I love their expressions!  And this is a fairly moderate group that was making an effort to be polite to someone they see as hostile to their interests; we can safely say that his support is going to be a low single digit.

Dmtdust wrote:

Healthcare is Non-Essential?  What planet does he come from?

Not from our planet, that's for sure.  My insurance premium is $371 per month* for shitty coverage that doesn't include eye care (I have a "preexisting condition") or dental.  I'm about to go to the drugstore for my two prescriptions which cost me $65 in co-pays every month.





*I don't have insurance through an employer or union; I have to pay the full cost.  Because my relationship with Partner™ isn't legally recognized, I can't be covered on his insurance, which would be cheaper and give me better coverage!

fnord wrote:

I don't have insurance through an employer or union; I have to pay the full cost.  Because my relationship with Partner™ isn't legally recognized, I can't be covered on his insurance, which would be cheaper and give me better coverage!

See, this is bullshit. It sounds like your partner is pretty well off, but since you can't be married, your tax returns will look like you're in absolute poverty. Therefore you'll be getting crazy subsidies intended for far more desperate people, just because you can't gay-marry.

IT'S WORTH IT TO MAINTAIN THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE! IT'S ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE!

N.B.: Adam and Eve were never married.

ah297900 wrote:

fnord wrote:

I don't have insurance through an employer or union; I have to pay the full cost.  Because my relationship with Partner™ isn't legally recognized, I can't be covered on his insurance, which would be cheaper and give me better coverage!

See, this is bullshit. It sounds like your partner is pretty well off, but since you can't be married, your tax returns will look like you're in absolute poverty. Therefore you'll be getting crazy subsidies intended for far more desperate people, just because you can't gay-marry.

IT'S WORTH IT TO MAINTAIN THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE! IT'S ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE!

N.B.: Adam and Eve were never married.

The non-recognition of our status worked in our favor back in the days when we could afford to go to Europe every year.  We had twice the duty-free allowance of a married couple.  On the other hand, when we lived in California and I needed a bunch of surgeries and procedures over a several year period, and didn't have insurance (the problem started during a brief period when I didn’t have employment based coverage), the state counted household income regardless of marital status, which made me ineligible for Medi-Cal.  Recognizing people as married in some situations, and not in others, is actually worse than outright denial of relationship status, because it’s usually rigged to fuck gay couples over in situations where it would be to their advantage not to be recognized as a couple!  We currently live in a state with a Defense of Marriage amendment, so I can’t be held liable for any debts Partner™ may owe when he passes away.

When lesbians with children break up, the biological mom is able to use homophobic laws to deny visitation or joint custody to the non-bio mom if she so desires.  If the bio mom becomes destitute, and the identity of the sperm donor is known, he can be sued for support since the non-bio mom isn’t considered a parent.  So depending on the situation, homophobic laws can work for or against gay people.

Dmtdust wrote:

He wasn't at the NAACP for the constituents attending; he was there to send a message to the bigots in contested states, according to NPR.  I concur.

Imagine that, a politician who doesn't tailor his speeches to patronize his audience.  Now Condi Rice is on the top of his VP list.  How do you suppose that will play with his "bigot" base?

phreddy wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

He wasn't at the NAACP for the constituents attending; he was there to send a message to the bigots in contested states, according to NPR.  I concur.

Imagine that, a politician who doesn't tailor his speeches to patronize his audience.  Now Condi Rice is on the top of his VP list.  How do you suppose that will play with his "bigot" base?

Edit:  I just checked the results of a poll on the Drudge Report asking if Condi should be the VP.  370,000 votes so far and 65% want her as Romney's running mate.  How can this be?  Everyone knows readers of the Drudge Report are a bunch of racists.

Wam-A-Lam-Oh-Fat-Freddy wrote:

Edit:  I just checked the results of a poll on the Drudge Report asking if Condi should be the VP.  370,000 votes so far and 65% want her as Romney's running mate.  How can this be?  Everyone knows readers of the Drudge Report are a bunch of racists.

Eh, who knows?  It could be due to the fact that a large portion of Matthew Drudge's readership does not under-stand how a basic "web-browser" operates, and were assuming that they were still logged in-to hotornot.com; Or, it could be that the presumed "racists" to which you are vaguely referring (I am thinking that you were going for a veiled "tea-bagger" reference mayhaps?) tend to be slightly more fond of colored folk who "know their place" (Unlike that damned Muslim/Marxist who Socialized the banking syst . . .  Er, Auto Indu . . .  .  You know, the one which is slightly "to the Right" of Comrade Ronald Reagan?).

(Ronald Reagan providing medicare to an inner-city Simian after a long day of playing softball with friends Fidel and Che {AP})

Dmtdust wrote:

I think he should choose her, and if and when he wins, and the world court brings charges against her for Iraq and other crimes we will have much to discuss!

Speaking of which, if any-body from Fox or CBS is about, I have a concept for a television program which involves an orphaned "urban youth" (Read as "Black"; But, not so black as to frighten potential White viewer-ship) being adopted by an elderly Ashkenazic gentle-man who tends to consistently brag about the Nobel Peace Prize which he was a-warded many years a-go whilst "trying to skirt" the fact that he can no longer travel abroad due to numerous arrest warrants issued by the World Court.  Potential "catch-phrase":  "Agusto?  I hardly know her."

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Last edited by Decadence (2012-07-13 17:48:36)

fnord wrote:

Reconstruction-era Affirmative Action.

You've got to be fucking kidding me.

fnord wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

fnord wrote:

Reconstruction-era Affirmative Action.

You've got to be fucking kidding me.

Do a little reading...

You realize you're talking to an American art historian specializing in the 19th century, right? As in that's what I do for a living?

You're right that teh blaxxx got fucked by the republicans after Reconstruction fell apart. You're wrong in characterizing the post-war period as Affirmative Action because the deal the ex-slaves got was "you're no longer technically property, you might get to vote, but you'll still get lynched." That's not exactly a handout.

ah297900 wrote:

fnord wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

You've got to be fucking kidding me.

Do a little reading...

You realize you're talking to an American art historian specializing in the 19th century, right? As in that's what I do for a living?

You're right that teh blaxxx got fucked by the republicans after Reconstruction fell apart. You're wrong in characterizing the post-war period as Affirmative Action because the deal the ex-slaves got was "you're no longer technically property, you might get to vote, but you'll still get lynched." That's not exactly a handout.

And I think you're completely wrong, even though I know nothing about the fucking Recuntstrunction, simply because you're a douche. Art historians are pretentious dicks, especially ones that specialize in the jejuneries of fledgeling American kitsch.

I hesitated to post the following, as it contains caustic extreme obscenity...No, of course that's a lie; I hesitated because it contains egregious grammatical errors.  However, I enjoyed it and expect the rest of you will.

you walk in front of the NAACP and talk PAST them and your message hits your goddamn racist, sexist, homophobic, bible thumping, hate ridden, against their own interest base that ignores when we spend on cruise missiles but complain when they see somebody cashing an unemployment check that happens to own an iPhone. FUCK YOU.

Tall Paul wrote:

Wilber, I'm beginning to see why your friends like you. Anyone with the balls to call someone a pretentious dick while using a word like "jejuneries" must go through quite a bit of brass polish.

You have to muffle them while you walk or you'll give away your position.

tojo2000 wrote:

fnord wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

You've got to be fucking kidding me.

Do a little reading about how Southern Whites were disenfranchised after The War of Northern Aggression.  The occupying federal troops forced Southerners to endure corrupt and illiterate former slaves holding office in the state legislatures, congressional delegations, and local offices.  After the Yankees got bored with their negro pets and felt they were finished raping The South, they walked away and let the negroes face the music.  The negroes stayed with the Republican Party for a few decades, hoping the party would notice them again, but of course that never happened.  Reconstruction hardened Southern attitudes about negroes and fucked over Southern culture.  America is still paying for this mistaken policy.

Sorry, but anyone who uses the phrase War of Northern Aggression loses the right to act like they're a historical expert.

We all know that official histories are written by the winners.  Having spent part of my youth in The South, I can tell you they see the war as an invasion of their homeland.  This is what they call the war, and had they won, this would be the official name.  Unless all Southerners are rounded up and turned into lampshades and soap, this is what that particular war will still be called in that region a century from now.

tojo2000 wrote:

fnord wrote:

We all know that official histories are written by the winners.

That doesn't make them wrong.  Why is it that nobody from the South seems to remember that they seceded because they wanted to keep on with the slavery?

Very few Southerners* owned slaves.  Several of the individuals who owned the largest numbers of slaves were themselves black.  The man who owned the first recognized permanent slave in America was a black man who sued to gain ownership of an indentured servant.

The major issue was tariffs, which were a huge burden on the Southern economy.  That's ironic, since the American Revolutionaries separated from England over tariffs!  The money that Southerners paid in tariffs flowed north into the District of Columbia to support the federal government.  The federal government was dependent on tariffs collected on Southern commerce in order to survive.  This is the true reason for the war.  Most people in the North didn't give a shit about slavery.  The average non-slave owning Southerner wasn’t committed to preserving slavery.  Lincoln himself stated his disdain for negroes, and wouldn't have freed a single one of them if he could have persuaded the southern states to stay in the Union and continue to be the Blue tax-exporting states of that time.

The fact that the South was invaded in order to maintain a stream of revenue headed North is the reason the South does everything in it's power today to bleed the North of tax dollars!  As I said earlier, The War and Reconstruction fucked over Southern Culture and attitudes in ways that the rest of America still has to deal with to this day.

As for slavery itself, it would have disappeared eventually.  Inventions such as the cotton gin and the farm tractor would have made the care and feeding of negro farm draft animals an impractical expense.  However, the intensification of racism caused by the war and its aftermath is responsible for the continued existence of the American Negro.  Mexico once had a huge black population, which has been more or less absorbed into the original Indian stock.  Brazil developed a racial continuum rather than a rigid color line after the end of slavery.

*I wish to repeat, though I lived part of my life in The South, and went to school down there, I’m not a Southerner.  Having lived among them, and received much of my primary education in their schools is the reason I’m familiar with their views on their history.

Last edited by fnord (2012-07-16 05:29:58)

fnord wrote:

We all know that official histories are written by the winners.  Having spent part of my youth in The South, I can tell you they see the war as an invasion of their homeland.  This is what they call the war, and had they won, this would be the official name.  Unless all Southerners are rounded up and turned into lampshades and soap, this is what that particular war will still be called in that region a century from now.

We all also know that losers make up bullshit stories to explain to themselves why the lost since it just couldn't possibly be that they were wrong. They repeat them over and over again until they actually begin to believe. Their children, being innocent of the truth, believe it whole-heartedly. So, the South is more than welcome to Do It Again; 'It' being getting their lame pasty-white cracker asses kicked once again.
I hope they don't, there are plenty of good people in the South, there's no doubt of that, and I'd hate to see them suffer for the sake of a few in-bred idiots. There's no need for lampshades and soap when a few good textbooks and some patient tuition would do the trick.

ah297900 wrote:

In March of 1861, the vice president of the confederacy gave a speech outlining the reasons for secession and trying to get other states to secede. The thesis of that speech:

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea [of all men are created equal]; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Slaves accounted for a huge percentageof property in America. If slavery wasn't going to be expanded westward, then that slave economy would be choked off into the southeast corner of the US, meaning the southerners' property would be devalued and the south would be outvoted in the legislature. People don't go to war over tariffs, they go to war over their money and their way of life.

If you read documents leading up to the war and during its aftermath, there was no other issue than slavery in the south. An American art historian isn't in the business of saying "this lyrical passage shows a master of colorism at the height of his powers" and shit like that. It's my job--what I do for a living--to resituate images into their original context, and show how those images both reflect and contribute to the social and political environment in which they were produced. This means I have to have a thorough understanding of the politics and cultures of the time, which means I've had to do a shit ton of primary research about things like the Civil War. How many nineteenth-century books, journals, newspaper articles, broadsides, political cartoons, sermons or memoirs have you read? To save time, just round it off to the nearest thousand.

So tell the truth; did your art history degree land you a job waitressing, flipping burgers, or working as a receptionist?

ah297900 wrote:

As a university professor.

There is of course no way to verify that, we have only your word.