its pretty easy to know what they are hoping to pull out here, because you know where the focus is, and who is being maximally bribed.

Cui buono

by the way, if you want to disarm them, then negate the illogical of disparate impact arguments which only apply if negative, if positive its seen as privilege (which counts even if it turns negative).

however, the birth rate collapsed these 4 years hastening the situation i was talking about a bit farther back.

also, i find it interesting that no one is even paying attention to the world. the world had lots of financial interest and manipulations in the last election, how bout now?

take some time reading the college press and women’s press… you wont know whats in black neighborhoods unless you go there, which is why Obama old speeches are in churches and so forth. no press to just pick up and read.

also no one is even thinking of a Romney win and an electoral college giving it to Obama. OR even an event after the election, but before the turn over.

as i noted before – 2/3rd of the population has been taught the scape goat is responsible for all their ills, and when you tax your taxing that, not them too.

Its minorities against one class
and its women against one class
and its gender warriors against one class

and the only class that seems not to want communism (in one form or another) is the one class the other three raised consciousnesses are focused on.

declining births translated into 4% fewer voters for that one class and its connected others..

Why Minorities Will Decide the 2012 U.S. Election
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/05/01-race-elections-frey

2012: The Year Demographics Catches up With Politics
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/05/2012-the-year-demographics-catches-up-with-politics.html
Barack Obama won two-thirds of the Latino vote in 2008, and no Republican has come close to winning a majority in 40 years.

U.S. Census figures now estimate that more children of color are being born than Caucasians.

Anyone want to explain to the young modern feminist women in college what the outcome will be soon for them?

“When Bill Clinton was elected president of the United States, about 3.7 percent of the electorate was Latino,” Stanford political scientist Gary Segura told me. “In this election year it will be just under 10 percent. So the votes more or less tripled. And when you have that many more people and that many more voters they matter in more places.”

Segura calls it “demographic panic.”

but dont worry… years ago i brought it up, and everyone says its not a problem and it isnt happening, and that when these people full of hate have the dominant vote, they will be nice and make affirmative action for the new minorities, yes?

now.. what did Obama give them all for candy this election? was it an executive order? how fair is that for elections?
[edited for length by n-n]

But I certainly noticed it in 2004 and 2008, and I felt those elections were very very important. And I think this year is the worst of all, by several orders of magnitude.

If I might intrude with an observation. You wrote: “We really, really, want this president to be exposed for what he is.”

I submit that Obama already has been exposed. In fact he’s been exposed as a fraud and an incompetent for the past four years. I suggest that what you’re really implying is that we really really want the media to notice. That’s very different.

I wrote above “They argue that to do it any other way results in an inequality.”

I add that to try to legislate good deeds also results in inequality, so there’s really no escaping inequality, is there?

As an avowed capitalist, I believe that socialism does play a necessary, albeit limited role in life. For example, if my neighbor asks to use my lawn mower, my response is not “sure you can rent it for $25 an hour.” I willingly loan my neighbor my lawn mower first because I like him/her and we get along, secondly, I enjoy helping people (especially people I like) and third, someday, if necessary, I might need to call on my neighbor for their help for something too, or they might simply volunteer to help when when I least expect it (although I don’t mean this as a quid pro quo issue).

This kind of voluntary cooperation is the grease on the wheels which permits us to coexist on a personal level. Socialism breaks down, however, when sanctimonious busybodies attempt to institutionalize and legislate voluntary good deeds. I don’t mind helping other people, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to allow anyone to legislate so that I’m forced to do so. Good will is not a dictum; you can’t legislate “good will” yet such a structure is at the heart of any socialist “utopia.”

NJcon’s link above to Gramscian theory in the Catholic Church makes perfect sense. Churches characteristically preach self-abnegation and helping one’s fellow man so it actually makes sense to me that clergy should be predisposed to socialism. They fail, however, in the same way as their earlier counterparts. To say, hypothetically, that if you don’t perform good deeds you’re “going to Hell” is nothing more than legislating good deeds under the threat of being fined or thrown in prison.

To the extent that socialism represents this interpersonal interaction it can’t be legislated because then it ceases to become interpersonal. This brings me back to Romney, the subject of this thread. With his demonstrated “under the radar” willingness to help people he stands as a polar opposite to Obama/Biden who speak of helping people, but who choose to do such through the bludgeon of legislation.

They argue that to do it any other way results in an inequality. I think that is a true statement, but as we know, life is inherently unfair. More to the point, that’s precisely why immigrants have thronged to this country for over 200 years; they seek a piece of that unfairness for themselves to better their lives and the lives of their progeny. Do we see immigrants lining up to enter socialist utopias to share in their legislated cooperation and fairness? ‘Nuff said.