Scott Brown wins in MA

There aren't very many intelligent Conservatives around. There certainly aren't any intelligent ones on radio or TV.

Anybody who can be apart of a party that promotes Limbaugh, Palin, Beck, Steele, Cheny, Bush, Bachmann, Coulter, Roberson etc... can't be too bright.

Last edited by Cali Chik; 01-21-2010 at 06:18 PM. Reason: added some names
If you want to slam other people for not being too bright, you might want to proofread your post before you hit "submit reply". Just a thought.
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
There aren't very many intelligent Conservatives around. There certainly aren't any intelligent ones on radio or TV.

Anybody who can be apart of a party that promotes Limbaugh, Palin, Beck, Steele, Cheny, Bush, Bachmann, Coulter, Roberson etc... can't be too bright.
Originally Posted by Cali Chik
Quoted for posterity
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
If you feel like bragging about a racist, sexist homophobe who posed naked in Cosmo, have at it.
Originally Posted by BB
In a debate with reasonable people, you cannot just breezily throw such terms around without backing them up. (Especially since, ironically, this whole thread is about how mean-spirited conservatives are...)

So I ask you:

What has Scott Brown specifically done to make you call him a racist?

A sexist?

A homophobe?

You are however accurate that he did pose for Cosmo about 25 years ago. (Not cool in my book, but it is Massachusetts, so I don't think they were bothered by that, esp. since it was so long ago. Now obviously if he did another spread as a sitting Senator, that would be really bad...)
Dry climate
2C/3A, fine texture, high porosity, medium-low density

For me, desert climate+porous hair+CG=inconsistent results!

Last edited by tendrilly; 01-21-2010 at 08:24 PM. Reason: misspelled word!
There aren't very many intelligent Conservatives around. There certainly aren't any intelligent ones on radio or TV.

Anybody who can be apart of a party that promotes Limbaugh, Palin, Beck, Steele, Cheny, Bush, Bachmann, Coulter, Roberson etc... can't be too bright.
Originally Posted by Cali Chik
I know plenty of Conservatives that don't support those fools.


Blog
If you want to slam other people for not being too bright, you might want to proofread your post before you hit "submit reply". Just a thought.
Originally Posted by Scarlet
If you were offended by my post... then I'm assuming you're a conservative. If you are a conservative, then I'm assuming you're retarded. Have a nice day.
If you want to slam other people for not being too bright, you might want to proofread your post before you hit "submit reply". Just a thought.
Originally Posted by Scarlet
If you were offended by my post... then I'm assuming you're a conservative. If you are a conservative, then I'm assuming you're retarded. Have a nice day.
Originally Posted by Cali Chik
What was the point of that? Completely uncalled for and utterly immature


Blog
If you want to slam other people for not being too bright, you might want to proofread your post before you hit "submit reply". Just a thought.
Originally Posted by Scarlet
If you were offended by my post... then I'm assuming you're a conservative. If you are a conservative, then I'm assuming you're retarded. Have a nice day.
Originally Posted by Cali Chik
"Assuming" I'm a conservative? What, the avatar didn't give it away?

Anyway, this is why I tend to avoid this forum. People try to have a reasonable discussion, and it always turns into this
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell

Last edited by Scarlet; 01-21-2010 at 06:55 PM.
If you want to slam other people for not being too bright, you might want to proofread your post before you hit "submit reply". Just a thought.
Originally Posted by Scarlet
If you were offended by my post... then I'm assuming you're a conservative. If you are a conservative, then I'm assuming you're retarded. Have a nice day.
Originally Posted by Cali Chik
What was the point of that? Completely uncalled for and utterly immature
Originally Posted by Trenell
I was just in the mood.

and you are absolutely correct.
If you want to slam other people for not being too bright, you might want to proofread your post before you hit "submit reply". Just a thought.
Originally Posted by Scarlet
If you were offended by my post... then I'm assuming you're a conservative. If you are a conservative, then I'm assuming you're retarded. Have a nice day.
Originally Posted by Cali Chik
"Assuming" I'm a conservative? What, the avatar didn't give it away?

Anyway, this is why I tend to avoid this forum. People try to have a reasonable discussion, and it always turns into this
Originally Posted by Scarlet
Why are you a conservative? What is it about them that you find yourself agreeing with?

Last edited by Cali Chik; 01-21-2010 at 06:56 PM. Reason: edit

Frankly I think racists (overt or deep seeded) tend to lean to the right. Obama's win has pissed them off into a tizzy. They are mad.

So any "fail" on Obama's administration fills them with glee, despite what it means for Americans.
Originally Posted by Trenell
Okay, been wondering when the 'racism' card would be played.

.
Originally Posted by susancnw
Yup. Figured you would use the phrase "race card".


So any "fail" on Obama's administration fills them with glee, despite what it means for Americans.
Originally Posted by Trenell
A) The phrase is "deep seated"
B) You specifically used the word 'racist'. if that is not the race card, what is?

And you didn't answer my question. Define 'racism'.

Calichik, Yep, conservative and proud of it. Not always a conservative, but as we are small business owners, and most of my past positions have been for small businesses (I worked for GE for a year), I prefer a smaller government that keeps it's nose out of my business.

I don't like being penalized because I am married. I don't like the government taking a huge chunk out of my paycheck every month, or having to pay large amounts of money to the government so they can continue to expand.

Under the Constitution, the government is to provide for national security (and they are doing a lousy job with 2 terrorist attacks since last spring, 3 if you count the Arkansas military recruiter murder/shooting.) EVERYTHING else falls to the state government for their decision.

The income tax, Roe v Wade & welfare are unconstitutional when it comes down to it. None were provided for in the Constitution. They are all 3 inventions of the politicians.

And no, as the OP, it is NOT a discussion about mean-spirited conservatives. My comment was inquiring if election results would be construed as a referendum on the administration. Obama's presidential win was by about the same margin that Brown beat Coakley, and Democrats started stating that it was a referendum of condemnation of the Bush administration. Now, wouldn't Republicans be entitled to say the same thing?

Wild Hair (love that name), DU or Daily Kos aren't pundits. Most of the posters at DU are 'regular people'. And they are some of the most vicious & vindictive people that I've ever run across. Many of them are downright scary. And I'm sorry that your family behaves like that. I think every family has someone who does that. I'm really sorry about nephews & nieces, siblings & parents who go off the deep end like that. It's incredibly sad. BUT, afriend's sister (we'd been corresponding for years) cut me off when she found out I was not an Obama supporter. No idea what I did & she wouldn't speak to tell me. Another friend adores him & we don't discuss politics. She knows how I feel & I know how she feels.

As far as the Republicans 'refusing' to engage in reasonable discourse. Which party promised open doors, transparency, bills posted 72 hrs before signing, etc? Which party has been behind closed doors for the healthcare bill, making deals (unions) & bribing senators (Landrieu & Nelson),refused to allow televised debate & called the people of this country vile, disgusting names? It sure hasn't been the Republicans. Or did you completely miss the town halls this summer? People are frustrated and angry & for good reason. They are being ignored (for the most part) by their elected representatives.

I had several lovely conversations with folks in Betsy Markey's office this summer (she's quite reasonable), but calling Mark Udall or Mike Bennett's office? Udall has two very nice young men, Ben & Dan, that were very good at obfuscating. Bennett can't even be bothered to have someone answer the phone. It goes to voicemail immediately. General box or his box. Email goes unanswered. I just wish he had a local office, but he doesn't. He said he is willing to sacrifice his seat for the health care bill. When I got no response, I called one last time & told him that I was glad to hear him say that as I was going to donate every cent I could to his opponent. The arrogance of refusing to listen to what his constituents were saying. OTOH, he was appointed, not elected. He's supposedly a placeholder for the current CO governor.

Trenell keeps insisting that the dislike of Obama is due to the fact that he is biracial. BFD. Friends & family members who are. Don't care. He could be purple for all I care. And as I have stated more than once, I've heard one person object to the color of his skin. Very old person. Ignored it. Those that do refer to his race are to be pitied or laughed at (Joe Biden & Harry Reid). I've not heard anyone who has any brains or influence say anything about skin color. It is always his agenda, politics, etc.

As I have also said. Apparently the man is charismatic, charming, conversant. Jury is still out on his intelligence as no one has ever seen transcripts, or anything else like that. He gives a good speech (with TOTUS' help). Off the cuff...he's not that good. Youtube is full of his off the cuff stuff, so I won't link. Look it up. But I've heard a LOT of speakers over the years that are the same way, but get them off the record & they fumble and stumble & say stuff that gets them in to trouble (Joe the Plumber?). Can't see that he has very good judgment when it comes to friends either in his past relationships.

I think Brown was elected because he said what people wanted to hear. We'll see how he does in DC, but a LOT of people are going to be watching him. Now, if anyone who has called him sexist,racist, homophobic, etc has some actual cites or references, I'll look at them. But don't throw them out there.

Read another article today where the writer called the state of MA misogynistic because they didn't elect Coakley. Why are they just now that way. They didn't get called that when the female Lt. Governor wasn't elected governor. Is it only when the female is a Dem that it is misogynistic?

Susan
My son wears combat boots (and a parachute).
The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.



B) You specifically used the word 'racist'. if that is not the race card, what is?

Susan
Originally Posted by susancnw
The use of the term "race card" is usually used to belittle any accusation of racism.

As far as defining it. No. Either you know what it means, and it would be pointless. OR you cannnot grasp the complex nature of racism (I'm pretty sure some have tried to explain it to you) and again, pointless.


Blog
[A) The phrase is "deep seated"
Originally Posted by susancnw
Good grief.


Blog
[Trenell keeps insisting that the dislike of Obama is due to the fact that he is biracial.

Susan
Originally Posted by susancnw
No, I did not. I said a lot of the ugliness towards him is because he is black. (I call him black, because that's what he calls himself)


Blog
Oh, the irony! Mean-spirited conservatives, indeed.

If you feel like bragging about a racist, sexist homophobe who posed naked in Cosmo, have at it.
Originally Posted by BB
In a debate with reasonable people, you cannot just breezily throw such terms around without backing them up. (Especially since, ironically, this whole thread is about how mean-spirited conservatives are...)

So I ask you:

What has Scott Brown specifically done to make you call him a racist?

A sexist?

A homophobe?

You are however accurate that he did pose for Cosmo about 25 years ago. (Not cool in my book, but it is Massachusetts, so I don't think they were bothered by that, esp. since it was so long ago. Now obviously if he did another spread as a sitting Senator, that would be really bad...)
Originally Posted by tendrilly
Well, I can't speak for BB...but I agree with her.

Racist: Scott Brown's first endorsement is a birther who compared Obama to Osama bin Laden. I won't entertain the other accusations against Brown just because they aren't substantial enough. But Hudak? Don't tell me Brown's vetting process is that effed up.

Sexist: Brown supports abortion, sure. But he has also pushed very strongly for waiting periods (including forcing a woman to view pictures of her own fetus) and parental consent laws. He believes that doctors and nurses should be able to opt out of providing emergency contraception to rape victims based on "a sincerely held religious belief." A "pro-choice" man who does everything in his power to stonewall women's access to emergency contraception and abortion, even in the case of rape? Sounds pretty sexist to me.

Homophobic: Brown opposes gay marriage, supports the Defense of Marriage Act (more commonly known as DOMA), supports Don't Ask, Don't Tell and opposes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Gay marriage is one thing, but suggesting that the LGBTQ community doesn't deserve protections against discrimination is absolutely homophobic.
CG since 07/26/09

Last edited by mandatoryfun; 01-22-2010 at 05:24 AM. Reason: typos
Under the Constitution, the government is to provide for national security (and they are doing a lousy job with 2 terrorist attacks since last spring, 3 if you count the Arkansas military recruiter murder/shooting.) EVERYTHING else falls to the state government for their decision.

The income tax, Roe v Wade & welfare are unconstitutional when it comes down to it. None were provided for in the Constitution. They are all 3 inventions of the politicians.
Originally Posted by susancnw
Susan, just because something isn't provided for in the Constitution doesn't invalidate its legality...the Founders intended that subsequent generations would be able to alter or add to the Constitution in order to deal with events or situations that the Founders themselves couldn't forsee.

This is why we have, for example, the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And an income tax *is* provided for in the Constitution. From the Sixteenth Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." This amendment was ratified based on the procedures laid out by the Founders, so I don't see what is so unconstitutional about it.

ETA: What's with all this reverence for the Constitution, anyway? Republicans talk about it like it's so great, but clearly either a) don't understand it, and b) trample over it all the time (warantless wiretapping, suspending habeas corpus, etc...). And obviously it's not doing the Dems a load of good. Can't we just get rid of the Constitution, write a new one, and preferably take that opportunity to abolish the Senate? I'm tired of senators obstructing true democracy!
CG since 07/26/09

Last edited by mandatoryfun; 01-22-2010 at 05:18 AM.
Under the Constitution, the government is to provide for national security (and they are doing a lousy job with 2 terrorist attacks since last spring, 3 if you count the Arkansas military recruiter murder/shooting.) EVERYTHING else falls to the state government for their decision.

The income tax, Roe v Wade & welfare are unconstitutional when it comes down to it. None were provided for in the Constitution. They are all 3 inventions of the politicians.
Originally Posted by susancnw
Susan, just because something isn't provided for in the Constitution doesn't invalidate its legality...the Founders intended that subsequent generations would be able to alter or add to the Constitution in order to deal with events or situations that the Founders themselves couldn't forsee.

This is why we have, for example, the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And an income tax *is* provided for in the Constitution. From the Sixteenth Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." This amendment was ratified based on the procedures laid out by the Founders, so I don't see what is so unconstitutional about it.

ETA: What's with all this reverence for the Constitution, anyway? Republicans talk about it like it's so great, but clearly either a) don't understand it, and b) trample over it all the time (warantless wiretapping, suspending habeas corpus, etc...). And obviously it's not doing the Dems a load of good. Can't we just get rid of the Constitution, write a new one, and preferably take that opportunity to abolish the Senate? I'm tired of senators obstructing true democracy!
Originally Posted by mandatoryfun
In a "true democracy" how are the rights of those in the political minority protected from what can be capricious views of a majority?
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
I'm not going to even argue this point with anyone anymore, tonight I lived it. Alienation from my own mother. Thank you Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh et al.

This is happening all over the country, people. It's not funny anymore. And these azzholes are just trying to make money, while families are literally being torn apart, including my own.

I couldn't get through to her at all. She's completely lost to us. She doesn't see anything beyond the limited POV she's getting from talk radio.

Scarlet, earlier you said that no one checks the DU or the Daily Kos. I didn't say so earlier, but I don't even know what the DU is. And I never read the Daily Kos. So, no, I don't check them. Meanwhile, my mother listens to conservative talk radio morning, noon and night.
Originally Posted by wild~hair
WH, I completely understand where you're coming from, and have to say my family is another one that's been torn apart by the modern far-right movement. My dad and I are so, so close, and after everything that's happened to my family the past few years, I feel he's all that I have left. But he's been listening to Rush, Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, Mark Levin and—oh god—Michael Savage basically all day.

I can't even begin to describe to people the fever pitch that has been raised by these conservative commentators following Obama's election. My dad has transformed from a fiscal conservative to a full-blown racist and sexist. He donated money to Joe Wilson after the whole "You lie!" incident. And when I tried to tell him about how I really didn't appreciate Republican senators voting against Al Franken's anti-rape amendment, he asked me why I was becoming such a "radical" about a "fringe issue." This was particularly upsetting because I'm a former victim of sexual assault.

I wholeheartedly agree with you—complete alienation. I can't even discuss politics with him anymore...but of course, he always brings it up, because he is always angry about something. Good luck trying to wean your mother off of that stuff...
CG since 07/26/09
In a "true democracy" how are the rights of those in the political minority protected from what can be capricious views of a majority?
Originally Posted by mandatoryfun
Originally Posted by Scarlet
Without a true democracy, how will the majority overcome oppression by the minority?
CG since 07/26/09

Trending Topics


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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com