Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Planned Parenthood... OT
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m... In article , "Robert Green" wrote: This is about shock, not truth. It's all about people *still* not believing that they could have possibly lost the election, so they're looking for ways to "redo" the vote or invalidate the outcome, at least in their minds. The claims of ineligibility is about the only avenue left for some to deal with the trauma of a Democratic president, especially a black Constitutional Law scholar and "organizer" having won the election against a seasoned man like McCain. It was and is pretty shocking, there's no doubt about it. No one lives easily being on the wrong end of a "sure thing." Sorta like the Dems during the Bush administration. Even the re-election. There is a certain subset of any group that is, to use the proper nomenclature, nuttier than a fruitcake. . I don't think I made my point well. In the last election, cultural norms got up-ended and when that happens, some people get very shook-up. Legitmately so, I think. Their world-views take a terrible beating. I don't think it's nuttiness as much as it is the changing of social mores that have been in place for years. I, for the life of me, can't figure out how someone who sounded like Jimmy Carter could make it to the top post. But he wasn't really a game changer the way Obama was. It took almost 150 years after blacks were freed before we saw a black in the top political office. Considering the country isn't terribly much older than that, white Christian presidents are almost all we've ever known. Obama simply represents an incredible difference in what we've been used to. The older people get, the less they tolerate change and I think that explains why Tea Party members tend to skew to the elderly. They're the ones that experienced the greatest cultural shock and deviation from norms they've lived with all their lives. It doesn't make them nutty (so much), it only makes them "grumpy old men and women" startled by deep changes in the way things are. That massive change was read by a lot of older people as the end of the world that they had known all their lives. The same shock would have occurred had a woman or a Jew won the election, AFAIK. Most pundits still claim those two categories don't enjoy enough broad support among voters. I think we'll see an Hispanic president long before a Jew or a woman wins the job, just because of the demographic shift in our population. We'll see. One things that I find interesting is that even though the Republicans need the Hispanic vote to win the 2012 presidential spot, they have an unfortunate tendency to blame them for our nation's ills. At least some of them still have a functioning mind, as the veto of the Arizona birther law proved. I didn't follow that lunacy closely because I assume States are constitutionally barred from putting "extra" requirements on Federal elections, particularly presidential ones. While I tend to agree with border governors that the Feds have seriously abdicated their role in patrolling the border, that's the way a *lot* of people like it. From the California growers to the wealthy who hire them as nannies and gardeners. The hidden hand of the special interest is hard to dislodge. As a totally unrelated side note, I watched the 1969 DVD of "True Grit" with John Wayne and Robert Duvall last night. I nearly hit the floor when I heard Duvall say: "I never busted a cap on a woman." That slang is apparently a lot older than I had ever imagined. FWIW, the 1969 version is a better film than the Coen brothers' remake. My only question is what compelled them to remake a great film when they're best known for their very original movies like "Fargo" and "Miller's Crossing." I can only guess they felt it was a sure thing and a cash generator for their next film. At least it wasn't as downright dumb as the remaking of Pyscho, frame by frame. Attorney: "In which direction did you back away?" Cogburn: "Backwards." -- Bobby G. |
#2
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Planned Parenthood... OT
On Apr 25, 7:38*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message m... . I don't think I made my point well. *In the last election, cultural norms got up-ended and when that happens, some people get very shook-up. Legitmately so, I think. Their world-views take a terrible beating. *I don't think it's nuttiness as much as it is the changing of social mores that have been in place for years. I, for the life of me, can't figure out how someone who sounded like Jimmy Carter could make it to the top post. *But he wasn't really a game changer the way Obama was. *It took almost 150 years after blacks were freed before we saw a black in the top political office. *Considering the country isn't terribly much older than that, white Christian presidents are almost all we've ever known. Obama simply represents an incredible difference in what we've been used to. The older people get, the less they tolerate change and I think that explains why Tea Party members tend to skew to the elderly. *They're the ones that experienced the greatest cultural shock and deviation from norms they've lived with all their lives. * It doesn't make them nutty (so much), it only makes them "grumpy old men and women" startled by deep changes in the way things are. That massive change was read by a lot of older people as the end of the world that they had known all their lives. *The same shock would have occurred had a woman or a Jew won the election, AFAIK. What total race baiting rubbish. The reason Tea Party people are united against Obama has nothing to do with his race or gender. It''s because of his FAR LEFT policies. You brought up Jimmy Carter. The exact same kind of rejection occured in response to his bad policies and mismanagement. Following that flawed logic, the Tea Party people would be all ****ed off if Sarah Palin were president, right? ... *Most pundits still claim those two categories don't enjoy enough broad support among voters. *I think we'll see an Hispanic president long before a Jew or a woman wins the job, just because of the demographic shift in our population. *We'll see. One things that I find interesting is that even though the Republicans need the Hispanic vote to win the 2012 presidential spot, they have an unfortunate tendency to blame them for our nation's ills. *At least some of them still have a functioning mind, as the veto of the Arizona birther law proved. *I didn't follow that lunacy closely because I assume States are constitutionally barred from putting "extra" requirements on Federal elections, particularly presidential ones. It would not have been an "extra" requirement. It would have simply required proof satisfactory to AZ of meeting the existing requirements. If states can't have their own involvement in federal elections, how do you explain states having differing requirements and methods to get on the presidential primary ballots? While I tend to agree with border governors that the Feds have seriously abdicated their role in patrolling the border, that's the way a *lot* of people like it. *From the California growers to the wealthy who hire them as nannies and gardeners. * Forgot to include the libs that want open borders and to get as many Hispanics as possible, including illegal ones, to vote for them in the next election. .. |
#3
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Planned Parenthood... OT
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 05:46:57 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Apr 25, 7:38*pm, "Robert Green" wrote: "Kurt Ullman" wrote in message m... . I don't think I made my point well. *In the last election, cultural norms got up-ended and when that happens, some people get very shook-up. Legitmately so, I think. Their world-views take a terrible beating. *I don't think it's nuttiness as much as it is the changing of social mores that have been in place for years. I, for the life of me, can't figure out how someone who sounded like Jimmy Carter could make it to the top post. *But he wasn't really a game changer the way Obama was. *It took almost 150 years after blacks were freed before we saw a black in the top political office. *Considering the country isn't terribly much older than that, white Christian presidents are almost all we've ever known. Obama simply represents an incredible difference in what we've been used to. The older people get, the less they tolerate change and I think that explains why Tea Party members tend to skew to the elderly. *They're the ones that experienced the greatest cultural shock and deviation from norms they've lived with all their lives. * It doesn't make them nutty (so much), it only makes them "grumpy old men and women" startled by deep changes in the way things are. That massive change was read by a lot of older people as the end of the world that they had known all their lives. *The same shock would have occurred had a woman or a Jew won the election, AFAIK. What total race baiting rubbish. The reason Tea Party people are united against Obama has nothing to do with his race or gender. It''s because of his FAR LEFT policies. You brought up Jimmy Carter. The exact same kind of rejection occured in response to his bad policies and mismanagement. Following that flawed logic, the Tea Party people would be all ****ed off if Sarah Palin were president, right? .. *Most pundits still claim those two categories don't enjoy enough broad support among voters. *I think we'll see an Hispanic president long before a Jew or a woman wins the job, just because of the demographic shift in our population. *We'll see. One things that I find interesting is that even though the Republicans need the Hispanic vote to win the 2012 presidential spot, they have an unfortunate tendency to blame them for our nation's ills. *At least some of them still have a functioning mind, as the veto of the Arizona birther law proved. *I didn't follow that lunacy closely because I assume States are constitutionally barred from putting "extra" requirements on Federal elections, particularly presidential ones. It would not have been an "extra" requirement. It would have simply required proof satisfactory to AZ of meeting the existing requirements. If states can't have their own involvement in federal elections, how do you explain states having differing requirements and methods to get on the presidential primary ballots? And generally election ballots (think: third party). Presidential elections are *entirely* a state issue. The state chooses how it's electors are chosen and their rules. While I tend to agree with border governors that the Feds have seriously abdicated their role in patrolling the border, that's the way a *lot* of people like it. *From the California growers to the wealthy who hire them as nannies and gardeners. * Forgot to include the libs that want open borders and to get as many Hispanics as possible, including illegal ones, to vote for them in the next election. When have leftists ever cared about the law? |
#4
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Planned Parenthood... OT
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:01:51 -0500, "
wrote: On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 05:46:57 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Apr 25, 7:38*pm, "Robert Green" wrote: "Kurt Ullman" wrote in message m... . I don't think I made my point well. *In the last election, cultural norms got up-ended and when that happens, some people get very shook-up. Legitmately so, I think. Their world-views take a terrible beating. *I don't think it's nuttiness as much as it is the changing of social mores that have been in place for years. I, for the life of me, can't figure out how someone who sounded like Jimmy Carter could make it to the top post. *But he wasn't really a game changer the way Obama was. *It took almost 150 years after blacks were freed before we saw a black in the top political office. *Considering the country isn't terribly much older than that, white Christian presidents are almost all we've ever known. Obama simply represents an incredible difference in what we've been used to. The older people get, the less they tolerate change and I think that explains why Tea Party members tend to skew to the elderly. *They're the ones that experienced the greatest cultural shock and deviation from norms they've lived with all their lives. * It doesn't make them nutty (so much), it only makes them "grumpy old men and women" startled by deep changes in the way things are. That massive change was read by a lot of older people as the end of the world that they had known all their lives. *The same shock would have occurred had a woman or a Jew won the election, AFAIK. What total race baiting rubbish. The reason Tea Party people are united against Obama has nothing to do with his race or gender. It''s because of his FAR LEFT policies. You brought up Jimmy Carter. The exact same kind of rejection occured in response to his bad policies and mismanagement. Following that flawed logic, the Tea Party people would be all ****ed off if Sarah Palin were president, right? .. *Most pundits still claim those two categories don't enjoy enough broad support among voters. *I think we'll see an Hispanic president long before a Jew or a woman wins the job, just because of the demographic shift in our population. *We'll see. One things that I find interesting is that even though the Republicans need the Hispanic vote to win the 2012 presidential spot, they have an unfortunate tendency to blame them for our nation's ills. *At least some of them still have a functioning mind, as the veto of the Arizona birther law proved. *I didn't follow that lunacy closely because I assume States are constitutionally barred from putting "extra" requirements on Federal elections, particularly presidential ones. It would not have been an "extra" requirement. It would have simply required proof satisfactory to AZ of meeting the existing requirements. If states can't have their own involvement in federal elections, how do you explain states having differing requirements and methods to get on the presidential primary ballots? And generally election ballots (think: third party). Presidential elections ^^^^^^^^^ general (damned speelczecher) are *entirely* a state issue. The state chooses how it's electors are chosen and their rules. While I tend to agree with border governors that the Feds have seriously abdicated their role in patrolling the border, that's the way a *lot* of people like it. *From the California growers to the wealthy who hire them as nannies and gardeners. * Forgot to include the libs that want open borders and to get as many Hispanics as possible, including illegal ones, to vote for them in the next election. When have leftists ever cared about the law? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Planned Parenthood... OT | Home Repair | |||
Planned Parenthood... OT | Home Repair | |||
Planned Parenthood... OT | Home Repair |