why didn't they start this anti Gun tirade after the Chicago 6 year old girl was killed in her living room last year ?
Oh I know why, they didn't care.
Exclusive: Lee Atwater
So what is it when blue dog dems faced primary challenges from the left? Because there are currently fewer House moderates than there were just 4 years ago. Many of them were primaried.
This is "your" President and apparently someone you are proud of especially the results he has generated. More statistics from "hate radio?"
24 Statistics Just to Verify Obama Has Been a Horrible President