@ miguel cervantes:
Wish we had FrumForum's endowment - don't think we have its politics. You'd have more company if the people who thought and express themselves as you do - if generally more temperately - could handle the discussion... that is, if they were more interested in discussion than in having their prejudices affirmed and reinforced.
I don’t know, make me an argument, “If This Goes On” how does the whole thing not fall apart
The burden is on the apocalyptics to explain why the rare-to-unprecedented event that they expect is likely to happen, and, if it is likely to happen, how whatever measures they advocate have a reasonable chance of averting it. Without both, it's the Chicken Little show that social-cultural reaction puts on too distract itself and others from what it's really about.
The sky falling on your self-image isn't the same thing as a brick through my window - until you make it so. On the other hand, if the "whole thing" really is already falling apart, then it's too late to save the "whole thing." "Whole thing"'s in dire jeopardy don't get saved. At most, the timing and shape of the collapse might be affected - of great importance to large numbers of people, but of little or none to the larger story. Tea Party Gorgo will in that case end up as a symptom. Her politics might offer some principles for including one group in the citadel, excluding another, and propelling a struggle between the two. She is not going to change the ending.
@ Scott Miller:
It's the internet, Mr. Miller. You never know what may turn up. The occasional "progressives have cooties" is the price of admission to any forum for the free exchange of ideas. If you can't handle that, may be best never to get started.
No honestly, you deserve what you get it’s like, to use another metaphor, ‘lopping off limbs unneccesarily’. ‘Welfare rather than jobs.’ that may be the consequence, but hopefully not the goal
This is all taking place in your mind. It's just your ideology speaking to itself, empty phrases about empty phrases, sound bites biting sound bites. You don't have the slightest idea what Californians sense, experience, or want, and your apparent belief in your objective knowledge of what's good for them or ought to be good for them is just another delusion. Spend all day cursing in the mirror about stupid Californians getting what they deserve - it's just "verbage" as Tea Party Gorgo likes to say.
@ miguel cervantes:
You seem to have a hard time telling the difference between an empty opinion that you hope is correct and an actual argument. In the meantime, self-confidently referring to your opponents as "stupid" is just plain... dysfunctional.
@ fuster:
My darling Kamala seems to be running fairly far behind the evil Cooley. Early returns seem to favor the Rs a bit - the race has been called for Boxer, but they have Fiorina ahead. I think the gap's too big to be made up.
Brown destroyed Whitman among Latinos as well, and Latinos may turn out to be the difference in Fiorina-Boxer, although women seem also to have stayed home among Dems in California. They voted heavily for Brown over Whitman. Haven't seen any results for Boxer-Fiorina, but I bet it was the same.
Abortion, guns, health care and the "nanny state," immigration, environmental protection - it all cuts differently out here in the "progressive West."
It's a bit counterintuitive, but the extremity of the R wave may have made it more difficult for Whitman and Fiorina, since they had to run to the right in the primaries, and weren't able to recapture the center. Fiorina was happy with Palin's primary endorsement, but it weighed her down afterward.
And the Rs maybe ought to count themselves lucky that CO'D, Sharron Angle, and possibly Miller, possibly Buck aren't going to be weighing them down and grabbing headlines as part of a Senate majority.
@ Scott Miller:
@ miguel cervantes:
Wish we had FrumForum's endowment - don't think we have its politics. You'd have more company if the people who thought and express themselves as you do - if generally more temperately - could handle the discussion... that is, if they were more interested in discussion than in having their prejudices affirmed and reinforced.
miguel cervantes wrote:
The burden is on the apocalyptics to explain why the rare-to-unprecedented event that they expect is likely to happen, and, if it is likely to happen, how whatever measures they advocate have a reasonable chance of averting it. Without both, it's the Chicken Little show that social-cultural reaction puts on too distract itself and others from what it's really about.
The sky falling on your self-image isn't the same thing as a brick through my window - until you make it so. On the other hand, if the "whole thing" really is already falling apart, then it's too late to save the "whole thing." "Whole thing"'s in dire jeopardy don't get saved. At most, the timing and shape of the collapse might be affected - of great importance to large numbers of people, but of little or none to the larger story. Tea Party Gorgo will in that case end up as a symptom. Her politics might offer some principles for including one group in the citadel, excluding another, and propelling a struggle between the two. She is not going to change the ending.
@ fuster:
...I don't think I could handle any more.
Maybe this will help:
@ Scott Miller:
It's the internet, Mr. Miller. You never know what may turn up. The occasional "progressives have cooties" is the price of admission to any forum for the free exchange of ideas. If you can't handle that, may be best never to get started.
miguel cervantes wrote:
This is all taking place in your mind. It's just your ideology speaking to itself, empty phrases about empty phrases, sound bites biting sound bites. You don't have the slightest idea what Californians sense, experience, or want, and your apparent belief in your objective knowledge of what's good for them or ought to be good for them is just another delusion. Spend all day cursing in the mirror about stupid Californians getting what they deserve - it's just "verbage" as Tea Party Gorgo likes to say.
@ miguel cervantes:
You seem to have a hard time telling the difference between an empty opinion that you hope is correct and an actual argument. In the meantime, self-confidently referring to your opponents as "stupid" is just plain... dysfunctional.
miguel cervantes wrote:
Raises the question whether anyone stupid enough to make that statement is too stupid to understand why it's so stupid.
@ fuster:
My darling Kamala seems to be running fairly far behind the evil Cooley. Early returns seem to favor the Rs a bit - the race has been called for Boxer, but they have Fiorina ahead. I think the gap's too big to be made up.
Brown destroyed Whitman among Latinos as well, and Latinos may turn out to be the difference in Fiorina-Boxer, although women seem also to have stayed home among Dems in California. They voted heavily for Brown over Whitman. Haven't seen any results for Boxer-Fiorina, but I bet it was the same.
Abortion, guns, health care and the "nanny state," immigration, environmental protection - it all cuts differently out here in the "progressive West."
It's a bit counterintuitive, but the extremity of the R wave may have made it more difficult for Whitman and Fiorina, since they had to run to the right in the primaries, and weren't able to recapture the center. Fiorina was happy with Palin's primary endorsement, but it weighed her down afterward.
And the Rs maybe ought to count themselves lucky that CO'D, Sharron Angle, and possibly Miller, possibly Buck aren't going to be weighing them down and grabbing headlines as part of a Senate majority.