Discussion in 'Politics' started by mathman, Jul 21, 2020.
do you want us to treat you like your a complete moron?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It's "you're" not "your", moron.
Might be more effective if you put the comma in the right place, moron.
Thank you, but you still haven’t pointed out the flaws in this sentence.
Former pandering? I would have, if that were the case, but Clinton followed in the path of his Republican predecessors. In fact, he did more harm to the black communities than his Republican counterparts ever did.
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 [...] and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster...
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
That’s exactly what the Democrats did. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act intensified police surveillance and racial profiling, and once again, it was responsible for the era of mass incarceration, which btw, contributed to the number of single mothers. Like Reagan, Clinton’s welfare reform used this type of abstraction couched in a language of personal responsibility to demonize poor, black, single mothers.
"Barbara Ehrenreich, a feminist political activist, has said that the bill was motivated by racism and misogyny, using stereotypes of lazy, overweight, slovenly, sexually indulgent and "endlessly fecund" African-American welfare recipients, and assumed that out-of-wedlock births were "illegitimate" and that only a male could confer respectability on a child."
Wait a minute, the comma isn't in the right place? Are you sure about that?
Look at the wiki text you quoted above--notice how the comma precedes the closing quotation marks?
so yes you do. and considering your intellectual incapability to acknowledge basic facts you really shouldn't be casting aspersions on anyone's intellect.
and sorry i post on my phone and don't see all of autocorrect's failures. i take my typos over your complete refusal to acknowledges racism existence so you don't have to question your privilege
Perfect example of Skitt's Law in action.
Yes, but I always thought that when you’re referring to a specific word, letter, or title that the adjacent punctuation went on the outside of the quotation marks.
You mean the Democratic Party met the mood of its voters?
Color me absolutely not shocked.
Republicans and conservatives are not invisible bystanders in history. Remember, Democratic voters are people denounced as leftists for constantly rolling rightward in order to compromise with extremists. The reason Democrats suffer Blue Dogs is the same reason it's Biden instead of Sanders or Warren.
As to the crime bill, I stand by what I said four years ago↗, and it ought not surprise to find such overlap in the application to both the leftward and rightward critique against the Democratic Party. Then again, it's one thing to remind that those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it, but the difference is observed in those who are chomping at the bit for one more time around.
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/quotation-marks/#:~:text=In the United States, the,, didn't believe him.
If someone called me a "moron" I'd have to own it - my posts are a testament.
English doesn't have rules, per say, they write themselves.
The Dems didn't do that. The Reps did it for them. They did it by attracting the racist voting base that used to vote Democrat, then Dixiecrat - now it votes Republican.
The Republicans captured the overtly racist wing of the Democratic Party - deliberately. That's how they started winning national elections - they took over the white vote in the formerly "solid South" by appealing to the racial bigots of the Jim Crow States.
Not "the Democrats".
Which proves that "Clinton" and "the Democrats" are not interchangeable terms.
Clinton pandered to the Republican "independent" voter, as was expected by the leftwing and moderate Democrats he (and Hillary) betrayed. That's why the left has been opposing each Clinton in turn, and trying to swing the Democratic Party back to the center of the American political spectrum.
For the third time: Not my job. I handed you a link - you have about three months of work to do, and it would be a decent place to start. Or you can continue to try to imitate - in public - the imaginary champagne drinking educated socialist elite you pretend to despise.
- - - -
If you know the history, why did you post a link to a bullshit article full of lies and deceptions?
Meanwhile: my point was the reality of the remaining situation. Progress is good - but the fact that the current situation is the culmination of substantial progress just highlights the horrorshow we used to have in this country. It doesn't mean the current situation is somehow a good one, something we can be satisfied with. And it certainly doesn't imply that racism is no longer a significant political fact and major influence in the US.
The US reality is that racism dominates almost every socioeconomic structure in the country, and is the single most important factor in - for example - the upcoming Presidential and Congressional elections.
You haven't been reading my posts, obviously.
Being willing to acknowledge obvious and overt racism does not blind one to everything else. Quite the opposite - if you can't even see the racism in the US, how can you hope to see the less obvious stuff?
Of course not.
It's as with gravity - lots of stuff happens that isn't due to gravity. But if we had an entire political Party and faction and media establishment loudly and repeatedly claiming that gravity was no longer a significant physical force dominating large areas of the American physical landscape and architecture and so forth, you would expect to hear from people who knew better. And arguments based on waving one's hands at the progress Americans have made in dealing with gravity - airplanes! skyscrapers! - would not carry much weight with them.
That is: if you have a point, argument, something to say, how about you just say it. If when stated plainly, rather than via innuendo and carefully worded questions, the point or argument or whatever seems indefensible - even foolish - consider the implications of that.
I'm only quoting one word at a time. The rule that you are talking about doesn't even apply.
So you do want us to treat you like you're a moron. Got it.
Why change? You keep doing you.
That's technically - in standard written English as regulated by the pros who do such regulating - wrong. You are both mistaken.
Now admittedly I do that - I commit that infraction; because it offends my sense of right/wrong to include anything that isn't quotation within such quotation marks, because I regard punctuation as an important part of a quote and a significant contributor to (or subtractor from) meaning and ease of comprehension, and so forth. (For the same reason I usually put two spaces after a midsentence comma - violating the rule in most style manuals - : I think, with evidence and research support, that this helps the reader keep track of things.)
But since you guys have insisted on posting pedantic typographical nitpicks in whatabout defense of your high volume of substantially misleading and material errors, you have targeted your posts for much more serious criticism.
And this bears directly on your dealings with the recent events in Portland - your illiteracies in that matter are obscuring timelines, getting the order of events confused and implications of actions backwards, and so forth. And you defend them, rather than revising them. You thereby create, from blue sky, the possibility that this rhetorical squid-ink you post is contrived and intentional.
"Are they lying, or are they stupid?"
I still think it used it correctly in that particular case. Run it by the woman of the house and if she agrees with you, I stand corrected.
Separate names with a comma.