Posted on 11/21/2012 5:57:01 PM PST by neverdem
Those (few) nominal, temporary members of the 47% who would have preferred to be fully self sufficient probably did not find Romney's comment insulting or threatening, because THEY DON"T IDENTIFY WITH THE 47%. They probably heard Romney and said "Exactly right!"
As for Rush's comments about Fluke, they are taken out of context here. As usual. In the same little rant Rush referred to himself and his audience as pimps and johns. Were those intended as serious insults? No? So "slut" was dead serious, but those others insults were just jokes? Hokay. I have had it with people who work so hard to misunderstand Limbaugh's humor. Screw 'em.
More nro Yankee what culture war jackass preening bullshit
Needs lotsa rope...hemp...only the best for quislings
Is that mean and nasty enough Jimmy. Boy....you wobbler sorry excuse for a man
Geraghty happens to be one of my least favorite pundits out there, but I’ll join you in agreeing that he actually has a point with all of his examples.
It is fine IMO to point out that Dem policies are intended to buy votes. To say that that’s why a majority of the electorate or large majorities of racial subgroups voted for Obama rather than Romney is indeed needlessly insulting those whose votes the GOP needs to win elections. It isn’t actually accurate about a number of Obama voters (e.g., any of the liberals in my family) and in Romney’s case it was a weak attempt to shift blame rather than accept the failings of his candidacy.
Rush does have a huge blind spot re: women, where he often and needlessly insults them and betrays his poor understanding of their priorities and motivations. His crude Fluke insults were a huge gift to Obama, as they reinforced suspicions that many women have about the GOP. Likewise, Akin and Mourdock.
Likewise for the idiot circulating the ‘Magic Negro’ parody at a conservative conference—and the idiot actually thought he should represent Republicans nationally?
I’m more than happy to see the argument made publicly that Islam is not simply a harmless ‘great religion’ and that its confluence with a primitive totalitarian political system means we must deal with it differently than such. But the needless use of the term ‘raghead’ immediately turns off those who might be willing to listen to the argument were it not stated so insultingly.
Finally, if I were gay and I happened upon one of too many threads here at FR discussing gay issues, for example, I would see too many posts from those vilely insulting all gays to want to consider further affinities in political philosophy.
It is IMO stupid (and unChristian) for our side to so often callously dismiss or outright insult groups whose votes we hope and need to attract at election time.
.
And there he is subtly, but damnably, WRONG. In a Chestertonian sense, he has a perfect circle, but his circle is not large enough.
Under our system, power comes from the consent of the governed. And if someone convinces the governed that what they want is other people's money (largesse), then those people will cede power to the government in exchange for the other people's money (and partly as a balm for a rejected conscience, and to escape temporal effects of their dysfunction which might force them to pay heed to their conscience).
So Rush *WAS* right: we need to re-instill shame in order that the lust and greed of the masses does not trade away our freedom for their desires.
Cheers!
But bless your heart honey child, I just can't understand it for you.
You have a nice Thanksgiving now.
The claim was that receiving funds from a specific source makes you into a door mat for that source ~ that you will worship the source like a god.
Obviously there's more to humanity than simple economic motivation ~ food in ~ worship ~ food out ~ don't worship.
Seriously, don't you think about what you do with this Marxian claptrap?
That doesn't necessarily mean it's OK to insult the gay people ~ but it does mean it really isn't necessary to even think about them ~
I’ll take your point about not needing to insult gays as fair enough, but it is more than the actual population of gays that is and would be put off by a political party that is insulting to them.
(And no, that doesn’t mean we have to change our political positions for them—just be respectful in our disagreements.)
At the core of the misguided articles by people like Geraghty (whose columns I usually like) is the assumption that if the GOP just plays nice with people who won’t vote them no matter how nice the Pubbies are, they’ll start voting for the GOP in record numbers. What does Geraghty want...the GOP to turn into Dem lite? We’ll never beat the Dems in pandering. The parasites (oh my, isn’t that a nasty, divisive statement) will always go for the genuine champions of pandering, the Dem Party. Might as well speak the truth to the parasites and retain a little honor.
Oh, and you’re daft if you think only one third of one percent of our population is gay.
Guess who ALWAYS responds ~ particularly if they have caller ID, and who doesn't these days, and the polling company is known to be asking 'that question'.
Yup, yup, yup ~ if you respond at 11X the normal or average rate of any other population, and you get 3.54% that means the reality is 1/11 of that.
1/3 of 1% is a sufficiently low enough number to demonstrate why gays need to get involved in so much advertising. It's difficult to get dates eh!
That is a sorry excuse for logic.
Getting people to change their minds is a long term sort of thing not well handled in a single political campaign.
Jim what are teabagger, repukes, and Faux News? There are more terms liberals use but not suitable for this message board. Hows that for ‘mean’?
It's very easy for a small, but otherwise dedicated, special interest group to AMPLIFY its voice 11 fold simply by answering the phone (or doing the call back thing ~ which they all offer these days).
Then there are 'the rich' who have more than one phone number. The typical robo-poll random dialer will necessarily contact them at least twice as much as those with only one phone number.
That's gotta' distort the results doesn't it ~ maybe even show Romney leading Obama by 5%?
All these polls have to be counseled with outside information else they are very misleading. Currently, due to the very low 9% response rate they are so misleading as to be useless.
BTW, 40 years in the printing and mailing industry leads me to believe it's about 1/3 of 1% TOPS! Lots and lots of gay guys there ~ due to visibility, public contact, and the toleration of management into artistic sorts of things themselves.
That's outside information used to counsel Gallup's poll asing 'that question' ~ they should have known better ~ seriously!
I am staying in the Stupid Party so I can vote for the most right winger in the primaries. I feel I can do more damage that way.
We have a way to deal with the tax thing. Simply allow a family (defined any way you wish it, but no more than one mommy/daddy pairing) to add up all it's income and divide that by the number of people in the family!
A family of four (2 adults, 2 chillun) would then pay at the single rate for each individual.
Right off that bat that'd give 100% of the working poor a total exemption from federal, and most state, income taxes!
That'd be about 60%. A family with 23 children, would divide by 25. They could earn a half million bucks before being tapped.
But that would end the gay agitation for gay marriage.
The Democrats would oppose that on general principles ~ they lub' dem taxes Fo Sho!
Registered independents would have no political play at all in my sort of primaries.
Well said.
To a liberal “mean” means “you are not doing what I want you to do and thinking what I want you to think.”
Truth that they don’t want to hear is “mean” or worse yet, racist. Saying that some people have children in order to increase their welfare check is taboo, because it is true, but “mean.
Conservatives are “mean” because they want voter ID to guarantee one vote per eligible voter. But it’s ok for liberals to vote twice, to tamper with voting machines, to manufacture votes which steal elections, or to vote when they aren’t citizens.
Conservatives are “mean” because they want to run business for profit. But it’s not “mean” or “stealing” to take money away from productive, hard-working citizens and give massive amounts of it to favored, already-rich liberals who create pseudo-companies like Solyndra which are just a cover for rewarding Dem donors with tax dollars.
Fluke’s a dude anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.