Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Congrats, you have made the ignore list. I can't promise not to click in times of boredom, but I thought you would want to know that your sheer idiocy and nonresponsiveness and willful assholosity finally pushed you over the line.

Sooner or later, everyone will be on everyone else's ignore list.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Sooner or later, everyone will be on everyone else's ignore list.

Except the exempt, like *you.*

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Do you even know what Prop 187 was?

Just a guess:

The one to ban all kinds of state aid/services to illegals?


Hello

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Except the exempt, like *you.*

I like to think of myself as above the fray.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Except when it comes to farm subsidies, of course. (Or are those mandated by the Bible?)

And airline bailouts. And govt-backed loans to auto manufacturers. And no-bid contracts to huge oil-service companies.

[pony_trekker]

Originally posted by taxwonk
And airline bailouts. And govt-backed loans to auto manufacturers. And no-bid contracts to huge oil-service companies.

Stop it stop it stop it. We all know that it's the greedy trial lawyers that are the problem.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Congrats, you have made the ignore list. I can't promise not to click in times of boredom, but I thought you would want to know that your sheer idiocy and nonresponsiveness and willful assholosity finally pushed you over the line.

Woo hoo! What do I win?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Except when it comes to farm subsidies, of course. (Or are those mandated by the Bible?)

That is true. But is there one federal elected Democrat out there that is against farm subsidies?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
And airline bailouts. And govt-backed loans to auto manufacturers. And no-bid contracts to huge oil-service companies.

You forgot Specialized tax breaks for large corporations. I never said they were perfect. Just a hell of a lot better than the Dems.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I say that you've allowed yourself to be painted into a corner by accepting characterizations from the left, and this is your answer?

Seriously, I'm reading this essentially as:
we didn't get painted into a corner by accepting characterizations from the left (i.e., not clearly establishing our non-cultural-conservative position) on abortion, that's what happened on hispanics.

So which is it, not communicating well on abortion and guns, or not communicating well to hispanics?
When you and Spanky determine which corner you've (i.e., the Californian non-cultural-conservatives) been painted into, let me know and I'll try to send help to get you out. I mean, you guys should know better than anyone how you got where you are today.

FWIW, I agree with you as a general matter about the need to make "a real effort to court the hispanic vote" (and the votes of all other ethnicities while we are at it), and I've been vocal about this here before.

Anyhoo, none of your brilliant response addresses my point about how you've let the left paint your collective position on abortion. I accepted the abortion and gun thing as Spanky's premise. If you disagree with the premise, take it up with him please.

The debate about Roe can be had among lawyers but not the general public. As a candidate you can either be pro-choice or pro-life. We didn't let the liberals paint us into a corner, we branded ourselves the pro-life party and that was a screw up. We need to brand ourselves as the pro-choice party that is against late term abortions, and label the Dems the pro-choice party that supports late term abortions.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Just a guess:

The one to ban all kinds of state aid/services to illegals?


Hello

Yes. And when you are a party that has not courted the hispanic vote, it is very hard to fight charges of racism. I disagree with Spanky that the GOP woes in CA are a problem of branding. They are a product of incredibly poor organization, communication, and recruitment.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is true. But is there one federal elected Democrat out there that is against farm subsidies?

Anyone (D or R) who isn't from a farm state. No one likes them as policy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You forgot Specialized tax breaks for large corporations. I never said they were perfect. Just a hell of a lot better than the Dems.

Not even.

• Democratic Superiority, by the Numbers
  
  By Michael Kinsley
  Sunday, April 3, 2005; Page B07
  
  It was the TV talker Chris Matthews, I believe, who first labeled Democrats and Republicans the "Mommy Party" and the "Daddy Party." Archaic as these stereotypes may be, they do capture general attitudes about the two parties. But we live in the age of the one-parent family, and it is Mom more often than Dad who must play both roles.
  
  It has not escaped notice that the Daddy Party has been fiscally misbehaving. But it hasn't really sunk in how completely Republicans have abandoned allegedly Republican values -- if in fact they ever really had such values.
  
  Our text today is the statistical tables of the 2005 Economic Report of the President. I did this exercise a while back with the 2004 tables and couldn't quite believe the results. But the 2005 data confirm it: The party with the best record of serving Republican economic values is the Democrats. It isn't even close.
  
  The Republican values I refer to are universal. We all want prosperity, oppose unemployment, dislike inflation, don't enjoy paying taxes, etc. These values are Republican only in the sense that Republicans are supposed to treasure them more and to be more reluctant to sacrifice them for other goals such as equality and clean air.
  
  Statistics back to 1959 make this clear. A consistent pattern over 45 years cannot be explained by shorter-term factors, such as war or who controls Congress. Maybe presidents can't affect the economy much, but the assumption that they can and do is so prominent in Republican rhetoric that they are stuck with it. So consider:
  
  Federal spending (aka "big government"): It has gone up an average of about $50 billion a year under presidents of both parties. But that breaks down as $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. If you assume that it takes a year for a president's policies to take effect, Democrats have raised spending by $40 billion a year and Republicans by $55 billion.
  
  Leaning over backward even farther, let's start our measurement in 1981, the date when many Republicans believe that life as we know it began. The result: Democrats still have a better record at smaller government. Republican presidents added more government spending for each year they served, whether you credit them with the actual years they served or with the year that followed.
  
  Federal revenue (aka taxes): You can't take it away from them: Republicans do cut taxes. Or rather, tax revenue goes up under both parties but about half as fast under Republicans. It's the only test of Republican economics that the Republicans win.
  
  That is, they win if you consider lower federal revenue to be a victory. Sometimes Republicans say that cutting taxes will raise government revenue by stimulating the economy. And sometimes they say that lower revenue is good because it will lead (by some mysterious process) to lower spending.
  
  The numbers in the Economic Report of the President undermine both theories. Spending goes up faster under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. And the economy grows faster under Democrats than Republicans. What grows faster under Republicans is debt.
  
  Under Republican presidents since 1960, the federal deficit has averaged $131 billion a year. Under Democrats, that figure is $30 billion. In an average Republican year, the deficit has grown by $36 billion. In the average Democratic year it has shrunk by $25 billion. The national debt has gone up more than $200 billion a year under Republican presidents and less than $100 billion a year under Democrats.
  
  As for measures of general prosperity, each president inherits the economy. What counts is what happens next. Let's take just two measures, although they all show the same thing: Democrats do better under every variation. From 1960 to 2005 the gross domestic product measured in year-2000 dollars rose an average of $165 billion a year under Republican presidents and $212 billon a year under Democrats. Measured from 1989, or measured with a one-year delay, or both, the results are similar. And how about this one? The average annual rise in real per capita income -- that's the statistic that puts money in your pocket. Democrats score about 30 percent higher.
  
  Democratic presidents have a better record on inflation (averaging 3.13 percent compared with 3.89 percent for Republicans) and on unemployment (5.33 percent versus 6.38 percent). Unemployment went down in the average Democratic year, up in the average Republican one.
  
  Almost forgot: If you start in 1981 and if you factor in a year's delay, Republican presidents edge out Democratic ones on inflation, 4.57 to 4.36. Congratulations.

WaPo

And if you keep pretend the GOP does a better job of managing the nation's finances, you're only empowering the wingnuts who are going after judges.

[Replaced_Texan]

Andrea Dworkin died on Friday.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Sooner or later, everyone will be on everyone else's ignore list.

Board motto!