Noah
Posts: 1660
Joined: 7/5/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote:
ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster Race is a social construct; in Genetics, "race" has a very specific meaning, and the variations in the human genome do not qualify. As for CelticLord's rant about "class warfare", well, that cracks me up. The rethugs have been attacking the middle class for years. I read his speeches. One does not unite people by setting up "us" vs. "them" divisions; villifying the top 2% income bracket while extolling the "working" people is class warfare rhetoric--by definition. If you wish to debate the merits of that division, we can do so (because your assertion is provably wrong)--but to suggest that it is anything other than class warfare rhetoric is disingenuous. Oh for heaven's sake. You're villifying a Democratic candidate for using Us vs. Them language? That's hilarious. Thanks. Moving on ... "Warfare"? Revising a tax cut is class "warfare"? Hmmmmm ... Was it Class Warfare aimed the other way when those very same tax cuts were put into place? If not, why does your knife only cut one way? You may have some compelling things to say. Please note how likely they are to sink out of sight beneath the sort of oh-so-dramatic hyperbole in which you dress your contentions here. We all know what warfare is, class or otherwise. Addressing what one sees as failed tax policy in a way that would impose zero hardship on any citizen just isn't it. Now please don't torture the word "hardship" as you have "warfare" and "villify", by claiming that dampening someone's urge to keep the third house or buy the fourth car qualifies as imposing hardship upon them. A candidate forthrightly (whether rightly or wrongly) claims that certain tax cuts, insofar as they affected the richest 2%, amounted to bad policy. He expresses his intention to address that (in his opinion) poor tax policy. This comes nowhere near any reasonable definition of "villifying" the people who benefitted from the policy. Your argument is just silly, as you've presented it so far. Are there terms in which you can re-cast it so that something of interest and concern can be found in it? If the case you wish to promote is worth making in a public discussion, it is worth making on it's merits without the sorts of highly emotional and contrary-to-standard-English characterizations ("warfare" "villifying") you place so close to the heart of your message. Style wise, less Limbaugh/Coulter and more William F. Buckley from you would advance the the interplay of ideas. By the way, can you explain why Obama is polling so well among the more well-to-do if he is locked in a pitched battle against them? Thanks
|