lesson on why liberals will never be more than an occasional flash in the pan.

[rightwinger]

Wow. You really are ill-informed, aren't you?

Moreso....

How ill-informed and poorly led are the majority of conservatives. The Conservative movement has purged its intellectual element in favor of the talk show pundit

Wow. Your encyclopedic knowledge of Conservatism really runs the whole gamut from A to B, doesn't it?

Oh Really?

Is there any more?

 

[JakeStarkey]

QW is aptly monikered and has created a silly OP.

Perhaps he and Founder should get a room together.

The Founders were centered in Modern Liberalism, from which two wings (American Liberalism and American Conservativism) have developed, both shifting over time and the position considered at that time.

To suggest that either of the two wings are irrelevant simply reflects QW's of the poor status of his self-information as well as his self-importance.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you understand what motivates a person, what their beliefs are, their opinions, positions, then it makes it easier to vote for them.

Conservatives are anti education. They knew nothing about Iraq or Afghanistan. They know nothing about Muslims. Nothing about drilling. Nothing about the economy.

It's why everything they touch turns to shit. Like Midas, only shit.

I have to admit this part always confuses me What exactly has Obama done that is different than what Bush did? Exactly what makes you think that the owner of an oil company knows less about drilling than a Harvard lawyer?

It's not a Harvard lawyer spilling thousands of gallons of oil per day out of a hole they drilled.

No, but it was a Harvard lawyer who was the recipient of the most money from BP in 2008.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Guess what guys, the other guy is worse. Just because Rand does not pass some sort of racial purity test you want to kill him, when the Democrat who is running against him is actually the worst of the two, by the standards that should matter to you.

The only reason the Democrats ever win an election is that Republicans are so ******* incmpetant a 4 year old can out think them. Does it mean anything to you that you can't? It certainly means something to the rest of the world. Which is why you are going home in Novemeber, unless you start focusing on the real issues.

“Maddow and Paul agree on probably 90 per cent of the BIG issues confronting us, from ending the drug and Afghan war, to ending bail outs. But because of their own peculiar prejudices, his doctrinaire libertarian, hers PC progressive, neither of them can talk about anything other than a non-issue such as the Civil Rights Act of 19 -- SIXTY-FOUR. It's like a Dadaist play.”

It’s the easiest thing in the world for a grandstanding liberal to push a libertarian into a corner. Then they’ll get praise for their unflinching courage, like Morris Dees’ South Poverty Law Center putting another “hate group” in the Index and waiting for the contributions to roll in.

Here’s Maddow, brandishing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as though this is the only matter worth considering in the forthcoming race between Rand Paul and the Democrat, an awful neo-liberal prosecutor, Kentucky’s current attorney general, Jack "I'm a Tough Son-of-a-*****" Conway. Between Conway and Paul, which one in the U.S. Senate would more likely be a wild card – which is the best we can hope for these days – likely to filibuster against a bankers’ bailout, against reaffirmation of the Patriot Act, against suppression of the CIA’s full torture history? Paul, one would have to bet, and these are the votes that count, where one uncompromising stand by an outsider can make a difference, unlike the gyrations and last-ditch sell-outs of Blowhard Bernie Sanders. Liberals love grandstanding about what are, in practice, distractions. You think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is going to come up for review in the U.S. Senate?

****, even the liberals are disgusted with liberals today.



Alexander Cockburn: The Rand and Rachel Show

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a non-issue? Is that an acknowledgment by those who would in fact make it legal for a business owner to discriminate based on race that they represent little more than a crackpot fringe whose views would never be embraced by mainstream America ( aka the real America)? Is that why it's a non-issue?

Is it just because it's so long ago? Is that what makes it a non-issue? Well Roe v. Wade is not a heckuva lot less long ago, and anti-choice conservatives don't show any signs of writing that off as a non-issue.

The fact that I have to explain liberal positions to someone who thinks he is a liberal just shows how fucked liberals have become.

The CRA is a non issue because this is not 1964. The conditions that necessitated the CRA no longer exist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Caging (voter suppression) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This is why democrats have not won as many elections in the last thirty years as they should have.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]

 

[rightwinger]

Caging (voter suppression) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This is why democrats have not won as many elections in the last thirty years as they should have.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]

Comeon Windbag

You are going to have to do better than a Youtube video. You know those guys were only at one place and were chased away don't you?

Rightwing conspiracy

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW is aptly monikered and has created a silly OP.

Perhaps he and Founder should get a room together.

The Founders were centered in Modern Liberalism, from which two wings (American Liberalism and American Conservativism) have developed, both shifting over time and the position considered at that time.

To suggest that either of the two wings are irrelevant simply reflects QW's of the poor status of his self-information as well as his self-importance.

What does any of this have to do with the modern movement that calls itself liberal? They are making themselves irrelevant by focusing on issues that are not relevant instead of issues that really matter. If you have a choice between someone who believes in both the CRA and the Patriot Act, and one who thinks that the CRA went to far inprohibiting private discrimination, and thinks the Patriot Act is a massive abuse of federal power and wants to repeal it, why are you going to worry that you disagree about something that no longer makes a difference in today's world.

It is interesting that you continue to try to marginalize my position when you show an unwillingness to answer questions that challenge your own position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Caging (voter suppression) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This is why democrats have not won as many elections in the last thirty years as they should have.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU"]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]

Comeon Windbag

You are going to have to do better than a Youtube video. You know those guys were only at one place and were chased away don't you?

Rightwing conspiracy

It is just as relevant as Truthmatters post about caging. Voter fraud might be an issue in a small precinct, but it does not happen on any significant scale. Attempting to blame voter fraud for the fact that your favorite party is incompetent is stupid.

 

[The Rabbi]

Truthmatters is more full of shit than a Christmas turkey.
In fact Democrats have engaged in far more illegal poll tricks than Republicans could think of. Which party elected a dead man as senator?
Here is Slate:
What, exactly, is "walking-around money"? - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
The CRA is a non issue because this is not 1964. The conditions that necessitated the CRA no longer exist.

Really?


Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ironic example, isn't it???

Keep it in mind the next time you try to tell I'm fucked, you simpleton.

 

[rightwinger]

Truthmatters is more full of shit than a Christmas turkey.
In fact Democrats have engaged in far more illegal poll tricks than Republicans could think of. Which party elected a dead man as senator?
Here is Slate:
What, exactly, is "walking-around money"? - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine

Typical Rabbi..."You suck and we don't" post

Thanks for contributing

 

[NYcarbineer]

Truthmatters is more full of shit than a Christmas turkey.

No wonder you're such nasty fuckstick. Anyone who eats a shit filled turkey on Christmas is bound to be messed up

 

[Flopper]

Guess what guys, the other guy is worse. Just because Rand does not pass some sort of racial purity test you want to kill him, when the Democrat who is running against him is actually the worst of the two, by the standards that should matter to you.

The only reason the Democrats ever win an election is that Republicans are so ******* incmpetant a 4 year old can out think them. Does it mean anything to you that you can't? It certainly means something to the rest of the world. Which is why you are going home in Novemeber, unless you start focusing on the real issues.


****, even the liberals are disgusted with liberals today.



Alexander Cockburn: The Rand and Rachel Show

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a non-issue? Is that an acknowledgment by those who would in fact make it legal for a business owner to discriminate based on race that they represent little more than a crackpot fringe whose views would never be embraced by mainstream America ( aka the real America)? Is that why it's a non-issue?

Is it just because it's so long ago? Is that what makes it a non-issue? Well Roe v. Wade is not a heckuva lot less long ago, and anti-choice conservatives don't show any signs of writing that off as a non-issue.

The fact that I have to explain liberal positions to someone who thinks he is a liberal just shows how fucked liberals have become.

The CRA is a non issue because this is not 1964. The conditions that necessitated the CRA no longer exist.

Conservatives are more idealistic than liberals. Liberals are more pragmatic. This is big change from 50 years ago.

 

[The Rabbi]

Truthmatters is more full of shit than a Christmas turkey.
In fact Democrats have engaged in far more illegal poll tricks than Republicans could think of. Which party elected a dead man as senator?
Here is Slate:
What, exactly, is "walking-around money"? - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine

Typical Rabbi..."You suck and we don't" post

Thanks for contributing

Is there anything there I wrote that is not true? Yes, Democrats suck much worse. Everything they accuse Republicans of they are twice as guilty. Vote fraud, divisiveness, lack of responsibility--it's all there in spades.
Are Republicans blameless? No, of course not. But they do not act on nearly the scale and with nearly the lack of conscience that Democrats typically do.
Thanks for letting me express that and for failing to counter it in any way.

 

[fyrenza]

Caging (voter suppression) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Republicans cheat to win elections

Republicans ENFORCE THE RULES/REGS/LAWS to win elections.

So the Dems were all pissed off 'cuz they were too CROOKED to even CONSIDER using the LEGAL Way?

You're freakin' KILLING me here!!!

But, seriously? You honestly think that obeying the rules can somehow be construed as cheating?

Astounding!!! In the most horrible of ways.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[
The CRA is a non issue because this is not 1964. The conditions that necessitated the CRA no longer exist.

Really?


Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ironic example, isn't it???

Keep it in mind the next time you try to tell I'm fucked, you simpleton.

Now I am really confused. Why are you trying to use a court case which said that the court interpretation of the CRA that led to affirmative action is not applicable to prove that the CRA is necessary today?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
The CRA is a non issue because this is not 1964. The conditions that necessitated the CRA no longer exist.

Really?


Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ironic example, isn't it???

Keep it in mind the next time you try to tell I'm fucked, you simpleton.

Now I am really confused. Why are you trying to use a court case which said that the court interpretation of the CRA that led to affirmative action is not applicable to prove that the CRA is necessary today?

You are confused alright.

The Court held 5-4 that New Haven's decision to ignore the test results violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Since a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the basis for ruling in favor of the plaintiffs,

your claim that conditions no longer exist making the act necessary has to be false.

Not only does the case prove that the CRA is still relevant and necessary, it also shoots a hole in any claim anyone would make that the CRA only serves people of color, or anyone else who isn't a white male.

 

[The Rabbi]

Really?


Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ironic example, isn't it???

Keep it in mind the next time you try to tell I'm fucked, you simpleton.

Now I am really confused. Why are you trying to use a court case which said that the court interpretation of the CRA that led to affirmative action is not applicable to prove that the CRA is necessary today?

You are confused alright.

The Court held 5-4 that New Haven's decision to ignore the test results violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Since a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the basis for ruling in favor of the plaintiffs,

your claim that conditions no longer exist making the act necessary has to be false.

Not only does the case prove that the CRA is still relevant and necessary, it also shoots a hole in any claim anyone would make that the CRA only serves people of color, or anyone else who isn't a white male.

You have absolutely no idea, zero, of what you are talking about. You don't even understand the argument Quantum is making.
The court nowhere held whether conditions that warranted the CRA still obtain or not. So you cannot use the ruling to prove they do.
Major fail. Epic.

 

[Chris]

The world is always moving toward being more progressive.

From women's rights to African American rights to gay rights to healthcare, the world is always moving to the left.

It must suck to be a conservative.....always clinging to the past.

 

[rikules]

If you understand what motivates a person, what their beliefs are, their opinions, positions, then it makes it easier to vote for them.

Conservatives are anti education. They knew nothing about Iraq or Afghanistan. They know nothing about Muslims. Nothing about drilling. Nothing about the economy.

It's why everything they touch turns to shit. Like Midas, only shit.

I have to admit this part always confuses me What exactly has Obama done that is different than what Bush did? Exactly what makes you think that the owner of an oil company knows less about drilling than a Harvard lawyer?

"I have to admit this part always confuses me What exactly has Obama done that is different than what Bush did?"

if obama hasn't done anything different than bush....

do you think other conservatives are
a. lying
or
b. deranged

when they state, emphatically, over and over, that obama is "taking away all of our rights one by one"
and other such drivel?