Schumer Shutdown.....

PostmodernProphet said:
thank you New York, for picking up the tab for keeping Ellis Island open........feel free to do so the other 363 days of the year as well.......
Click to expand...

Why not, they're always welcomed with open arms immigrants from Shithole situations, after all, they're still here and didn't go back.
 
Both sides learned a valuable lesson, it's better to not negotiate with President Drumpf.

Removing him from the equation, thereby diminishing the influence of senior adviser and anti-immigrant hardliner Stephen Miller, and should make a deal possible.

The great dealmaker has been sent out to pasture (or to Davos, if you prefer).

Drumpf was exposed as a non-player, a hazard to dealmaking.

That’s quite a blow to his brand and his little ego.
 
Oh he's a verrrrry involved player.......................Chucky's crew are the ones who don't want to play.

Trump made 3 offers and the Dems turned them down. Dems wanted the shutdown..............

1st - Trump offered budget deal to keep gub running & dreamer amnesty. Just give us something on the wall.

Dems:NO

2nd - Then just fund gub till March plus we'll give you CHIP now.

Dems:NO

3rd - Let's do budget with 50 votes.

Dems:NO
 
Bourbon said:
Both sides learned a valuable lesson, it's better to not negotiate with President Drumpf.

Removing him from the equation, thereby diminishing the influence of senior adviser and anti-immigrant hardliner Stephen Miller, and should make a deal possible.

The great dealmaker has been sent out to pasture (or to Davos, if you prefer).

Drumpf was exposed as a non-player, a hazard to dealmaking.

That’s quite a blow to his brand and his little ego.
Click to expand...

???....getting what he wanted is a blow to his ego?......go figure......
 
Right said:
Why else would you ignore an article written by an African American?
Click to expand...

Ahhh...so your "intellect" informs you that the ONLY reason one might not read that article was because it was written by an African American. Whew! That's lousy logic even for someone like you.

Anyway, I didn't read it for two reasons: One, because it was in the National Review...which is like listening to that pretend news channel called FOX. I've got better things to do with my time. Secondly, I am not going to wade through an article as long as that one to find out whatever you think "destroys" my argument.

If you had anything worthwhile to say about what was written in the article, you should have given an extract for me to read. Alternatively, you could have done what an ethical poster would do...make your case yourself in your own words.

Anyway...if you want to refer to articles in National Review or ask someone to watch a clip from the cesspool FOX News...do it with someone else.

Okay?
 
Frank Apisa said:
Ahhh...so your "intellect" informs you that the ONLY reason one might not read that article was because it was written by an African American. Whew! That's lousy logic even for someone like you.

Anyway, I didn't read it for two reasons: One, because it was in the National Review...which is like listening to that pretend news channel called FOX. I've got better things to do with my time. Secondly, I am not going to wade through an article as long as that one to find out whatever you think "destroys" my argument.

If you had anything worthwhile to say about what was written in the article, you should have given an extract for me to read. Alternatively, you could have done what an ethical poster would do...make your case yourself in your own words.

Anyway...if you want to refer to articles in National Review or ask someone to watch a clip from the cesspool FOX News...do it with someone else.

Okay?
Click to expand...
Are you now rejecting the Harvard University Press?

As late as 1964, the Republican platform argued that “the elimination of any such discrimination is a matter of heart, conscience, and education, as well as of equal rights under law.”
The conventional Republican wisdom of the day held that the South was backward because it was poor rather than poor because it was backward.

And their strongest piece of evidence for that belief was that Republican support in the South was not among poor whites or the old elites — the two groups that tended to hold the most retrograde beliefs on race.

Instead, it was among the emerging southern middle class.

This fact was recently documented by professors Byron Shafer and Richard Johnston in The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South (Harvard University Press, 2006).

Which is to say: The Republican rise in the South was contemporaneous with the decline of race as the most important political question and tracked the rise of middle-class voters moved mainly by economic considerations and anti-Communism.

The South had been in effect a Third World country within the United States, and that changed with the post-war economic boom.

As Clay Risen put it in the New York Times: “The South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class.
This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the GOP. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats.

This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.” The mythmakers would have you believe that it was the opposite: that your white-hooded hillbilly trailer-dwelling tornado-bait voters jumped ship because LBJ signed a civil-rights bill (passed on the strength of disproportionately Republican support in Congress). The facts suggest otherwise
Click to expand...
.
 
Right said:
Are you now rejecting the Harvard University Press?

.
Click to expand...

No...but the link you offered linked me to the National Review.

If you have something that refutes anything I have said...offer it.

I cannot imagine anything you say will refute anything I have said or asserted here.
 
Frank Apisa said:
No...but the link you offered linked me to the National Review.

If you have something that refutes anything I have said...offer it.

I cannot imagine anything you say will refute anything I have said or asserted here.
Click to expand...

The National Review quoted the Harvard Press...
 
Right said:
The National Review quoted the Harvard Press...
Click to expand...

The National Review was the National Review.

If you have something to say which will refute something I have said...quote what it is you are refuting and we can discuss your refutation of it.

If your point is that there are African Americans who think the Republicans do a better job of dealing with problems some African Americans have...save your time. I know there are. But just because there are does not make it so. Nor does it negate the general considerations of the far greater number who disagree with those people.

But if we were to discuss that feature in those terms...we would be engaging in a form of "appeal to authority"...which is a logical fallacy.
 
Frank Apisa said:
The National Review was the National Review.

If you have something to say which will refute something I have said...quote what it is you are refuting and we can discuss your refutation of it.

If your point is that there are African Americans who think the Republicans do a better job of dealing with problems some African Americans have...save your time. I know there are. But just because there are does not make it so. Nor does it negate the general considerations of the far greater number who disagree with those people.

But if we were to discuss that feature in those terms...we would be engaging in a form of "appeal to authority"...which is a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

Funny how you claim I may in the future engage in a logical fallacy yet ignore your own repeated logical fallacy (attacking the messenger).
 
Right said:
Funny how you claim I may in the future engage in a logical fallacy yet ignore your own repeated logical fallacy (attacking the messenger).
Click to expand...

I am not attacking "the messenger", Right.

I am asking you to quote anything I've said that you disagree with...and telling me why you disagree so we can discuss it.

You, in the meantime, have called me a racist; accused me of "following the Democratic Party line"...and stuff like that.

Perhaps we both get a bit antagonistic at moments...but that is to be expected in contentious debate.

So...quote what I have said that you disagree with...and tell me why you disagree. We can discuss it like civilized adults.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top