America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by delta1. 201 replies replies.
5 Pages<12345>
The peaceful left (thanks Maxine)...
ZRX1200 Offline
#101 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,473
The new brownshirts.
HuckFinn Offline
#102 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
ZRX1200 wrote:
The new brownshirts.

Thought you liked it in the brown Z.
HuckFinn Offline
#103 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
The latest Kanye West tweet to spark a storm of opposition is his hot take that Republicans are actually the party of social justice, because Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, “freed and protected the slaves.” Or at least that’s what an unspecified “Steve” said (Kanye only shared this as a text from this Enlightened Woke Steve). It’s got people particularly up in arms because it's the shtick you’ll hear from the sort of right wing cranks Kanye has been thirst-friending lately.

Yes, Lincoln was indeed a Republican, and he did indeed pass the 13th Amendment in 1865, which (in terms of the Constitution, at least) abolished slavery in America. In the century and a half years since, though, an awful lot has changed. Here’s the (very simplified) story of how the Republicans and Democrats switched places over the years.

pic.twitter.com/EJ2KN6O20q

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) April 30, 2018
Think of it this way -- the Republicans have always been the party of big business; the interests of big business-minded voters are what’s shifted over the years.

In Lincoln’s time, the Republican party was a very new party. In fact, he was only the party’s second Presidential candidate, and its first to win, in 1860. His voters mostly came from Northern states, which were far wealthier and more tied to urban manufacturing than the poorer, agriculture (in other words, slave)-reliant South. It’s around the time a Democratic congressman nearly beat a Republican Senator to death with his cane, in the actual Senate chamber, over slavery. There were plenty of Republican abolitionists who were deeply morally opposed to slavery, but there were also plenty (probably a lot more) who mostly just wanted a booming, modern, international economy, which slavery would’ve held back.

President-elect Donald Trump and Kanye West pose for a picture in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York City on, Dec. 13, 2016.
READ MORE
Kanye West Doubles Down on Pres. Trump Support: 'He Is My Brother'
So when did things start to change? When Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat from New York, instituted the New Deal to fight the Great Depression in the 1930s, the parties shifted in a big way. The Democratic Party (previously champions of “limited government”) were now supporting a movement marked by mass job creation, checks on big business, and overall workers’ rights. Those are all (very essential) “big government” sorts of things, which shook the Democrats from their roots.

In the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy, a Democrat from Massachusetts, wanted to pass sweeping civil rights legislation (again, “big government”), including the end of segregation in the South. After his assassination, Lyndon Johnson (himself a Southern Democrat) got the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964. This was essentially the final nail in the coffin; the majority of white Southerners -- resistant to the changes enacted by the Civil Rights Act -- abandoned the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party, establishing a link between big business favoritism and backwoods racism that endures to this day.

HuckFinn Offline
#104 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
tailgater wrote:
So you get to decide that a politician is toxic, and therefore you act out on those who voted for him/her?

That's a pathetic interpretation of civic duty.




Of course I and others get to decide. That's our first amendment right and is our civic duty.

I see our democracy dissolving...slowly.....the way democracies devolve in to dictatorships.
(see Fascism, the 3rd Reich)

Trump lost the popular vote by over 3 million votes. So there are a bunch of us. So you don't agree with the left. That doesn't negate our serious concerns. No apologies.

Again, because I said it before , I'm not condoning antifa's or anyones choosing violence.

But overwhelmingly it's been the right that's acted on their violent racist and xenophobic tendencies, for decades. For some humans, it's human nature to boil over.

Maybe some hotheads on the left have given up trying to reason and now think violence is the only language some on the right understand and respect.
frankj1 Offline
#105 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
dstieger wrote:
Concur wholeheartedly....but, if that sentiment ever takes hold, it'd eliminate 90% of the material from every 'news' outlet in the country....just can't relate the 'news' without holding up the fringes as representative of the evil other side

truth in jest is very real!
you are totally correct.
delta1 Offline
#106 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
#103 ^ I've been trying to educate our con brethren here about party platform changes over the centuries, but they don't want to know about history or to look anything up...they blithely repeat the Faux News/Trump Media propaganda and take credit for their glorious history of freeing the slaves. This is comfortable and convenient, giving cover to values they hold that are contrary to these historical "claims."

Today's GOP is nothing like it was 150 years ago. Several platform changes have occurred since then. At the time of Lincoln, Reps were known as progressives, dominating the North. The plantation owning slave owners were Dems, conservative businessmen. Their descendants were known as Southern Dems...George Wallace is a great example...espousing segregation and viral opposition to the civil rights movement. Eventually they got fed up with the progressives in the mainstream Dem Party and switched to the GOP. (As simple as I can make it)

Speyside Offline
#107 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
But Hillary said.
HuckFinn Offline
#108 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
delta1 wrote:
#103 ^ I've been trying to educate our con brethren here about party platform changes over the centuries,

Wait, how long have you been here?


but they don't want to know about history or to look anything up...they blithely repeat the Faux News/Trump Media propaganda and take credit for their glorious history of freeing the slaves. This is comfortable and convenient, giving cover to values they hold that are contrary to these historical "claims."

Astute, imo.

Today's GOP is nothing like it was 150 years ago. Several platform changes have occurred since then. At the time of Lincoln, Reps were known as progressives, dominating the North. The plantation owning slave owners were Dems, conservative businessmen. Their descendants were known as Southern Dems...George Wallace is a great example...espousing segregation and viral opposition to the civil rights movement. Eventually they got fed up with the progressives in the mainstream Dem Party and switched to the GOP. (As simple as I can make it)

delta1 Offline
#109 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
haha...lol...that was not artfully worded..."centuries" refer to the time period during which the two parties have switched platforms, not how long I've been here trying to inform those resistant to truth...

it's like youthful Dodgers fans who have no idea that the team originated in Brooklyn(New York), a place most SoCal youngsters find disgusting...
frankj1 Offline
#110 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
delta1 wrote:
#103 ^ I've been trying to educate our con brethren here about party platform changes over the centuries, but they don't want to know about history or to look anything up...they blithely repeat the Faux News/Trump Media propaganda and take credit for their glorious history of freeing the slaves. This is comfortable and convenient, giving cover to values they hold that are contrary to these historical "claims."

Today's GOP is nothing like it was 150 years ago. Several platform changes have occurred since then. At the time of Lincoln, Reps were known as progressives, dominating the North. The plantation owning slave owners were Dems, conservative businessmen. Their descendants were known as Southern Dems...George Wallace is a great example...espousing segregation and viral opposition to the civil rights movement. Eventually they got fed up with the progressives in the mainstream Dem Party and switched to the GOP. (As simple as I can make it)


last Sunday Boston Globe (conservative) columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote a nice piece about a speech by Hubert Humphrey when he was the mayor of Minneapolis. It was feared it may cost Truman the election to the favored Dewey, because it refused to just nod toward equal rights/civil rights that would have been part of the Dem Platform...pretty much was the last straw that pushed the massive exit of Southern Democrats to join the GOP.

Southern Democrats were to The Democratic Party something like the Teabagger Party was to the GOP recently, initially a controlling subset within a larger group that eventually lost control to the larger mainstream Dems. The issue had been festering for decades but young Humphrey faced political suicide and did what he felt was overdue.

The Southern Dems found acceptance in the GOP of modern times.
tailgater Offline
#111 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Jeff Jacoby may be as "conservative" as the Globe can get, but he's still left of center.
Not a bad writer. But he knows his real audience.
usafvet509 Offline
#112 Posted:
Joined: 09-08-2015
Posts: 140
Again with the "popular vote" moneyshot. And how.mamy dead/illegal people were included in that 3 million load? And for another thing, turbo, The US is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not a gawddamn democracy. Out*****ingstanding comprehension, skippy.
usafvet509 Offline
#113 Posted:
Joined: 09-08-2015
Posts: 140
And yet, YOU have the audacity to think you're "trying to educate" anybody...
teedubbya Offline
#114 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
The southern strategy is FAKE NEWS

DrafterX Offline
#115 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,506
Southern man don't need you around anyhow... Not talking
HuckFinn Offline
#116 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
usafvet509 wrote:
Again with the "popular vote" moneyshot. And how.mamy dead/illegal people were included in that 3 million load? And for another thing, turbo, The US is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not a gawddamn democracy. Out*****ingstanding comprehension, skippy.


Seems, around 30.

"The partisan battle lines are firmly drawn. Trump claims he wouldn’t have lost to Clinton if not for "millions of people who voted illegally." Though nobody says U.S. elections are completely immune from improper voting, widespread fraud at the scale Trump has suggested lacks substantiation. A report by the Brennan Center for Justice, analyzing information from jurisdictions with the highest populations of non-citizens, found that of 23.5 million votes cast, election officials referred about 30 incidents of suspected non-citizen voting for investigation or prosecution. The Heritage Foundation, which considers voting fraud a more serious problem, has counted 848 criminal convictions for voting fraud from the 1980s to present.

6. Where do Trump’s allegations come from?
The notion that 3 million or more votes were cast by non-citizens was put forth a week after the November 2016 election in Twitter posts by Gregg Phillips, a conservative activist who was little-known until Trump tweeted his claim. Phillips hasn’t produced any evidence to back it up. Trump and his first press secretary, Sean Spicer, also cited a 2014 study published in the journal Electoral Studies and a 2012 report by the Pew Center on the States. But authors of both reports challenged how the Trump White House presented their findings.

7. Why did the commission answer to Trump personally?
Unlike, say, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (an independent government office that Republicans would like to close), or the 9/11 Commission (created and appointed jointly by President George W. Bush and Congress), the voter-integrity commission was created by Trump in a May 11 executive order. Trump appointed all 12 members.

8. Was the commission viewed as credible?

Not in some quarters. Some of Trump’s appointees "have a record of making exaggerated and/or baseless claims about voter fraud, and/or have implemented or supported policies that have unlawfully disenfranchised voters," the ACLU said in a lawsuit. Kobach introduced new citizenship-documentation requirements for Kansans wishing to register to vote. Other members of the committee include Hans von Spakovsky, a longtime advocate for stricter voter identification laws, and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio Secretary of State, who drew criticism in 2004 for rejecting votes made on paper he said was not the correct weight.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-04/why-trump-s-hunt-for-fake-votes-ended-in-whimper-quicktake-q-a

***************************************************************************
Regarding constitutional republic vs democracy:

Excerpt from;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0812e4b0223d

"I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.” But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted.

Yeah, so listen, if you think I'm here trying to educate people, that's YOU projecting dude.
I'm just having fun. Educating? never crossed my mind. Just typing here.

And if you think repeating "3,000,000 votes" is more of the tired bs from the left then you'll have to concede that 'lock her up' and 'build that wall', still getting air time, are deeply embedded, through repetition, in lots of folks' heads out there.....

You sound like a Tea Party Patriot. Right?

Anyway, relax! Damn!
opelmanta1900 Offline
#117 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
HuckFinn wrote:
Seems, around 30.

"The partisan battle lines are firmly drawn. Trump claims he wouldn’t have lost to Clinton if not for "millions of people who voted illegally." Though nobody says U.S. elections are completely immune from improper voting, widespread fraud at the scale Trump has suggested lacks substantiation. A report by the Brennan Center for Justice, analyzing information from jurisdictions with the highest populations of non-citizens, found that of 23.5 million votes cast, election officials referred about 30 incidents of suspected non-citizen voting for investigation or prosecution. The Heritage Foundation, which considers voting fraud a more serious problem, has counted 848 criminal convictions for voting fraud from the 1980s to present.

6. Where do Trump’s allegations come from?
The notion that 3 million or more votes were cast by non-citizens was put forth a week after the November 2016 election in Twitter posts by Gregg Phillips, a conservative activist who was little-known until Trump tweeted his claim. Phillips hasn’t produced any evidence to back it up. Trump and his first press secretary, Sean Spicer, also cited a 2014 study published in the journal Electoral Studies and a 2012 report by the Pew Center on the States. But authors of both reports challenged how the Trump White House presented their findings.

7. Why did the commission answer to Trump personally?
Unlike, say, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (an independent government office that Republicans would like to close), or the 9/11 Commission (created and appointed jointly by President George W. Bush and Congress), the voter-integrity commission was created by Trump in a May 11 executive order. Trump appointed all 12 members.

8. Was the commission viewed as credible?

Not in some quarters. Some of Trump’s appointees "have a record of making exaggerated and/or baseless claims about voter fraud, and/or have implemented or supported policies that have unlawfully disenfranchised voters," the ACLU said in a lawsuit. Kobach introduced new citizenship-documentation requirements for Kansans wishing to register to vote. Other members of the committee include Hans von Spakovsky, a longtime advocate for stricter voter identification laws, and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio Secretary of State, who drew criticism in 2004 for rejecting votes made on paper he said was not the correct weight.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-04/why-trump-s-hunt-for-fake-votes-ended-in-whimper-quicktake-q-a

***************************************************************************
Regarding constitutional republic vs democracy:

Excerpt from;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0812e4b0223d

"I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.” But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted.

Yeah, so listen, if you think I'm here trying to educate people, that's YOU projecting dude.
I'm just having fun. Educating? never crossed my mind. Just typing here.

And if you think repeating "3,000,000 votes" is more of the tired bs from the left then you'll have to concede that 'lock her up' and 'build that wall', still getting air time, are deeply embedded, through repetition, in lots of folks' heads out there.....

You sound like a Tea Party Patriot. Right?

Anyway, relax! Damn!


huckCNN with more fake news... as Ive said on here before, I personally know of an old latina woman who fills in all her grandkids mail in ballots... thats about 30 illegall votes right there...
bgz Offline
#118 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Do they all live in the same house?
opelmanta1900 Offline
#119 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
no, she makes the grandkids bring her the ballots... they're super americanized... she just doesn't trust the grandkids to vote the way she wants...
victor809 Offline
#120 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Not to point out the obvious.... But that's not the sort of "cheating" that is being alleged...

Technically that's not an illegal vote.... That's still 1 vote per eligible person... Those eligible people just chose to give their choice to their grandmother. While an irritating willingness to give up their voice,that is significantly different than the accused "illegals voting" or " dead people voting"...

At the end it isn't significantly different than a church telling it's parishioners exactly who to vote for... She's telling her grandkids who to vote for... And then making sure it happens....
bgz Offline
#121 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Yes, it's illegal:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-voterfraudcases.pdf

FRAUDULENT USE OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS: Requesting
absentee ballots and voting without the knowledge of the actual
voter; or obtaining the absentee ballot from a voter and either filling
it in directly and forging the voter’s signature or illegally telling the
voter who to vote for.
RMAN4443 Offline
#122 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
HuckFinn wrote:
Seems, around 30.

"The partisan battle lines are firmly drawn. Trump claims he wouldn’t have lost to Clinton if not for "millions of people who voted illegally."

If I remember correctly, Trump didn't lose....Think
victor809 Offline
#123 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Bgz... I was unfortunately imprecise in my wording.
When I said "that's not an illegal vote", I am trying o express that no votes are being added which don't belong to citizens of voting age... It isn't a dead vote... It isn't an illegal alien voting... These are what the right has been crying about for years, pretending that it's significant.

While illegal, giving your legitimate vote to someone else of your own free will is not that troubling to me. Probably happens between husbands and wives frequently...
frankj1 Offline
#124 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:
Jeff Jacoby may be as "conservative" as the Globe can get, but he's still left of center.
Not a bad writer. But he knows his real audience.

you have mentioned this opinion of him before, but I think it's just too easy to say because it makes sense in these parts (like Saying Gov Baker wouldn't be GOP in other states) but I feel it is intellectually lazy. Being in Boston, employed by the Globe, etc. is circumstantial evidence at best.

Because he gives thought to issues individually, rather than checking the playbook for conservative dogma, actually gives him more credibility as a free thinking columnist who is not bullied into being a right wing shill...

But refusing to get in line does not a liberal make. The article on young Mayor Humphrey was something any correct thinking American should have wished they wrote, but very few on the right side of the aisle would have had the guts.

One does not get awards from Libertarian law firms et al for being a fence straddler, and certainly not for being a moderately left of center editorial writer.

Not trying to change your mind, just think you may have not read enough of his work.
delta1 Offline
#125 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
My mother-in-law always mailed in absentee ballots for her two kids, when they were younger...she was a Republican...I think this happens a lot, but is not the kind of illegal voting that the cons believe is changing the outcome of elections. That claim is that non-citizens, or citizens not properly registered are voting.

Trump is pretty sure that illegal voting happened, which resulted in his popular vote deficit of 3 million votes to Hillary, and that most of those illegal votes were cast by non-citizens. He authorized a Commission of voting experts from several states to investigate this election fraud...which looked long and hard, but found no evidence of that occurring.



Apologies if my statement about trying to "educate people here" offended anyone...I acknowledge that many here are comfortable in their world full of alternative facts and do not hesitate displaying or repeating these alternative facts. I do not apologize for responding with actual facts. I shall refrain from labeling this practice "education."
DrafterX Offline
#126 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,506
Brain washing works... Mellow
bgz Offline
#127 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
victor809 wrote:
Bgz... I was unfortunately imprecise in my wording.
When I said "that's not an illegal vote", I am trying o express that no votes are being added which don't belong to citizens of voting age... It isn't a dead vote... It isn't an illegal alien voting... These are what the right has been crying about for years, pretending that it's significant.

While illegal, giving your legitimate vote to someone else of your own free will is not that troubling to me. Probably happens between husbands and wives frequently...


Probably happens a lot I'm sure among married couples. Not in my house though, my wife tends to be left of center, I tend to be more right of center.

Sometimes we vote the same, sometimes we don't.

Pretty sure if the lady opel knows got caught, her sentence would be lengthy.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#128 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Well the grandma i was speaking of is in this country illegally... and as i said, she casts around 30 ballots... so there's that...
delta1 Offline
#129 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
DrafterX wrote:
Brain washing works... Mellow


or "brain wash cleansing"

Brain washing seems to be the wrong way to describe that process. Brain spoiling seems more appropriate...
victor809 Offline
#130 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
... yeah... Probably an illegal act. But a non citizen using legitimate ballots which could be cast by other legal citizens is simply not what was being described in the orange morons fantasy that 3million votes were cast by illegals.

Notice they never even bothered trying to clamp down on absentee ballots.... They want ID at the polling booth, but anyone can mail anything in...
bgz Offline
#131 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
I don't see the problem with requiring an ID at the polling booth. You need an ID for everything else, so I have no problem what so ever with that.

Seriously, an ID costs like 20 bucks and it's good for years. I don't think I've ever met an adult citizen without an ID. Hell, even when I was younger, everyone I knew had an ID, and my old neighborhood was about 75% ghetto at the time (it's 100% ghetto now).

They always ask me for my ID every time I go down to vote (but I currently live in a red state).
victor809 Offline
#132 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I find it interesting that the right has been so focused on IDs for poll location voting... But been completely silent on mail in ballots....
bgz Offline
#133 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
No idea, after hearing Opel's story, we should probably tweet Trump :D
victor809 Offline
#134 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I mean... I have suspicions... Absentee ballots have been said to favor republicans... These are sent in by senior citizens frequently... So it makes sense they would turn a blind eye to it.

My point was simply that it the integrity each individual vote is so important to these people, why is it only certain aspects that may serve to help them that they are determined to enforce....
bgz Offline
#135 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Same reason why libs are hellbent against requiring IDs I would imagine.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#136 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
mexicans?
bgz Offline
#137 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
opelmanta1900 wrote:
mexicans?


That's the most un-PC thing I've read all day (excluding my own sh*t).
frankj1 Offline
#138 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
frankj1 wrote:
you have mentioned this opinion of him before, but I think it's just too easy to say because it makes sense in these parts (like Saying Gov Baker wouldn't be GOP in other states) but I feel it is intellectually lazy. Being in Boston, employed by the Globe, etc. is circumstantial evidence at best.

Because he gives thought to issues individually, rather than checking the playbook for conservative dogma, actually gives him more credibility as a free thinking columnist who is not bullied into being a right wing shill...

But refusing to get in line does not a liberal make. The article on young Mayor Humphrey was something any correct thinking American should have wished they wrote, but very few on the right side of the aisle would have had the guts.

One does not get awards from Libertarian law firms et al for being a fence straddler, and certainly not for being a moderately left of center editorial writer.

Not trying to change your mind, just think you may have not read enough of his work.

don't get insulted Joe, but despite your Trump apologist status, I might describe your style of conservatism somewhat in tune with MAsshole style GOP, especially on social issues and allowing for what you may not do or approve of personally.
We're probably pretty close on that stuff.
ZRX1200 Offline
#139 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,473
FU Victor. .......we have mail in ballots here and I have talked about it here..... Oregon and Wa both have fraud issues.
victor809 Offline
#140 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
....and has the Republican party complained about it or tried passing laws requiring you submit your ID?
frankj1 Offline
#141 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
plus 30, Opel.
Minus 2 Al.

only 2,999,978 more to find.
victor809 Offline
#142 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
And FU too z...


(?)
tailgater Offline
#143 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:
you have mentioned this opinion of him before, but I think it's just too easy to say because it makes sense in these parts (like Saying Gov Baker wouldn't be GOP in other states) but I feel it is intellectually lazy. Being in Boston, employed by the Globe, etc. is circumstantial evidence at best.

Because he gives thought to issues individually, rather than checking the playbook for conservative dogma, actually gives him more credibility as a free thinking columnist who is not bullied into being a right wing shill...

But refusing to get in line does not a liberal make. The article on young Mayor Humphrey was something any correct thinking American should have wished they wrote, but very few on the right side of the aisle would have had the guts.

One does not get awards from Libertarian law firms et al for being a fence straddler, and certainly not for being a moderately left of center editorial writer.

Not trying to change your mind, just think you may have not read enough of his work.


I get email blasts from the Globe, although I don't subscribe so I can only read 1 or 2 articles per month.
But some of those blasts show Jacoby's headline or Twitter feed.
And the handful of articles I've read were decidedly NOT conservative.
Not liberal, either.
But not conservative.

And where he posts and writes is absolutely important.
Except in extreme cases, liberal and conservative are relative terms.

He's not a liberal by today's definition.
But he's not conservative by any definition. Except for that of his employer.

The first several things I read of his I didn't read his bio. I didn't know he called himself conservative, so I was going in blind. He writes as well as anybody in this region. Heck, maybe it's the subject matter that I've read from him that provides my opinion. But it's not a lazy assumption, as you suggest. It's merely my opinion. Which (as you know) is very important to the liberals on these boards.


tailgater Offline
#144 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:
don't get insulted Joe, but despite your Trump apologist status, I might describe your style of conservatism somewhat in tune with MAsshole style GOP, especially on social issues and allowing for what you may not do or approve of personally.
We're probably pretty close on that stuff.


PM me if you're going to post these lies.
I'm so conservative I had "Tea Party" tatooed on my right arm and it drifted to my left overnight.


frankj1 Offline
#145 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
some awards for Jacoby:

In 1999, he became the first recipient of the Breindel Prize, a $10,000 award (since increased to $20,000) for excellence in opinion journalism awarded by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. In 2004, he received the Thomas Paine Award of the libertarian law firm the Institute for Justice, an award presented to journalists "who dedicate their work to the preservation and championing of individual liberty

Breindel means nothing to me at first glance, but the other two wouldn't fete a left leaning columnist.

Also managed Ray Shamie's ill fated run for office many years ago.

Hey, I don't regularly follow any columnist (other than in da sports pages), tv news, or just about anything else political. I happen to read him when I remember and usually end up telling others, cuz even when I don't agree with him he makes me think.
tailgater Offline
#146 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
HuckFinn wrote:
Of course I and others get to decide. That's our first amendment right and is our civic duty.

I see our democracy dissolving...slowly.....the way democracies devolve in to dictatorships.
(see Fascism, the 3rd Reich)

Trump lost the popular vote by over 3 million votes. So there are a bunch of us. So you don't agree with the left. That doesn't negate our serious concerns. No apologies.

Again, because I said it before , I'm not condoning antifa's or anyones choosing violence.

But overwhelmingly it's been the right that's acted on their violent racist and xenophobic tendencies, for decades. For some humans, it's human nature to boil over.

Maybe some hotheads on the left have given up trying to reason and now think violence is the only language some on the right understand and respect.



A. I'm glad that over half of America was under the impression that it took the popular vote to win.
B. You make the assumption that everyone who voted for Hillary (winner of the popular vote and the subject to your "bunch of us" comment) is of like mind.
Then you go on to say that those who acted out don't represent you.

You take a lot of loose liberties in your attempts to justify your position.

If I cared, I'd call it a character flaw.

tailgater Offline
#147 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:

Hey, I don't regularly follow any columnist (other than in da sports pages), tv news, or just about anything else political. I happen to read him when I remember and usually end up telling others, cuz even when I don't agree with him he makes me think.


Big words, huh?

frankj1 Offline
#148 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:
Big words, huh?


well, I can say with humility, I am good wif words.
tailgater Offline
#149 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
zactly!

frankj1 Offline
#150 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
ok, that's a new word.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages<12345>