(V):

Artful Dodger: Champ.. Champ..

The Col: This is... a conservative 'state'.

The Col:even you and Jules have used the word idiot.  I am the undisputed Champ though.  

(V): I ve seen people called "idiots" amongst other such names, and nary a disenting word, oh well.What I find interesting is Obama won the election and the popular vote , but the only ones supporting him on this board are from the UK and Canada

The Col: Interesting to see how many modern phrases date back in some form thousands of years.

Iamon lyme: Ages ago..

"What's up with the parenthetical reference to my 'childhood'?"

Nothing...

"I have more of a right to occupy the White house as the executive leader of my country than our current president does.I don't need to conjure up poorly faked documents because I really WAS born in this country.

No you don't. He was born in America, just for some reason you hate liberals.. or at least your definition of what they are.

"If she was still alive and working, she would be furious about todays taxation"

If everyone in the US .. ok, the 99% got together and closed all the tax loopholes.. I think it'd be quite feasible to permanently lower tax rates for the rich.

Übergeek 바둑이:  It comes as news to me too but I never score 100% conservative on any of those tests.  I'm definitely in the camp of those on the Right, but not the far right.  I lean left on a few issues but not too far left.  Maybe I just end up closer to the center on some views. 

JerNYC:

> A very clear message was sent to the Republicans in this election if they are
> smart enough to take their hands off their ears. "Get the crazies out of your
> party"

> This message didn't come from the liberal establishment in the Northeast. It
> came right out of the heartland.

> Just like Obama was smart enough to never associate himself with the lunatics
> of OWS, so should the Republicans turn their backs on their own lunatics.

To me it was very telling the situation in Colorado. Colorado traditionally voted Republican. Yet it this election (as in 2008) Colorado went Democrat. On TV I hear that the "Latino" vote did it.

The real problem with the Tea Party is that so far it has failed to appeal to the imagination of minorities. Many Hispanics are actually quite conservative people. Traditionally people in Latin America have favored conservative government policies and values deeply influenced by their Catholic thinking.

I found this in one of the Tea Party websites:

"Many people believe that because the Tea Party is a conservative movement, Hispanics do not have a role or interest in it, however this is not true. Hispanics not only are involved, there is a strong effort to reach out, and inform and educate them about conservative issues. The goal of the Tea Party in Texas is to create a strong conservative bloc of voters in the Texas Hispanic communities through out the state.

Hispanics have conservative cultural values which include family and religion. However, liberal Democrats have blinded them with fears and racism. Liberal Democrats have made many of them dependent on the government, while establishing political bosses to control them politically and economically. The political history of south Texas is full of political bosses like George and Archie Parr of Duval County who controlled Hispanics by keeping them dependent on the government. The old Anglo political bosses may be gone, but they have been replaced by Hispanic bosses who are supported by liberal Democrats in Washington DC."

Obviously the Tea party is aware that they need to appeal to minorities if they are to change the course of politics in the USA. However, I am yet to see any prominent Hispanics or African Americans who support the Tea Party. This is made worse by the Arizona immigration legislation that was pushed forth and supported by some members of the Tea Party. The idea that Hispanics have been made dependant on the government by "liberals" is not going to help Tea Party hopes in Texas (or anywhere else).

If Republicans are to rebuild their voter base, they must balance the values of fiscal conservatism, religious conservatism, and the appeal to minorities and women. This is not easy to do because the religious views of Tea Party members are more in line with the 10% of the Hispanic population that believe in protestantism and evangelism. Some of the values of the Tea Party can appeal only to a small segment of the minority population. It will be interesting to see how Republicans balance that approach. I am not sure if there will be a backlash against the Tea Party or some of its values. I think we are more likely to see a further radicalization in their direction. I think Republicans will not take a har look at their values until they receive a real beating at the polls.

Artful Dodger:

For 100 % you are: Liberal!
44.2173 % of 1712 Quiz participants had this profile!

That really comes as news to me!

Iamon lyme:

I was away a couple of days. I can finally sit down and reply.

> So here's an interesting question... In light of those stats (I believe they are
> accurate) how popular do you believe Reagan would be today compared to how
> popular he was with voters during his tenure? It seems to me he would have
> been no more popular among voters today than Romney was.


This is a very interesting question. Reagan's era was very different. Reagan first attempted to be president in 1976. He lost the Republican primaries to Gerald Ford, but 1976 set him up to become the main Republican candidate in 1980.

In 1980 he won with 51% of the vote compares to Jimmy Carter's 41%. Voter turnout was really low that year, only 53% of the electorate voted. Reagan was helped by the Iran hostage crisis, rising interest rates that were crippling the economy, and the perception that he could be a Republican capable of mending the rift caused by the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. During his tenure Reagan became very popular with both Republicans and Democrats. In 1984 Reagan was reelected with 58.8 % of the vote copared to Walter Mondale's 40.6% (voter turnout was again only 53%). This clearly shows Reagan's appeal across the aisle and across party lines.

In our modern era Reagan probably would not have suceeded during the primaries. Reagan has the distinction of being the only American president to be divorced. In 1948 his first wife, Jane Wyman, divorced him. Four years later he married actress Nancy Davis (born Anne Frances Robbins), who became the first lady. There was nothing inappropriate about his divorce and second marriage, but in our present era it is quite possible that he would have been taken apart and his private life would have been used to sink him. Such is the nasty nature of politics in the mass media era. I don't think that religion would have affected his chances. He was raised a Catholic, but was baptized into the Disciples of Christ (a protestant church with a Congregational and Presbyterian polity).

We must also look at the nature of the modern electorate. These days minorites have gained a lot of political clout, as have women. The general perception is that Reagan used veiled allusion to race and state's rights as a way to court the seggregationist vote in the South (the so-called Dixiecrats). Reagan also attempted to dismantle government programs aimed at ensuring civil rights and welfare for the poor. Reagan was accused of policies that contributed to racism and increasing racial tensions. Whether those accusation are warranted is a matter of debate, but in our modern era Reagan would have been taken apart on racial issues and that 28% of the vote represented by minorities would not have gone his way. Regan has also been the called the "most anti-women president of the 20th century". I saw a claim that said that sexual discrimination claims increased 25% in the 1980s. I think Reagan would have failed to garner the female vote.

All in all I think that his great appeal and political qualities would have made him as popular as Romney, but he would have lost the election too because the demographics of the vote have changed so much.

The Col: Your continued rudeness will not be tolerated. I will thank you ahead of time to rein it in.

rod03801: Yeah, hardly up to the high standards of this board ,and clearly worth making one of your rare appearances

(V): So many phrases, so little time

(V):

Iamon lyme: V): [ ...he refers to from his 'childhood'. ]

What's up with the parenthetical reference to my 'childhood'?

Are you suggesting I might be lying? Granted it was a long time ago, but I do have papers showing where and when I was born. And just to be clear, my birth record and SS# are perfectly valid. In fact, I have more of a right to occupy the White house as the executive leader of my country than our current president does... I don't need to conjure up poorly faked documents because I really WAS born in this country.

(V): [ I think it's just where lamon was raised, it got made racist by the old timers he refers to from his 'childhood'. ]

Bingo, you figured it out! I'm impressed.

Language is always changing... new words are always being coined and old words gain different shades of meaning, as do phrases. When I said the old timers were transplants, I meant that literally. Many were old south racists who were influenced from their youth by the clan, and some were probably former clan members. I didn't understand why they held such deep hatred and resentments, but as a kid living in the time and area I lived in you were expected to respect your elders no matter what.

To this day I still don't know what prejudices my parents may have had, because they were smart enough not to poison their own children with that kind of thinking. My dad was a fiscal Republican, and was a law and order kind of guy. Other than that his personal views leaned more toward the liberal side. My mother was the go along to get along type, a Democrat who never questioned what her party did. She would complain about high taxes, but never made the connection between that and the fact it was her party who was mostly responsible for the high tax rate. And I'm talking about the tax rate back then... If she was still alive and working, she would be furious about todays taxation, but I suspect she would still be a party loyalist.

Artful Dodger: No no no no no no noooooo... you gotta stand up for your rights to be dominated properly. That bit allowance dates back generations.

..... It's traditional.

(V): No worries. I kinda like the leather look. 

Artful Dodger: She's taken your bit away again... I'd speak to your union on that one, it's just totally morally unfair!!

The Col: It dates back older in various forms... Yet the phrase as I know it (and you know it) it dates back to a time of open fires..

As generally understood, the person accusing (the "pot") is understood to share some quality with the target of their accusation (the "kettle"). The pot is mocking the kettle for a little soot when the pot itself is thoroughly covered in the same. An alternative interpretation, recognised by some,[1][2] but not all,[3] sources is that the pot is sooty (being placed on a fire), while the kettle is clean and shiny (being placed on coals only), and hence when the pot accuses the kettle of being black, it is the pot’s own sooty reflection that it sees: the pot accuses the kettle of a fault that only the pot has, rather than one that they share.

The following poem is found in the school book "Maxwell's Elementary Grammar", copyright 1904.

"Oho!" said the pot to the kettle;
"You are dirty and ugly and black!
Sure no one would think you were metal,
Except when you're given a crack."

"Not so! not so!" kettle said to the pot;
"'Tis your own dirty image you see;
For I am so clean – without blemish or blot –
That your blackness is mirrored in me."


>>>>>>>>>> I think it's just where lamon was raised, it got made racist by the old timers he refers to from his 'childhood'.

still

Keep in mind that:

Artful Dodger: [ My wife carries a leather strap. ]

Well there ya go! And for all of you young people out there who might have been wondering about this, romance ISN'T dead! It's just taken a slight turn is all... and gone off in a strange direction. But it's still alive, and that is what is important! Yes.




ohhhh man, what have I gotten myself into here?

rod03801: He directed that comment to AD, but I hear what you're saying about the level of maturity. Actually, the comment he made sounded a bit catty so it all evens out. *</:oP

Iamon lyme: Seems as though it was a silly attempt to make you seem less than masculine. Sort of a teenager-ish tactic. But a silly one, personally I've heard it said equally from men or women.

Iamon lyme: Idiomatic expression of discontent

Iamon lyme: My wife carries a leather strap. If I'm good she lets me chew on it. If I'm bad she whacks me with it.

Artful Dodger: [ Maybe they think he's hungry? ]


Naaa, I don't think their first instinct would be to say, "Hey, if you're hungry just take a bite out of me. That should hold you until dinner... or until the next woman walks by."

Women should carry treats with them in case they ever run across a hungry looking man. Seriously, there are hungry men everywhere you go, so why wouldn't they? If they are going to take precautions against getting pregnant then it only makes sense they should also take precautions against getting chewed on.

Artful Dodger: I tried to find the exact meaning of the expression "bite me", but all I've been able to come away with is the understanding that it's not meant to be a compliment... big deal, I knew that before I began my time consuming in-depth two minute research project.

Iamon lyme: Maybe they think he's hungry?

The Col: [ btw, I have only heard women say "bite me" ]

I've heard women say all sorts of things, but never that. Why would they say that to you?

The Col: FYI I generally like to keep my messages limited to one two posts per idea. Three if needed.

I COULD make very short and concise statements for your benefit, so you are able to digest it all without too much trouble. But frankly, if I need to walk you through every little detail with one short message after another this could easliy take up an entire page doing nothing more than that. I can do this, and have done this for my children when they were young because of their limited knowledge and attention spans, but I will not be doing this for you.

The Col: And I'm sure you took a quick flight down the map to look up the old timers from my home town, to ask them about it as well. I probably should have told you they are all dead now, and saved you the trip. I was a boy at the time and they were old enough to be my grandparents. But I am having fun reading your insightful comments, so please... do continue.

Iamon lyme: Frankly, life is too short to weed through your often rambling statements, and I usually nod off by the first paragraph.I did research your insinuation that pot calling kettle black" is(or was) a racist statement.It dates back to the 1600's apparently, and it NEVER did, not then, not now. NO original subtext, nadda,zich.If you would like more info regarding the origons of "pot calling kettle black" I will send you the links

The Col: You missed the point, but then go on to explain the point I was making... to me?

I'll have to mull that one over, because I'm not really sure what kind of turn around you are trying to pull here. Or maybe you're not trying to do anything like that, maybe you really don't get it.

The meaning of pot calling the kettle black is to illustrate hypocrisy. I didn't say the meaning of the statement is racist, I was merely pointing out how an original subtext of that statement no longer applies or is even relevant anymore. And I'm not surprised by your knee jerk reaction, I've come to expect it... in fact I have yet to see either you or V understand or respond to anything I've actually been saying. But maybe that's been my fault, because unless I spell everything out for you guys you just don't seem to get it.

Anyway, here's another one of those kind of statements, and you are free to disagree with me about this as well... "one got in over the fence." The literal meaning is, a dog gets in over the fence and impregnates someone elses dog. But one of the originally underlying (flies below the radar) meanings of that has also been been nulified by time and changes in attitudes.

I grew up in a small community where racist attitudes were the norm. I learned what some of those sayings actually meant back then from listening to the old timers. I didn't understand until I was older that these guy were actually transplants from a different time and a different place. They were kind of like the aging hippies we have today, who still get off on "free sex" and drugs and rock and roll and spouting off that all Republicans are warmongers. But don't tell the old hippies that, because they still think this is the 60's and you shouldn't trust anyone over 30...

Maybe it's time grandpa hippy pants should take a long look in the mirror at himself, and realise he passed the age of 30 about 40 years ago.

Iamon lyme: It's called having a basic knowledge of chemistry, physics and geography.

Plus several years of reporting on various news channels here in the UK showing the effects of acid rain on forests.

"Or, we need to get as many contraceptives for women as we can, because... uh, because we men respect them and, and... because we don't want to have to spend the rest of our lives paying for some brat just because we can't keep our pants zipped up... because we respect them!"

You'll find a comparable text in the Bible... in the OT.

"so they may learn the value of caring for inanimate objects."

But the Earth moves, it is animated.

"babies in the womb are NOT inanimate objects... so caring for them, let alone caring anything about them, is simply not an issue."

If that's what you think people that are not thinking like you think.. then your thinking need rethinking.

"Well, not yet."

You have a real grudge??

(V): [ Just the ones that try and make you feel good? What about the ones designed to make you feel insecure or afraid... seems you've got some listening to learn ]

Good point. I'm surprised you caught that one, but not so surprised you miss the connection between fear mongering and phony warnings over things like global warming or "Oh, no... the earth is running out of resources so we need to stop drilling for oil!" Or, we need to get as many contraceptives for women as we can, because... uh, because we men respect them and, and... because we don't want to have to spend the rest of our lives paying for some brat just because we can't keep our pants zipped up... because we respect them!

My favorite attempt at fear mongering is when someone claims we are "hurting the earth". But maybe they too have a point, and should encourage everyone to have a pet rock to care for, so they may learn the value of caring for inanimate objects. And just to make it clear so there is no hint of inconsistency with this liberal line of thinking, babies in the womb are NOT inanimate objects... so caring for them, let alone caring anything about them, is simply not an issue.

I wanted to be a liberal at one time, but I never could follow the herd all the way down the path to Insanity Meadows. By the way, that would be a good name for a nursing home for elderly hippies and radicals from the 60's... only one problem with that though, they are not inanimate objects either.
Well, not yet.

The Col: You can please some of the people... etc.

(V): re "he just didn't like my reply"

shocking

The Col: He knows.. he just didn't like my reply.

Iamon lyme: So you do understand I find you moaning about what you call "liberals" is hypocritical considering elements within the GOP camp have used such tactics.

... fyi most politically concious people in the UK consider the democrats as being conservative, republicans as being very conservative... and the tea party being so right, that like Derek Zoolander (see film).... they cannot turn left.

.. the likes of the BNP being the exception. The party that was taken to court over only allowing white members.. preferably with a family tree dating back to the last ice age.

Iamon lyme: it's about hypocrisy, not racist bud, look it up, everywhere you look it will dismiss it as being racist

(V): [ pot calling kettle black ]

Are you aware of the origins of that expression? Most people are aware of what it means, but not the racist overtones it once meant to convey. I'll give you a hint, it's like saying "A person of color calling another person of color a person of color."

Artful Dodger: Saying Obama was crap in helping his state.

"V doesn't know that it's not actually tasteless to say "drink the koolaid." Koolaid comes in many flavors and it's anything but tasteless."

Didn't say it was tasteless... but it's not sold in the UK except maybe in 'USA' goods stores. We've got our own weird ones, n' some of the varieties that we get from the Nepalese shops is...

Iamon lyme: Leader.. ideology.. religious persuasion, there is no difference... pot calling kettle black. Every major group plays on some 'herd' instinct.. No moral high ground for you there.

"appealing primarily to our emotions and making us "feel good". I like feeling good too, I don't know who doesn't, but not at the expense of what can happen if I only follow my feelings."

... again a pot n' kettle case.

"and I no longer worry about resisting questionable sales pitches. If I hear a message that appears tailored only to making me feel good, then I immediately become suspicious."

Just the ones that try and make you feel good? What about the ones designed to make you feel insecure or afraid... seems you've got some listening to learn

First off, I just want to thank all of you for your gracious comments. I'm so used to knee-jerk insults on other web sites when I try to discuss politics.

A very clear message was sent to the Republicans in this election if they are smart enough to take their hands off their ears. "Get the crazies out of your party"

This message didn't come from the liberal establishment in the Northeast. It came right out of the heartland. Todd Akin was soundly defeated in Missouri and Richard Mourdock was plainly rejected by the good folks in Indiana. These are very conservative states if you've ever visited them. For them to choose Democrats over Republicans is a big deal. Though Democrats in those states tend to be far less liberal, but that's besides the point.

Republicans mistakenly thought in 2008 that they didn't cater enough to the far right. They thought Palin's popularity meant people wanted more radical ignoramuses. Wrong. Palin was only popular in a 'reality show' sense. People enjoy watching trainwrecks. It doesn't mean they want to vote for them. Palin scared people as a VP and that really hurt McCain.

Romney never had the guts to throw Akin and Mourdock under the bus during the campaign. If he had, he would have won the votes of many people in those swing states that might have tipped the 50/48 in his favor.

Just like Obama was smart enough to never associate himself with the lunatics of OWS, so should the Republicans turn their backs on their own lunatics.