You'd be surprised. I was born in the South and most of my family on my father's side still lives there. I'm not saying every white person in the South is a racist - far from it - but a certain racial under current still remains.

As a matter of fact, I'll post a thread about it (you can yell at me there, too - I don't mind ;) ).

Color of Obama's skin is a concern to many extremist members of the Republican Party. Not among Democrats. Not among independents. And not among moderates.

Claiming that a majority of Replublican are not racist ignores the poltiical biases of most racists. Nobody said most Republicans are racist. The only valid question - where do racists hang out?

Why did Romney give a completely different stump speech to a gathering of (what he thought were) all white southern Republicans? Clearly 45% of minorities are seeking handouts from the government. That rhetoric and hate works on many Republican extremists.

Why did he not say that to others? A hate speech to a private gathering was designed to inspire his political base. Which include a large percentage of racists.

When I play the part of a right wing conservative extremist, real world extremists become more open about their racism. Openly racist comments are vocalized when a racists thinks it is safe to be honest and that vocal. Laugh with their racist jokes and they get even more vocal. Many racists are still among us..

In every case I have seen, the racist is strongly right wing Republican. Will often mix anger at the liberal media with racist statements about lazy minorities and immigrants. Of course the color of his skin is a concern with a significant percentage of racists who also share ideology in right wing Republican rhetoric. Part of that party that sees growth. Is strongest in regions where racism is traditionally strongest.

Racism must be defined before that question can be answered. Does racism only mean you think white people are superior to blacks people? Does it mean one race is somehow superior/inferior to another in certain aspects? Does racism apply to only conscious actions or subconscious thoughts and actions as well? Can cultural prejudice be considered racism? Can only people enforcing power be considered racist?


Different people have different definitions of what racism is and it is very easy to have very emotional arguments over something that is purely semantic. Keep in mind that, while I (and I'm assuming you) disagree with this definition, racism is largely defined as limited to people who have extreme animosity towards people of another skin color and racists are considered to be on the same level of those who committed genocide with that definition. This definition is popular here in the United States due to the extreme racism that existed.

Therefore, while my definition of racism is very loose (I think almost everyone who grew up in a racist environment is technically racist to some degree), I need to be careful throwing it around because some people have a much different definition and can, rightfully, take much offense to it.

I have no time to care about the poor fee-fees of people who uphold and continue racist structures but feel like "omg no i can't be racist i have a black friend and i think the kkk sux gosh if you're going to call people racist youre just gonna turn them off and make them worse" because racism is SO much deeper than consciously having a problem with black people.
and like, I'd basically define racism as "not struggling every day to erase insidious colonialist/imperialist/racist cultural values from your life and actions" which is about as broad a definition as it's possible to construe, because the PoC who suffer from the effects of racism and know way better than i do what racism IS say so, and to assume that white people know better about racism than they do is completely fucked up.
So I'll "throw it around" while utterly denying that there is any "rightulness" to their narcissistic offense-taken.

But even though I would argue that between eighty and a hundred percent of white people are racist... by anyone's definition, I find it hard to believe that it's possible to argue that less than at least a third of the population of this country is racist. and from that, I find it hard to believe that less than a supermajority of those racists vote consistently conservative.

IAmSam - you described your Lunatic Fringe again.
tw - Go fuck yourself. << that is not an emotional response, just a suggestion for you to entertain yourself for a moment or two.
PH45 thanks for the adult answer, but I'll play with him on my own...
Ibster - Hmm.. I'm gonna say that 78.5%. What do I win?

No, really, though. What's your actual opinion on how much of America is racist? If you're just gonna be a dick and try'n troll, you're basically admitting that there's no chance for a full and honest debate on the actual issues to occur here. because obviously if 78.5% of the country were racist, the idea that racism isn't a major factor in those who vote against obama is clearly bunk. Do you want to discuss the issues, and the fact that race might actually be an issue in American electoral politics, or do you wanna fuck around and be a dick about it? if the latter, sorry for daring to try and engage in good faith.

for that matter: when you dismiss chunks of the Republican party as the "lunatic fringe" - how far into the "base" or "core" of the party does that fringe extend? is the fringiest 20% of the party what you dismiss? the fringiest 40%? the fringiest 60%?
How much of the party has to be written off as "fringe" before the moderates are the exception rather than the rule?

I disagree completely. That view limits discussion and forces an issue to be viewed from a limited perspective, and not independent of perspective as it should be.

People of color obviously have a perspective that we can never obtain, but it needs to be realized that no single perspective tells the entire story. Therefore, it is ridiculous to state that a single perspective can "correctly" define racism or any other social doctrine. In reality, how racism works is independent of perspective and should be viewed without any biased.

In my opinion, trying to define racism from our current situation is hopeless because our current situation is so complex. I feel it is easier to create simple hypothetical scenarios and expand from there. That way, it is much easier to test your hypothesis with all available perspectives and experiences, not just cherry picking perspectives to that work with a certain world view.

For example, I believe that society and social narratives should be viewed as a group of individuals that more or less are working in unison. Since that is what society actually is, a group of individuals. From there, we can conclude that most people have some prejudice and every single individual came to these prejudices from different life experiences. However, since people can pick up on similar trends or have similar interests, these prejudices can become aligned in the form of social narrative. As a note, that does not mean every person in the society has to follow this narrative. If the people holding these prejudice have the power to enforce these prejudice, a power structure appears. Since people in power tend to want to stay in power, this power structure is reinforced through policies and culture and a racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. society is formed.

I believe this is the easiest way to define and explain racism. It is general, devoid of biased, and in my opinion, can explain almost any type of racist/sexist/homophobic/etc behavior. What I find so interesting is that once a power structure is formed, it can be reinforced with no bad intentions at all.


I'm not here to impose, I am just leading up to a point. But I am going to impose anyway because it is a free country! :D

As for the racism affecting views on Obama question, it can't be viewed as black and white (:p:). Some people do disagree with Obama because of his skin color. Some people tend to focus on other perceived negative attributes more because of skin color. Some people are influenced by racists but not for racial reasons. Some people just legitimately disagree with his policies.

Have fun trying to quantify it!

What experiences can possibly lead white people to any understanding that would allow them to define racism, other than listening to the experiences of PoC or consulting bare statistics?

My honest opinion, about 100% of the people in the world are racist about something to some degree or another.
Whites against blacks, blacks against whites, Asians against greens... need I go on?


Oh, and everyone against transgendered males in college with black rimmed glasses and ugly purple nailpolish. :neutral:
^^THATS trolling and being a dick. ^^


ORLY? That is so fucking backwards, its sickening. Lets look at some numbers, shall we?
Answer two questions:
1) % of Whites that voted for Obama - 41%
2) % of Blacks that voted for Romney - 7%

So, without your bias hat on what does that tell you with respect to racism?

IF you possibly come back with something better than my extremely low expectation of a completely partisan reply, we may continue the conversation. If not. I won't waste my time with you.



(ETA - this was composed PRIOR to the last two posts above.)

Not bad & a rather memorable post. lol.

...it tells me that people of colour overwhelmingly perceive the republican party as being misaligned to their interests? Do you argue that this is a perception they hold illegitimately?

I would argue that your thought process in this regard is EXTREMELY shallow and you have already decided upon your conclusion and are attempting to prove it after the fact.

Ibs, you aren't even interested enough to actually answer two extremely simple questions.
Heck, If you even quoted my post to reply you'd have seen the answers were already there for you.
You have proven that you are not interested in an honest discussion.
As I said earlier, I'll not waste my time on you.



PH45 - good info. Thanks for the effort.

I'm confused? what part of my response shows i'm not interested in answering which questions, which is more than you should expect after going out of your way to offend and hurt me?
you asked: "what does that tell you with respect to racism?"
my answer, having talked to many people of color, some of whom are fairly conservative, was "it tells me that people of color overwhelmingly perceive the republican party as being misaligned to their interests", because I haven't spoken with a single person of color who feels that the republican party supports their interests. If you can show me that their feelings on the matter are invalid, somehow, rather than dismissing their feelings out of hand, rather than yet again invalidating the experience of PoC in this country, then you could claim some kind of high ground. If you make it more clear which questions you feel aren't answered properly, and give me an excuse to show to you how your position is hurtful and dismissive of PoC experiences, you could claim some kind of high ground.

You are absolutely saying that PoC are entirely unentitled to have a problem with the Republican party as a whole. you are absolutely wrong.

Observation. My views have been greatly influenced by people of color but it has also largely been influenced by attempting to improve/revise my explanations of the world with different scenarios I encounter. As I said, racism in the US is extremely complex and cannot be explained by a single perspective. Keep in mind that racism from colonialism is only a single form of racism that exists (it is just the most influential). Other forms of racism due exist so basing a definition from the colonialism perspective has limited use.


Just to be clear, there is a difference from being able to form a generalized theory of racism (which I attempt to do) and trying to explain all the effects of a specific form of racism (which I do not try to do). To explain the effects of our specific form of racism, we would need perspectives from a very large pool of people from all ethic backgrounds. Even then it is difficult since many people can look at the same thing and come to much different conclusions.

This part ...
Did you? Nope. You just quickly replied with your typical immature emotional response.
You couldn't even be bothered to access some facts nor data with which to support your assumptions.

sorry, i assumed that it was common knowledge that a statistically-insignificant number of african-americans, and an only slightly less insignificant number of other PoC, voted for romney. I assumed that point was rhetorical, I didn't realize you actually wanted the numbers.

But even if not one black person voted for romney, that would go NOWHERE towards identifying racial animus towards white people from blacks. Because it falsely equates "black people not voting for romney" with "white people not voting for Obama" as if Obama had positions as negative to white people as Romney did negative to black people.

You still haven't answered the question.

41% of Whites that voted for Obama.
7% of Blacks that voted for Romney.

Here, since you are too fucking lazy.....
What,if any, conclusion can one draw from the data?

It can be argued that blacks are far more racists than whites.
Blacks are 6x more racist than whites.

Hahahahaaaaaa... THAT is the funniest thing I've read in some time.

the fact that you think black people can be racist against white people alone is laughable. the fact that you think black people and other PoC reading the GOP as misaligned to their interests is illegitimate is even more laughable.

You obviously have your head on straight, but I'm afraid you're wasting your breath trying to explain to Mr Myopia. :rolleyes:

Therein lies YOUR problem. Your mind is far too closed at such a young age.
What truly concerns me is that you actually believe what you post. :yelsick:

OK, I've tried to "like" this several times already...
:thumb:

@classic

55 percent of women voted for Obama, while only 44 percent voted for Mitt Romney...
does this mean that women are on the whole sexist and hate men?
no, wait, they were both men.
It means that women on the whole decided, by an 11-point gap, decided that the GOP was not aligned with their interests.
Does the fact that only 11% of black people voted for Bush in 2004 mean that it was a racist decision? no, because both candidates were white. Thus, it only meant that black people, in general, found the GOP candidate to be not aligned with their own interests. Why does the fact that 4% fewer voted for Romney than voted for Bush in '04 mean that suddenly those statistics indicate that black people are racist? (hint: they don't at all)

yeah. Stick with that Ibs. Good for you.

yeah, but only cause you're racist.
yes, i said it. no, i won't take it back. you're racist if you think that black people have any power whatsoever to oppress white people. because you're wrong, and only your deep-seated racism can explain the fact that black people have never, ever held the power to oppress white people in this country or anywhere else.
and the fact that I know you're about to disagree proves that you have no understanding of what racism means or is.

Is a single PoC here willing to agree that white people should get to define racism?
Is a single woman here willing to agree that men should get to define sexism and patriarchy?
Is a single queer here willing to agree that cishet people should get to define homphobia or transphobia?
just one of you, come on. Just one of any category that isn't cis het white male.

There is no need for me to argue, nor disagree with you. You are too ignorant of the basic facts and definitions of the words which you throw around. You've been coddled and cared for your entire life. You live off the money that mommy and daddy send you. You're like the rich hippies I used to hang with at the dead shows. I find it rather amusing. Ibsy riding in on his white horse to save the oppressed.

Young man,you wear your self inflicted oppression like a badge of honor and act as though it earns you respect or something. You expect others to give you some type of "pass" and treat you differently because of it. Not gonna happen. As I already said, I'll not waste my time disagreeing with you or your ridiculous opinion. It, nor you matter enough.

This is not true. I'm sorry, it's just not.

Dear ph45

You don't need the farcical contrast of Ibby's posts on this subject to make this post look so good, so rational, so wise. You post looks good on its own, and Ibby's posts look ridiculous all on their own. I mention them both at this point because I'm injecting myself into the conversation at this point.

By making clear the important distinctions between emotional reactions to the words and actions of others and the difficulty establishing a definitive, comprehensive meaning for such a subjective idea as "racism". Your measured, thoughtful approach is an example of the best way to discuss such a difficult subject, and the only way to begin to develop solutions to the problems that are created by the effects of racism.

My answer to your question is 100%.

This is a ridiculous definition. By your definition, someone who struggles every day is not racist, and anyone who doesn't struggle any day is a racist. You're improperly conflating actions and attitudes. Racism is a state of mind. That state of mind is sometimes the energizing force behind some actions, sometimes partly so, more or less, and sometimes there are actions that are completely free from any influence of a given attitude. Not every choice I make as a white man is a racist one or a sexist one, despite the fact that I have color and gender. Buddy, you need to find a different definition, that one is useless. On top of being so preachy that only your most infatuated fans will still give you any serious attention after hearing it.

I dismiss your offense-taking with an equal measure of righteous disdain. Now we're even.

So, you're saying that PoC know what racism IS, and Pw/oC don't. How the fuck do you know what racism is then? You are not a person of color.

Oh, this is your answer? By listening to the experiences of PoC or consulting statistics. You mean a white racist has no understanding at all of racism? White supremacists don't have any standing in defining racism? You probably don't see how narrow and useless your definition is. You are making a strenuous effort to claim--no--campaign/proselytize/cheerlead for the claims of the only real source of knowledge about racism. You, by your own definition, can't know it, you can only be told about it, so you're just parroting someone else's story.
... words fail me here to adequately express how wrong this position is. you may indeed find it laughable, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, only that you are incapable of understanding. You're saying black people can know what racism *IS* but can't *BE* racist against white people? That is bullshit.

so... this is about who gets to define terms? you're saying that poc get to define racism? what is the definition then? did you get consensus on that definition? what about mixed race people? does obama get, what, half a vote? "Get to define"... what a stupid proposition.

Ibby, when you post stuff like this, you sound like the most oppressed victim in the history of the world. It makes me wonder why you don't have your on United Nation Protection Force. You're dripping with empathy for some people but those bitter tears blind you completely to the validity of the points of view of other people *outside* your pity party.

Holy Fuck.

I dont give a goddamn if you 'adult' males think Ibby is responding in an emotional immature way, because he has a GREAT point. If only you could walk in a PoC's shoes for ONE DAY, maybe you would get it.

holy fuck indeed.

What makes you think I DON'T "get it"? Give me some example that indicates I don't understand racism. I'd like to hear one. Furthermore, show me an example of how Ibby's got some kind of advantage of understanding of racism over me. One last thing, what exactly is "his GREAT point"?

They're not MY lunatic fringe. Don't give them to me. I don't want them!

*tosses lunatic fringe to Adak*

Phew! *brushes off hands*

Or perhaps you're calling the entire tea party the lunatic fringe? If so, I agree. All else aside, it is lunacy to refuse any and all attempts at political compromise, to just vote "no" on EVERYTHING, and to put the financial future of the entire United States into jepordy just because you don't get every single you want down to the last eye lash.

The tp membership is composed of older, white, affluent males. Evangelicals also tend to be tp members. And as I stated in the other thread, its membership is largely concentrated in the Southern States with a few other places like Montana and the West Slope of otherwise liberal Colorado tagging along just for the hell of it.

The tea party also has a strong racist undertone which it attempts to hum under its breath when the commie liberal press from the East Coast is around, but swells out as loudly as the sound of a battalion of Confederate troops singing "I wish I was back in the land of cotton. Old times there are not forgotten..."

And I ain't just whistling Dixie, either. From Wikipedia:

• TeaParty.org owner Dale Robertson protested in 2009 with a sign that said "Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar"
  
  
• Placards at protest rallies as early as 2009 have depicted President Obama as a witch doctor, and as having plans for "White Slavery".
  
  
• During a protest rally in Washington, D.C., before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Bill was voted on in March 2010, several black lawmakers said that demonstrators shouted racial epithets at them. Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was spat upon, although it is unclear if this was deliberate, and said he heard the slurs. Congressman Barney Frank, who is gay, was called a "faggot".
  
  
• While attending the March 2010, health care rally in Washington, D.C., Springboro, Ohio, Tea Party founder Sonny Thomas posted a racist comment on the Springboro Tea Party Twitter page he managed by tweeting "Illegals everywhere today! So many spicks makes me feel like a speck. Grrr. Wheres my gun!?"
  
  
• Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams referred to Allah as "the terrorists' monkey god", and posted other anti-Islamic remarks in May 2010. When questioned by The Washington Post about his comments about Islam, Williams stated the controversy has "been fantastic for the movement". Williams received further criticism in mid-July when he posted a fictional letter named "Colored People" on his blog. Williams said that the letter was a satirical response to a resolution passed by the NAACP calling on Tea Party leaders to "'repudiate the racist element and activities' from within the movement".
  (nice try)
  
  
• Ozark Tea Party steering committee board member Inge Marler opened a June 2012, Arkansas Tea Party rally of over 500 people by telling a racist joke about African-Americans on welfare.

I appreciate the cultural/emotional/political nuances which must come into play when discussing the definition of "racism." However, I prefer to cut to the chase with that old truism, actions speak louder than words." (see examples above)

From Wiki ...
FWIW.

Yeah, that works as an excuse if it isn't the leaders and founders of the movement making the racist comments.

The founder of the movement is not a 'fringe'.

Thank-you.

I have completely lost patience with the way it has become a cultural norm to sugar coat everything. I was bemused to discover that children no longer get an "F" on their report card if they fail a subject. Instead, they come home with a note from the school congratulating them on "qualifying" for a special class that will be held after school 2 or 3 days each week. There will be cookies provided and fun games to play. :right: If this "fun" remedial schooling doesn't work, the kid gets promoted to the 4th grade, anyway.

Social Security and Medicare have morphed into something called "entitlements" instead of being earned benefits that almost every American worker has paid for through payroll deductions from their hard earned checks.

The social contract has turned into an "entiltlement," as well - consisting of a set of frivolous expenditures easily discarded in favor of maintaining the "defense" industry and keeping up the cash flow to Hallibuten. The 100,000 civilians killed in the Iraq war when we were "defending" ourselves from a country that had never attacked us were "collateral damage," and torture is now "enhanced interrogation."

The Bill of Rights was ruled null and void under something called the "Patriot Act." It is now "patriotic" to arrest citizens without letting them know what charges are being laid against them and hold them for some indefinate amount of time without trial - there is no more due process under the law, but that's OK because it's "patriotic."

The news media described 20 dead first graders as being "honored" by prayer vigils and through special funds set up in their memory. We used to honor someone (usually an adult) who gave up their life for the sake of some greater good. It is not an "honor" for a six year-old child to be slaughtered by a sociopath with a Bushmaster. It is a tragedy that we grieve ever happened and we mourn for the loss of those babies.

Billionaires are now called "job creators" and "small businessmen" when they outsource hundreds if not thousands of American jobs to China in order to increase dividends to stockholders who hold shares in a "small business" like Apple.

And there are no more people in the American South or anywhere else in the country, for that matter, who hold racist views. The Civil Rights movement of the 60's magically morphed Bubba into Atticus Finch and the few remaining Bubba's hiding out in a swamp somewhere are merely scattered members of the lunatic "fringe."










sent via a downed microwave tower on the Colorado Plateau

Don't dither about the word entitlements, it's been using interchangeably in official government documents since the programs were conceived. It carries no hidden agenda, it's simply a syn·o·nym, not a sin-of-name.

As for the rest of your rant, you go girl.;)

Sam, that was awesome.

This line made me choke up a little (and it's a brilliant observation):

Seconded.

Ibs. I agree that racism (not the only form of discrimination as you know) is easier for WASPs to ignore.

But you don't have to be a horse to judge a horse race.

Sure, the word "entitlement" began life as a scrappy immigrant from France and quickly found employment in the legal profession, helping to define the rights of various groups and inndividuals.

Alas, the term fell upon hard times when people began to use it as a pejorative:

"Suzy thinks she'd entitled to get everything for free just because she has some sob story." or "Black people need to get rid of their sense of entitlement and go find a job like the rest of us."

Poor old entitlement now resides in the inner city, uses food stamps and welfare, and produces a child every year by a different father at the expense of tax payers.

Heh! Don't encourage me.









sent via the cold front which is now producing all that snow falling outside your windows

A third kudos. Eloquently stated.

Political correctness is necessary when an ego overwhelms or displaces logical thought. IamSam is completely correct by having little patience with those who need things sugarcoated. Who may even deny their inability to cope with hard reality. Who will even post using insults, soundbytes, and cheapshots to defend emotional biases or racist attitudes. Such emotions is sufficient to deny reality when sugarcoating does not work.

An emotional type will probably assume he has been labeled a racist rather grasp logic in that paragraph. Jumping to an emotional conclusion rather than read, grasp, or address the point.

We know which party most attracts and condons racists. As demonstrated so bluntly during Sen Strom Thurmond's last birthday party. So we should call it a 'disagreement' or 'misconception'? Hell no. A racist needs political correctness; to even deny he is racist. Only political correctness or angry denial (similar concepts) will avert that reality.

The most emotional who therefore hate or support extremist Republican positions with politically correct rhetoric will also post profanity rather than admit to biases. A sharp difference from moderate Republicans who are now under attack by their own party. Republican party (especially Tea Party) is popular among 'fringe' (ie hate) groups. And other disenfranchised members of society who have plenty of anger rather than a logical grasp. Fringe types will even post profanity rather than admit to a problem common to their poltiical peers.

Profanity is desperation when politically correct (sugarcoated) spin is routinely challenged and exposed.

I run into a lot of those, mad as hell that the country/government is so fucked up, but no idea how or why it got that way because the don't have a handle on how the government works. They've no clue that the government got that way because they let other people run it, rather than learning how to participate.

A Boeing contract negotiator once told the union reps, "You've had it too good for too long". I think that's what happened to America, with the advent of the huge middle (consumer) class, we had it too good for too long, and neglected our duty to protect ourselves from the government being taken over by selfish interests. Hell, have the people don't even bother to vote, no less participate.

I wonder if there's enough time to educate people how/what they have to do to turn this around before it's too late. Just voting every four years won't cut it.

Yeah, what was that cookie? The price of taking no interest in public affairs is to ruled by evil men, or some such.

Yes, the use of logic seems to have become a lost art. It's bad enough that the Republican Party is being destroyed from within and that the entire country is being held hostage by a group of true believers who favor the use of dogma over reason. But the situation is made even worse when reasonable people are afraid to recognize unpleasant truths, never mind verbalize them, because political correctness has made the entire subject taboo.

Unfortunately, problems like racism, the gun lobby’s desire to put an assault weapon in the hands of every single American –man, woman, and child – and turn the entire country into a war zone, etc. etc – all the serious issues which now face us – will not go away because one side is afraid to name them out loud and the other side lacks the ability to do anything but call everyone else dirty names.

In earlier decades Americans may not have voted out of complacency, but now they don’t vote because they know their vote won’t count. Gerrymandering has created Congressional districts that represent a political party and not the people who should make up its constituency. Outside interests then funnel in vast sums of money via PAC’s to the candidate whose mission it is to obstruct all attempts at passing any law that corporate America doesn’t like.

The Constitution of Madison and the system of checks and balances has been deemed contrary to the will of special interests, so those same special interests are now trying to push the Constitution out the door, along with quaint ideas like democracy or living in a republic.

The President of the United States is not elected by popular vote of the people of the US. Instead, the Electoral College system allows the voters in 10 or so states to determine who will be elected president – the rest of us just get to cheer from the sidelines.

Any voter who still isn’t dismayed by all of the above faces voter suppression laws and 7 hour lines, along with requests for “your papers, please.”

I’m surprised anyone still votes at all.











sent via horse with lightening feet/a mane like distant rain/the turquoise horse/a black star for an eye/white shell teeth/Pony that feeds on the pollen of flowers - courtesy Gary Snyder

"Profanity is desperation when politically correct (sugarcoated) spin is routinely challenged and exposed."

Sometimes, this is indeed the case.

Often, though, a 'go fuck yourself' is the standard reply (that should be) directed at one who makes no cogent or clarified (or accurate) point and who deserves nuthin' more than dismissal.

'nuff said.

IOW still an adult who posts like a child. Who knows only what an ego says. Only the mentally weakest waste bandwidth with profanity.

That profanity is best directed at a mirror. Only place where that 'intelligence' can be appreciated.

You two should get a room where you can "carry on" in private.

Party? What is a party without it's strength, which is being able to guaranty votes.
Big money PACs? What is a PAC without it's strength, which is being able to buy air-time to influence the uninformed.

Neither of those can do jack shit if the people don't play along. The ballot box is still the bottom line, so the voters have to get informed and involved from the very bottom. They should make an informed choice of who their dogcatcher is going to be, who their school board is going to be, all the way up to the President.

Going around saying their vote doesn't count, is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Looks like Rove and the Tea Party are going to war...

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...vatives/61761/

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-war-Tea-Party

I find that a bit hard to follow, but the gist is that Rove and some others have realised that far-right types may win pre-selection but lose elections, is that it?

It's a bloody scary moment when the sensible sounding moderate in the group is Karl Rove. :eek:

Basically. I do think it goes deeper than just electability but this is what Rove is saying publicly.

There are some major philosophical differences between the Establishment (Rove) and Tea Party Republicans and the fighting has steadily become more public since the election. Essentially, the two groups are in complete disagreement about why they lost and how to proceed from here. The Establishment Republicans see a shrinking demographic base while the Tea Party Republicans see "unpure" candidates. Therefore, the Establishment want to go left while the Tea Party wants to go right.

And play along they do, despite the fact that both parties are only concerned about their own agendas rather than "we, the people". Even if only 20% of eligible voters turn out, the party which convinces the majority to vote they way they want, is showing all the strength that party needs. After all, they got their guy in the White House, right?

This is a given, but informed voters are scarce as hen teeth in this country. The ignorance of the average citizen used to amaze me. However, anymore I'm amazed when I encounter someone who actually make a point of being informed and not by Rush Limbaugh, either.

I hate to sound like my mother, but what the hell do they teach kids in the schools these days? They graduate from high school with their only "science" class being intelligent design, they can't place any of the 50 states on a US map, and they're functionally illiterate. I blame this in part on evangelicals with their passion for home schooling (blind leading blind), and voter refusal to provide funding for rural school districts and urban districts which serve mainly low income and/or minority students.

Given Citizen's United, given the high cost of running for national office, and given the concentration of the nation's wealth in the hands of a wealthy few, etc., etc., our electorial process has become hopelessly broken. We need something like the Occupy Movement, only this time around with competent people in leadership positions and workable solutions for the problems this country now faces.

I'm getting fed up with Halliburton being the sole choice on the ballot.

Inflation, everything has gone up. That $2500 Chevy is now $25000, but the cars have (arguably) improved considerably. Well, school taxes have climbed too. (They just tore down my high school and replaced it with a new one. $67,450,000 for 1400 students, $1,000,000 for the fucking "executive" offices. :rolleyes:)

Anyway, the taxpayers see this money being poured into schools and then look at the product damn whippersnappers graduating. No matter how much money you spend, how many facilities you provide, you can't beat the culture they are raised in. This is especially true in the ghetto, where brand new schools and brand new equipment has been destroyed almost overnight.

The schools are also so embroiled in politically correct bullshit, they don't have ability to teach the most important lesson a student can learn... life ain't fair.

They're leaving that lesson to be taught by the Republican Party.

They don't have to teach kids that life isn't fair. The world does that without any assistance from parents and teachers. Some people, in their attempts to offset the damage done by the fact that life very much is not fair, overdo lessons in the other direction, true.

If you look at the average intake of the more challenged schools, I bet most of those kids have already learned that life is not fair. They're steeped in the unfairness of life. What they need to learn is that life being unfair does not necessarily mean they are hamstrung from the start. They need to learn that words like 'successful' 'respected' and 'achiever' can attach to them too.