|
|
Post by gyeonghwa on Aug 1, 2011 22:07:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Aug 1, 2011 22:36:01 GMT -5
Very classy.
|
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Aug 1, 2011 22:39:51 GMT -5
Oh jeez...
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Aug 1, 2011 22:44:02 GMT -5
Lamborn's from Colorado's fifth district, which is based around Colorado Springs. This is where you find both the HQ of Focus on the Family and the US Air Force Academy, and is a city so enamored of "libertarian" principles that it literally cannot afford to turn on more than half of its street lights at night.
I'm sure he saves his really solid racism for hispanics, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Aug 1, 2011 23:35:05 GMT -5
Stay classy, GOP.  |
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Aug 1, 2011 23:38:42 GMT -5
Just when you thought they couldn't sink any lower.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Aug 1, 2011 23:41:16 GMT -5
I'm really hoping the Republicans keep this up actually, just to expedite their fade into irrelevance as a political party.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Aug 2, 2011 0:00:57 GMT -5
I'm really hoping the Republicans keep this up actually, just to expedite their fade into irrelevance as a political party. I don't. A two party system where one party is made up of drooling morons is still better than a one party system where there isn't even a semblance of choice. It is worse than a multi-party system, but that ship sailed a loooooong time ago. |
|
|
|
Post by John E on Aug 2, 2011 0:27:18 GMT -5
We won't end up with a one party system though. If the Republican party fades into irrelevance, either some other party will spring up to fill the void, or the Democratic party will find some ideological lines to split on. America has seen a few political parties come and go in the past, but we always seem to end up with two.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runa on Aug 2, 2011 1:41:42 GMT -5
That would be because most people tend to have a binary view of politics. In this case, it's typically 'them vs. us' or 'liberals vs. conservatives.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Iosa the Invincible on Aug 2, 2011 1:44:14 GMT -5
A lot of people are jumping to his defense saying it doesn't matter because he was referring to something from Br'er Rabbit. Only one problem: it does fucking matter. When a term gains a new meaning, most people will associate it more to that meaning.
For example, say some politician decides to equate some other politician who is a known homosexual to a cigarette: someone whom the people like but is a danger to himself and those around him. Except, instead of using the word cigarette, he uses the term fag, a word that is sometimes used for cigarettes, but is mostly know as a slur against gays. It should be known which definition people would most likely use, so the attacking politician shouldn't use it at all, despite his meaning. The fault is still with the politician for using a term that's widely known to be a slur.
In this case, the term was a racial slur. But this person still thought it appropriate even though he knew what it sounded like. How could he think of this term and not know what it would come off as? My theory is that they use these terms with double meanings so they can still claim that they weren't being racist.
And to the comment in the article asking why a Republican would care about Obama's race during this debt crisis, it's the same reason why they still care about gay marriage, abortion, and sex ed during a debt crisis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Aug 2, 2011 4:24:12 GMT -5
Oh, so that's what bile tastes like. Good to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Aug 2, 2011 4:56:31 GMT -5
That would be because most people tend to have a binary view of politics. In this case, it's typically 'them vs. us' or 'liberals vs. conservatives.' Even more than that, the all-or-nothing electoral system practically requires a two party system, because that's the only way to consolidate enough power to actually win anything. |
|
Alyra
Full Member
ex-fundie
Posts: 143
|
Post by Alyra on Aug 2, 2011 6:09:33 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong (I probably am), but wasn't the electoral system originally designed to combat the lack af availability to the public of any sort of information pertaining to potential presidential candidates and what they stood for? In which case, why do we still use it again?
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 2, 2011 7:08:35 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong (I probably am), but wasn't the electoral system originally designed to combat the lack af availability to the public of any sort of information pertaining to potential presidential candidates and what they stood for? In which case, why do we still use it again? The Electoral system was done because the founding fathers loathed the common man and viewed Democracy as "rule by rabble." |
|
