EPTOn March 13 2012 06:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Possibly irony, Romney wins Mississippi and goes full Moderate in the general.
Possibly irony, Romney wins Mississippi and goes full Moderate in the general.
That's the pattern (for both parties).
Republican nominations - Page 542
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
That's the pattern (for both parties). | ||
|
DamnCats
United States1472 Posts
On March 13 2012 05:46 methematics wrote: Haven't been on TL for a while, but gems like this make me glad to be back. I love the way they dance on top the bus that says special lol. That bus is special alright. Seriously, if they wanna compare enthusiasm for the four candidates, Ron Paul wins hands down. Hell Gingrich had to cancel a rally in Georgia on (or the day before) super-Tuesday, where he somehow had enough support to win it. . . GAME ON. Rick Santorum rallies seriously made Mitt Romney's rallies seem like the supporters thought he was Elvis or some shit. | ||
|
DamnCats
United States1472 Posts
Pretty sure Obama's already written off that horrible state anyways. 10 percent among white voters living their last election I think? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 13 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote: Personally, I have always thought that the Jews are a perfect of case study of how this works and how badly it can end. Huh? I thought we were talking about discrimination against the majority. How do Jews factor into this? Edit: It's not that discrimination is okay in this instance and not okay in that instance. It's that minorities need to be more protected by the law because they are more vulnerable. Don't misunderstand, that includes minorities like neo-nazis and white supremacists and such. And I'm very confused by you xDaunt, considering you were defending stereotypes and generalizations just a bunch of pages back. How can you possibly claim that's a "property of the left" when you are openly demonstrating it and are on the right? (also this is not liberal) | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 13 2012 07:21 DoubleReed wrote: Huh? I thought we were talking about discrimination against the majority. How do Jews factor into this? I was just commenting on your post about rationalizing biggotry. There is no better example of people rationalizing biggotry than the reasons that people have come up with to legitimize discriminating against (and in some cases, exterminating) Jews. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On March 13 2012 06:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: -.- It's like having a conversation with a robot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N43njcpNcHs I'm pretty certain at this point that he's trying to spin his wealth into being a good thing. That was a really out of the way method of mentioning he has friends who own NFL teams. It was so intentional that he must think of it as a good way to get votes. | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On March 13 2012 07:24 xDaunt wrote: I was just commenting on your post about rationalizing biggotry. There is no better example of people rationalizing biggotry than the reasons that people have come up with to legitimize discriminating against (and in some cases, exterminating) Jews. On March 05 2012 12:38 xDaunt wrote: Stereotypes may be incorrect at times, but they are incredibly reliable. There's reason why people find them so offensive: they work. On March 05 2012 09:36 xDaunt wrote: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... There's a reason why stereotypes tend to work. I <3 you. The proud face of the right! | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On March 13 2012 07:37 Mohdoo wrote: I'm pretty certain at this point that he's trying to spin his wealth into being a good thing. That was a really out of the way method of mentioning he has friends who own NFL teams. It was so intentional that he must think of it as a good way to get votes. There is no problem with being rich, people can still relate with a rich person. People start to have trouble when someone has a 100+ million net worth. When 1 day of interest pulls in more money than most earn in a year, it gets a bit hard to see them as "ordinary." In my opinion it was a huge mistake for Mitt to ever try and sell himself as an average joe. He simply isn't. I understand the voting value of seeming like the guy that "people would want to get a beer with," but you shouldn't force that one a canidate that clearly isn't like that. Maybe if Mitt could act like a normal person, but he can't even do that. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 13 2012 07:45 seppolevne wrote: I <3 you. The proud face of the right! There's a difference between stereotypes and outright biggotry. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On March 13 2012 07:54 xDaunt wrote: There's a difference between stereotypes and outright biggotry. Should stereotypes ever contribute to decision making? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
Stereotype: "The Jews have all of the money." (Before any of you cry foul, I don't subscribe this. I'm just using it as an illustration.) Bigotry: "Discriminating against Jews is okay because they have all of the money." Stereotyping is merely a tool. Bigotry is a policy. That's the difference. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 13 2012 07:47 zalz wrote: There is no problem with being rich, people can still relate with a rich person. People start to have trouble when someone has a 100+ million net worth. When 1 day of interest pulls in more money than most earn in a year, it gets a bit hard to see them as "ordinary." In my opinion it was a huge mistake for Mitt to ever try and sell himself as an average joe. He simply isn't. I understand the voting value of seeming like the guy that "people would want to get a beer with," but you shouldn't force that one a canidate that clearly isn't like that. Maybe if Mitt could act like a normal person, but he can't even do that. His current troubles with his base are attributable to the belief that (1) he doesn't stand for anything, he just shifts his political dialogue to whatever the next primary audience likes, and (2) his defense of Mass. health care reform law even after seeing its national cousin, Affordable Health Care for America Act, pisses off Republicans--especially conservative ones. He promises to repeal it, to defund it, if elected, but those promises seem shallow in the face of his actions as governor and politician. Now, I'd like to address your rich Republican stereotype. I'm going to address this as a conservative, pretty much in line with Tea Party ideals. Becoming rich is a fine American dream, and in America, it doesn't mean you had to step on everybody to get up there. The success of rich people is to be applauded, not decried as symptomatic of the lamentable income gap. The economy relies on the free exchange of products and services for money. He literally helped many people on his rise to the top, and every white-collar worker that got a job/kept their jobs at Bain & Company and Bain Capital have profited from his success. Therefore, his net worth is hardly an issue for conservatives and some moderate Republicans. The only "average joe" argument that sticks is the one where he tries to oversell his talking style and shifts his commentary to whatever people like to hear (average joes just talk about what they believe, not only what the other guy wants to hear). | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 13 2012 07:58 Mohdoo wrote: Should stereotypes ever contribute to decision making? Absolutely yes. EDIT: Here's the dirty little secret about stereotypes that everyone seems to be missing: it's a crude form of statistical analysis. Rejecting the application of stereotypes in policy making is akin to rejecting the use of statistics in policy analysis. Want a good example of this stupidity in practice? Look no further than the TSA, where those bozos are directed to ignore stereotypes and statistics when selecting whom should be given a thorough pat down/inspection. Thus, we live in a world where granny has to have her diaper inspected because we want to be politically correct and avoid offending the groups from whom individuals are more likely to be terrorists. | ||
mensrea
Canada5062 Posts
I'm just sayin'. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10568 Posts
On March 13 2012 08:23 mensrea wrote: It won't make any difference whoever wins. They have no chance against Obama. I'm just sayin'. I remember you making a bold prediction on Bush's re-election and being right about it, but you also said Obama didn't have a chance at becoming President because he was a minority. So you're 1-1 as far as I know  | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On March 13 2012 04:10 xDaunt wrote: Even assuming that you're correct, that's an acceptable excuse because of why? Because they're not actually discriminated against. Their way, their history, their culture is the norm and deviation from that is seen as an attack or discrimination when in reality, it's just what every other group deals with normally. It's the "when is white history month?" argument. Every month is white history month in the US. Furthermore, one of the clarifiers in that sentence is a belief system, not a race or sex. You know who really faces a lot of bigotry in the US? White scientologists. As well as actors, politicians and investment bankers. It's just not fair! I just don't see how you can say white christian males are getting a raw deal, with a straight face. Sure, they face some discrimination, but I think it's less than every other group in the country. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On March 13 2012 07:58 Mohdoo wrote: Should stereotypes ever contribute to decision making? Truth is stereotypes contribute to an incredible amount of our decision making, whether we like it our not. You know that feeling you get when you look at the line-up in front of a club and know that it's not for you? You're stereotyping right there. You can't judge a book by it's cover, but you can make a pretty reliable guess whether it's worth your time or not by the back cover and the inside flaps. | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 13 2012 08:07 xDaunt wrote: I suppose that I should clarify the difference between stereotypes and bigotry: Stereotype: "The Jews have all of the money." (Before any of you cry foul, I don't subscribe this. I'm just using it as an illustration.) Bigotry: "Discriminating against Jews is okay because they have all of the money." Stereotyping is merely a tool. Bigotry is a policy. That's the difference. ??? So should stereotypes be kept in mind when forming policy (like your example with the TSA)? Because if they're "statistical analysis" then they are legitimate to be used to discriminate. But that's bigotry. What you're saying is blatantly contradicting itself. The fact that you wrote these posts is proof that you are not a computer. Edit: I agree that prejudice is a useful tool for things in people's lives. But basing it on non-choices like skin color, sex, or sexual orientation is impractical (and often incorrect) most of the time. Basing your prejudice on clothing or hygiene, for instance, is more practical. The problem with stereotypes is that they simply aren't very good a lot of the time. | ||
| ||
