Schumer Shutdown.....

[Bourbon]

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.......

Why not, they're always welcomed with open arms immigrants from Shithole situations, after all, they're still here and didn't go back.

[Frank Apisa]

You're making an excuse to ignore the argument presented by Americans of African ancestry. Sounds racist to me.

It does, huh? Well...listening to your reasoning, I can understand that.

So...here is a link. It destroys your arguments:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/

[Bourbon]

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.

[Stretch]

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

[domer76]

How much $$$$ did Schumer offer??? ... Link

What Trump originally offered.

Why does it matter? Mexico is paying for it, right?

[USFREEDOM911]

Yes ... Absolutely ... I harass my Wife every time I get a chance.

It's Fun

Was that women his wife??

[PostmodernProphet]

Why not, they're always welcomed with open arms immigrants from Shithole situations, after all, they're still here and didn't go back.

I'm glad NY won't be asking the federal taxpayers to share in their shithole situation.........

[PostmodernProphet]

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.

???....getting what he wanted is a blow to his ego?......go figure......

[USFREEDOM911]

I'm glad NY won't be asking the federal taxpayers to share in their shithole situation.........

OH, just wait until the shutdown is over and see how fast NY sends a bill, to Washington, for repayment.

[MAGA MAN]

It does, huh? Well...listening to your reasoning, I can understand that.

So...here is a link. It destroys your arguments:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/

It does no such thing, racist.

[Frank Apisa]

It does no such thing, racist.

Ah...so now you think I am a racist!

You've really got to get a grip!

[MAGA MAN]

Ah...so now you think I am a racist!

You've really got to get a grip!

Why else would you ignore an article written by an African American?

[Frank Apisa]

Why else would you ignore an article written by an African American?

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?

[MAGA MAN]

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?

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

.

[Frank Apisa]

Are you now rejecting the Harvard University Press?

.

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.