Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-29-2009, 12:10 AM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default And You Know That We're Ideal (Farai Chideya & John McWhorter)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-29-2009, 12:47 AM
JonIrenicus JonIrenicus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default Re: And You Know That We're Ideal (Farai Chideya & John McWhorter)

Farai !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


.... (have not seen anything yet, just surprised and excited to see Farai here!)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-29-2009, 12:55 AM
I'm SO awesome!
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: And You Know That We're Ideal (Farai Chideya & John McWhorter)

one word: PARENTING. that is all.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-29-2009, 12:58 AM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: And You Know That We're Ideal (Farai Chideya & John McWhorter)

if jay-z ran the college board:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/200...7:39&out=17:49
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-29-2009, 01:44 AM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Judge Sotomayor’s Appellate Opinions in Civil Cases

If Mr McWhorter, or anyone else out there, would like to persue their concerns about was it a knee jerk reaction in Ricci v. DeStefano this SCOUTSBLOG synopses of Judge Sotomayor's opinions would be useful.

(edited forgot to create the link)

Last edited by piscivorous; 05-30-2009 at 01:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-29-2009, 03:09 AM
x9#z6 x9#z6 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 27
Default Re: And You Know That We're Ideal (Farai Chideya & John McWhorter)

I like the new girl. Very good find.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-29-2009, 07:27 AM
Bloggin' Noggin Bloggin' Noggin is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 893
Default John, you might want to read the decision first

Or at least read someone who has read it who defends it (which is all I've done). According to Hilzoy (at Political Animal), the issue at hand was actually NOT to throw out the test. New Haven threw out the test because the existing law gave them reason to throw it out (because they could be sued given the existing precedents in interpretation of the law if they simply went forward with the results). The question, then, was "did New Haven have a sufficient reason to do what it did, given existing law and precedent.
Now, she could have overturned the precedents, but maybe she didn't see reason to do that -- if she were going to overturn, then she would have needed a longer argument. But if you are going to uphold existing precedent, you don't need a very long argument.

It is pretty dangerous to look at court decisions without knowing exactly what was really at issue in the decision.
Of course, Hilzoy could be wrong, but it John nevertheless seems to assume that Sotomayor threw out the test herself, rather than saying that New Haven's decision to throw it out was justifiable according to existing law and precedent.

Last edited by Bloggin' Noggin; 05-29-2009 at 07:32 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-29-2009, 09:24 AM
barney_kippax barney_kippax is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5
Default bloggingheads' first moron

oh my god, this woman is a cretin. why aren't people pointing this out? she's utterly incapable of making a cogent argument. her points about sotomayor's brevity were just laughable. i feel sorry for mcwhorter having to engage this utter doofus. come on, don't tell me you haven't noticed....
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-29-2009, 09:36 AM
barney_kippax barney_kippax is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5
Default oh come on!

so now i've watched another couple of segments: she simply has no clue what she's talking about. she has no ability to form a cogent sentence, let alone an argument. the thing about 'pashtun'? oh my god she's an idiot. mcwhorter is obviously treating her with kid gloves. it's all just utterly embarrassing.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-29-2009, 09:48 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

John calls Steve Sailer a professional racist. Putting aside the fact that republicans are a permanent minority in the current federal system and it does not matter what their views are, fairness does dictate that Sailer be allowed on BHTV to debate John McWhorter or Will Saletan.

I am a frequent vistor to Sailer's site. I find his fact based writtings to be very informative and persuasive.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-29-2009, 10:35 AM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
John calls Steve Sailer a professional racist. Putting aside the fact that republicans are a permanent minority in the current federal system and it does not matter what their views are, fairness does dictate that Sailer be allowed on BHTV to debate John McWhorter or Will Saletan.

I am a frequent vistor to Sailer's site. I find his fact based writtings to be very informative and persuasive.

I am not a frequent visitor to Sailer's site but I have read some great pieces by him. His articles possess an amount of provocation that would be celebrated by the left if they leaned that way, but they are always backed with facts that the left usually ignore, like his column on interracial marriage which was attacked as racist when it was anything but. In some ways he reminds me of Larry Summers when LS presented facts on female scientists and asked for answers.....hounded for even asking a question.

And he just may be the world record holder for being quoted out of context.

Imagine if Sailer had written:

"I'm very happy to see a roomful of white and asian kids being as brilliant as they can be, without black or latino people within 50 miles."

I'm sure the people who consider him a racist would add this to the list of supposed SS racist rants.

I would love to hear John and Steve do a BH discussion but I doubt it would ever come about. The amount of hate directed at Sailer by those wishing to marginalize him is extrordinary and it would take a huge amount of intellectual honesty to allow him here.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-29-2009, 11:03 AM
Username
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: And You Know That We're Ideal (Farai Chideya & John McWhorter)

It's unworthy of McWhorter to misrepresent Sailer, but what makes this dialogue so comically dumb is that Farai shows up completely unprepared to say anything substantive about Sotomayor (she's earthy and vibrant!--and she sounds very articulate, no doubt) and hasn't even read the postcard-sized opinion on Ricci which was a blatant punt. McWhorter (who is very unreliable) actually gets to the crux of the matter--pro or con, this is an issue that demands further discussion before the judges decide to manufacture an outcome that pleases them, and Sotomayor was fine with giving it the affirmative action rubber stamp.

The most likely explanation by far is that she did it to preserve her career path to the Supreme Court, i.e. it was a craven political calculation.

The strikingly dingy Farai also seems to forget that we already have a justice on the court with an admirable, up-from-poverty background: Clarence Thomas. But I understand that he doesn't think correctly on the issues so...

And by the way, having read the full "wise Latina woman" speech, I can say it is one of the worst examples of identity politics in action that I can imagine an appellate court judge giving. The bulk of the speech is a huge whine about the lack of Hispanic judges, with much of the remainder a focus on "how can white men understand our pain"...terrible speech and stomach curdling to see it defended by mindless partisanship (from those who can't be bothered to read it to boot).

Last edited by Username; 05-29-2009 at 11:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-29-2009, 11:20 AM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Defending the Powerless

John asked about whether Sotomayor would ever side with power over the disenfranchised: the answer "yes"

She was instrumental in overturning a case, decided by jury, that awarded damages to a victim of a police officer's abuse of power. (jocks vs. tavierner)

The real question about sotomayor is whether she would ever stand-up for the disenfranchised. I have not seen any evidence that she would - outside of explicitly race-based cases.

EDIT:
http://www.doublex.com/section/news-...yor-sides-cops

link to an article about this decision

Last edited by popcorn_karate; 05-29-2009 at 12:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-29-2009, 11:29 AM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: John, you might want to read the decision first

What John can't do is read Sotomayor's mind. It will be interesting if she addresses or evades this in her confirmation hearing. John's concerns about the validity of test taking are still in play though. New Haven threw out the tests due to Title VII. And as Farai mentioned regarding "testing the test" generally, I hope that the issue will be litigated or examined in the Supreme Court ruling. We may never know or be entitled to a complete understanding of Sotomayor's position on Ricci or test taking particularly:

Quote:
The district court judge who heard Ricci's case ruled against him and his fellow plaintiffs. They appealed to the 2nd Circuit, the court on which Judge Sotomayor sits. In an unusual short and unsigned opinion, a panel of three judges, including Sotomayor, adopted the district court judge's ruling without adding their own analysis. As Judge Jose Cabranes put it, in protesting this ruling later in the appeals process, "Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. … This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."
http://www.slate.com/id/2219037/
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/sotomay...ect/#more-9634

Last edited by graz; 05-29-2009 at 11:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-29-2009, 11:34 AM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post

"I'm very happy to see a roomful of white and asian kids being as brilliant as they can be, without black or latino people within 50 miles."

I'm sure the people who consider him a racist would add this to the list of supposed SS racist rants.
\
This is has got to be the most obtuse line yet - parrotted, as always, by Gingirch, Harkin et al. - against Sottamayor. (The whole "imagine if a white male" had said that malarkey.) The comments (i.e. the remark about a "Latina woman with the depth of her experience" etc.) would be normatively different if a white male had made them. Consider the historical and structural disadvantages that minorities have sufferred in this country! A white male making similar comments would be a case of the advantaged kicking the disadvantaged, which is objectively different than what is happening here. Moreover, Sottomayor was clearly not making a "racial" point; she was making a socio-economic, and experiential point; that people's life experiences lead them to different perspectives. What could possibly be "racist" about that?

Then again, the idea that Newt Ginrich (Redneck-Georgia) is crying "racism!" is so risible as to light up my day.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-29-2009, 11:37 AM
x9#z6 x9#z6 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 27
Default Re: oh come on!

The only thing embarrassing is the posting of retard comments like this.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-29-2009, 11:40 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Defending the Powerless

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
John asked about whether Sotomayor would ever side with power over the disenfranchised: the answer "yes"

She was instrumental in overturning a case, decided by jury, that awarded damages to a victim of a police officer's abuse of power. (jocks vs. tavierner)

The real question about sotomayor is whether she would ever stand-up for the disenfranchised. I have not seen any evidence that she would - outside of explicitly race-based cases.
The real question for the republican minority is will she make the law rather than interpret it. Instead of worrying the minority so, just let them go free. Dismantle the federal system. Allow the states individually to establish laws which set the racial composition of local fire depts.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-29-2009, 12:10 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

Nikki,

her statement was racist and sexist. how can you even question that? she stated that

"a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male"

if its too hard for you to do yourself, i will go ahead and do the word substitution for you to see how the statement reads using different racial/sexual signifiers:

"a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina woman"

obviously, the second statement would disqualify anyone from a supreme court nomination. so why the double standard?

do two wrongs make a right?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-29-2009, 12:21 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

Just for context, here is a bigger picture. Apologies to nikkibong for bringing Sullivan in:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...n-context.html
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-29-2009, 12:25 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Thank you Farai - Great Job

I really enjoyed this BHTV. And I wanted to agree with John on Stotomayer, I read her opinion on Ricci and its quite brief. The dissent slices and dices her.

And "professional Racists" are really a nonfactor - the idea of purging or hiding data so as not to give them "ammunition" is not just stupid - its rather creepy. But that kind of thinking is typical of the left. The ends always justify the means.

As for having Sailor on BHTV, by engaging him in discussion and exposing him, Sailor's arguments could be destroyed. It could be a interesting discussion - if tightly controlled and conducted in a polite, professional manner.

But it will never happen - Bob would never allow it. Given his obsessive hatred of Ann Coulter - you can imagine his feeling toward Sailor.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-29-2009, 12:32 PM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

I think, first, that Sottamayor was clumsily attempting to make a socio-economic and experiential point; she was not claiming that there is something essential to "ethnic" Latinas that makes them wiser than "ethnic" Whites. (Whatever "white" means; the collapsing of all "white" ethnicities is an extremely recent development.)

But, more than that, I would say that while you and Gingrich's counter-example would indeed be objectively racist in the same way Sottamayor's statement is, I would say that we live in a world of moral grey areas. Because of the historical advantages that "white" males have traditionally enjoyed, there is something normatively worse about white racism directed at blacks and Latinos than the reverse. So the counter-example really doesn't mean anything in a moral sense.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-29-2009, 12:44 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

so you either think

a) two wrongs make a right, or

b) it is simply not wrong to be sexist against males or racist against whites.

I think A and B are both objectionable. I concede that the moral force would be greater in the reverse situation given the history, but I think those of us on the left should also step-up and acknowledge that this type of speech is offensive and wrong coming from people of any gender or race.

I don't think this should disqualify her, but i really see a lack of intellectual honesty when left-ish people give her a complete pass on this statement and refuse to engage with
those that are offended by it.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-29-2009, 12:51 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

the context helps, a bit...

if she had said "different decisions", I would have no qualms about her statement at all, but any time you have someone saying their race makes them superior - I get pissed. its pretty damn simple to me.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-29-2009, 01:03 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
the context helps, a bit...

if she had said "different decisions", I would have no qualms about her statement at all, but any time you have someone saying their race makes them superior - I get pissed. its pretty damn simple to me.
If you take her words literally they are damning. How else does one take words? Well, contextually. The phrasing attracts the criticism, but the underlying sentiment may be true. It seems, as nikkibong stated, a simple experiential point and not "Latina Power" and superiority to the exclusion of others point. Obviously not everyone agrees with this interpretation, case in point:The White guy's lament, but it doesn't seem overly generous.

Last edited by graz; 05-29-2009 at 01:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-29-2009, 01:55 PM
osmium osmium is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: new yorkistan
Posts: 708
Default Hi Farai

Very happy to see Farai here. I was a fan of News and Notes, and very sad to see it go. Long live BhTV.

Education: The only advantage I believe I ever had is that I came from a quiet house, with pictures on the walls, and books on shelves. After that, tests didn't seem to matter very much.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-29-2009, 02:04 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

Sob, sob. The poor White Man gets no respect in this country. (gag). Anybody who starts off in poverty and makes it to the Supreme Court has an admirable story. But in the case of minorities, they also had to deal with legal and unspoken obstacles specifically based on their ethnicity, gender, etc. This does not diminish the achievement of the white male who puts himself through college and succeeds in his field and raises a healthy family...like my dad. But it also doesn't make his story exactly the same as Sotomayor's, Barrack Obama's or anyone else who also had the color thing going against them in less tolerant times.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-29-2009, 02:07 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: John, you might want to read the decision first

Quote:
The question, then, was "did New Haven have a sufficient reason to do what it did, given existing law and precedent.
So it sounds like she basically did her job. Outrageous! Liberal activism! Reverse Racism! Hear my fauxtrage!!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-29-2009, 02:25 PM
pampl pampl is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 750
Default Re: Thank you Farai - Great Job

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcocean View Post
And "professional Racists" are really a nonfactor - the idea of purging or hiding data so as not to give them "ammunition" is not just stupid - its rather creepy. But that kind of thinking is typical of the left.
I don't read all the blogosphere, so maybe I missed typical left thinkers advocating that, but with regards to Saletan it's impossible to call his arguments "typical of the left". Most of his blog entries criticize pro-choice positions, reproduction-related science and technology, and the assumption of sexual and racial equality. It's like citing Christopher Hitchens or TNR as examples of how liberals think.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-29-2009, 02:37 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Thank you Farai - Great Job

Quote:
Originally Posted by pampl View Post
I don't read all the blogosphere, so maybe I missed typical left thinkers advocating that, but with regards to Saletan it's impossible to call his arguments "typical of the left". Most of his blog entries criticize pro-choice positions, reproduction-related science and technology, and the assumption of sexual and racial equality. It's like citing Christopher Hitchens or TNR as examples of how liberals think.
I don't think Saletan is a bigot or a complete idiot, but he often checks himself so hard that he might as well be. He's the epitome of the TNR/Slate cutesy contrarian. Last year or so he reached a new low, equating anti-racism with creationism. Really! That is way too fucking cute. He took all back eventually when it was pointed out to him that all of his scientific evidence came from racists. Ezra Klein had a good take on it.

OK, maybe Saletan is a complete idiot. Anyway, if he's on the left's team he's a shitty team player.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-29-2009, 02:48 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Thank you Farai - Great Job

Quote:
Originally Posted by claymisher View Post
I don't think Saletan is a bigot or a complete idiot, but he often checks himself so hard that he might as well be. He's the epitome of the TNR/Slate cutesy contrarian.
Indeed. Read, for a good example, how a real lefty -- Doghouse Riley -- views Saletan's latest piece of nonsense on the abortion issue. The nut:

Quote:
... facile dishonesty masquerading as the point of view of anyone who's being reasonable.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-29-2009, 03:33 PM
Username
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer View Post
Sob, sob. The poor White Man gets no respect in this country. (gag).
there you have it, the sneer of the identity politician

a dyslexic like Ricci who worked his ass off to do well on the test? privileged white male! not a member of the right ethnic group! back of the line with you, swine!

contemptible, really, and as Sailer points out the status signaling couldn't be more obvious
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-29-2009, 03:41 PM
JoeK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Defending the Powerless

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
The real question for the republican minority is will she make the law rather than interpret it. Instead of worrying the minority so, just let them go free. Dismantle the federal system. Allow the states individually to establish laws which set the racial composition of local fire depts.
Hi Steve, when you insist on calling republican voters a minority, you go against Limbaugh's advice stated in his renown speech you can find here: Because we're not a minority. (...) But the main thing to do here is stop thinking that we are a minority.
I guess that makes you a conservative dissident. Which is fine with me as long you don't cross the line, which you haven't. But predicting permanent liberal majority is much too early. Democrat regime turned too many principles Americans hold dear on its head. Are Democrats going to make socialist economics work? Everyone else failed. Why would it be different this time around? Can racist policies that target racial majority last in a majority-rule democratic system? Can mass media survive once they lost credibility in population, since they abandoned all pretenses of fairness and neutrality? You think situation where TV anchors are shouting obscenities at American people is stable? It's unheard of. Or bunch of of fags humiliating a prom queen, rather than the other way around?
It is not going to last.

Last edited by JoeK; 05-29-2009 at 03:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-29-2009, 04:13 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

I'm not sure President Barack Obama ever really experienced racial intolerance. I think people have been wanting him to succeed since day one of his existence, especially white people.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-29-2009, 04:19 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default I Like The Sotomayor Pick

I'm not a fan of identity politics, but we do live in America so what can you really do about it?

She seems like a strong-willed, fire-breather of a judge. Good. The Supreme Court needs strong minds, conservative or liberal on the court. She'll probably be wrong on some issues and she'll probably write some obtuse opinions, but that is how it goes with the Supreme Court. If she really is a gender-centric/race-centric liberal, her views will be discredited in the long run. What is interesting is that she seems to have some legal views that will end up allying her to the conservatives on the court on certain issues (abortion and federalism). Totally interesting choice by President Obama. I don't see her confirmation being stopped. Republicans don't seem to be wanting to stop her either.

Last edited by Lyle; 05-29-2009 at 04:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-29-2009, 04:21 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Hi Farai

Quote:
Originally Posted by osmium View Post
Education: The only advantage I believe I ever had is that I came from a quiet house, with pictures on the walls, and books on shelves. After that, tests didn't seem to matter very much.
Lovely point.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-29-2009, 04:27 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Will Steve Sailer be given chance to defend himself?

nice! content free fauxtrage and knee-jerk hyperbole! you're right up there with rush limbaugh in intellectual capacity in this post, uncle eb.

try reading what i wrote (you may notice that i said nothing like what you made fun of) and then respond.

Imagine that a well-intentioned person was trying to have a conversation with you about actual events and ideas and respond to that instead of to the fox news clip you have running in your head.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-29-2009, 04:29 PM
JoeK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Hi Farai

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
Lovely point.
It's a conventional point of view and it has been proven wrong many times over by behavioral genetics.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-29-2009, 04:33 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Hi Farai

So better to grow up in a rowdy house with no books?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-29-2009, 04:35 PM
JoeK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Hi Farai

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
So better to grow up in a rowdy house with no books?
No. No better, no worse. The same.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-29-2009, 04:36 PM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Defending the Powerless

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeK View Post
Hi Steve, when you insist on calling republican voters a minority, you go against Limbaugh's advice stated in his renown speech you can find here: Because we're not a minority. (...) But the main thing to do here is stop thinking that we are a minority.
I guess that makes you a conservative dissident. Which is fine with me as long you don't cross the line, which you haven't. But predicting permanent liberal majority is much too early.
what is the line you refer to?

Even the mightiest of republicans cannot make the country well again from the massive debt and decimated industrial sector that this democrat regime will leave in its wake. The population is afraid and unsure of all economic systems. They likely can be convinced that what the democrats offer is not working, but I dont see the huge population of retiring boomers embracing entrepenurial capitalism.

And even if republicans are able to convince the majority that free market captialism is the true way and are able to get the country back on its feet ... it is only a matter of time before the pendulum of power swings left again. People dont want to argue across the partisan divide for eternity. Better to undo the federal system and allow the states to function independently.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.