Dvergar wrote:
Your best attempt is to attack the grammar of someone for whom English is a second language?
I'm sorry, there wasn't a huge "PREASE FOR TO FORGIVE MY ENGRISH, IT AM MY SECOND USE FOR TALKING SPEECH" banner on the article. Even still, I meet plenty of ESL people who don't speak/write in English like a retard, including the nice people who cut my hair, and they're not publishing what I will charitably assume is supposed to be a professionally written piece in a periodical that purports to be 'the voice of Tucson.'
Dvergar wrote:
Quote:
and the 14th Amendment is said to be part of the Bill of Rights (the original ten amendments to the Constitution).
That line was from the statement made by the republican, so it's no surprise they wouldn't know what was actually in the constitution.
The purpose of the article is to put the republican in question on a pedestal as an arbiter of morality/good taste for the party from which he's publicly divorcing himself. Marrying oneself to an idiot, regardless of their political striping, only serves to paint you with the same brush with which they were covered.
Dvergar wrote:
I understand that critical thinking is not a common trait for republicans (or else they wouldn't be republicans), so I'll hold your hand on this one. The key isn't that one individual would pay nothing, it's that the system is set up to allow all rich individuals to pay nothing. With a system so simple it's not like one individual is jumping through tons of hoops and spending a lot of time getting around laws, this is what would happen with the vast majority of the rich. You see it as one person because you don't want to see the broken system that allowed that one person.
The funny thing about critical thinking, especially as regards 'the smartest guys in the room' like you and Aestu, is that you only apply enough of it to get to the outcome you prefer. We already have a system "set up to allow all rich individuals to pay nothing," only the current system is set up to do so precisely by having "one individual jumping through tons of hoops and spending a lot of time getting around laws." The "broken system" currently in place discourages capital investment, which helps drive/encourage economic growth, but encourages all sorts of other (sometimes damaging and aberrant) behaviors.
I "see it as one person" because every time someone starts ranting about "the 1%," (and if this "I am the 99%" isn't a very clearly implied scapegoating of a minority, I don't know what is), it always rolls around to Warren Buffett, yakkity-smackity-blah-blah-blah, as if Warren Buffett is the only "rich" person in the country, and there aren't others in his league saying he's a daft git and should bugger off...not that you'd notice since they don't get the coverage that Buffett receives.
Dvergar wrote:
The original story I read was from a site that the rest of you blockheads would dismiss immediately, so I went to a local source. I didn't realize it omitted Cain's remarks. And while I doubt he meant it literally, it certainly wasn't a joke, and it wasn't a joke to the cheering crowd who appear to be quite happy to kill immigrants for trying to come to this country.
I'm not one of the people that started the "LOL<insert news outlet here>" bit, so it's not fair to complain that I or anyone else now flip that table around on the rest of you. What I don't get, despite your alleged ability to think critically, is how you can admit that Cain wasn't being literal, but believe, based on what he said, that the crowd's reaction was to killing
illegal immigrants and not to controlling the flow of
legal immigrants. If the crowd, which is obviously yet another metaphor for "all republicans/conservatives" as far as you and others are concerned, really just wanted dead illegals, the status quo sees plenty of them in the wastes between our border in Mexico every year. If dead illegals were truly an issue, you'd support controlling the border to discourage people from putting themselves at risk...but dead illegals don't really bother you unless you can use them to point a finger at someone and call them a racistbigothomophobe because it's easier to do that than address whatever point(s) they're making.
Not that there is any point in arguing about this, because Herman Cain is black, and my experiences with liberalism have taught me that black people can't be racists, and the crowd was obviously just being socially conscious by cheering for what the member of an oppressed minority had to say. We therefore have nothing about which to argue.
Dvergar wrote:
All hot air, the big businesses that own the party would never allow a candidate to clamp off their cheap labor. The southern border states would collapse without immigrants taking the jobs that Americans won't.
You'd think you guys wouldn't be so apt to attempt pinning "big business" and "Wall Street" on republicans given the ridiculous amounts of cash President Obama has received from those parties.
Your Pal,
Jubber
