Liberal super PAC: Calling Republicans racist more effective than criticizing policy. “Matthew ‘Mudcat’ Arnold, the national campaign manager of the liberal CREDO super PAC, told a gathering of supporters in Aurora, Colo., on Sept. 8 that they’ve realized ‘policy did not move voters.'” Just by coincidence, calling people “raaaaacist” and “Naaaaazi” is all they have after their idiotic policies have failed miserably.
View Comments (15)
We all knew the progressives / liberals were going to rely heavily on the race card. For the most part, it's the only thing the majority of their voter base understands.
The Jewish people have it right, when they get after people for using nazi terms casually. It takes away from the horror of it, and eventually, calling another person a horrible term like "nazi" is just another word.
Fast forward to these idiots, using the racist term until it carries no power at all. It is the mark of a true sociopath in that they seek to take labels that apply to them in all their worst forms, and wear them out on people who do not deserve to be called such.
I remember being called racist for the first time about Obama and his policies. It stopped me in my tracks, and made me think carefully about what I was saying. Now, I just take it as more BS from the party of the KKK and Jim Crow, and so it doesn't even slow me down at all.
The sad part is that people that have to face actual racial discrimination are the real losers in this. You would think, that if racism is the problem that the donks say it is, that when some moron like Matthews, Reid, Pelosi, or whatever calls a political opponent racist for political reasons, that the entire "black community" would jump on them with both feet. All's they show me now is that they *like* being on the plantation -- at least enough to allow the term to get watered down to where it no longer has meaning.
They're not racist, they're equally discriminative; as proved by what happened to Ron Paul.
TD for threadjacking. I'm still interested hearing in what President Paul would do with the un-Constitutional US Air Force and FBI.
Says the guy that opposes most of what Ron Paul supports.
Where did I say I oppose him?
He's anti-Corporate Greed, I'm anti-Corporate Greed.
Oh God, is this jockstrap in a new mask?
Your comments about the benefits of a "true" communist system. Your devotion to a command/control economic system. Your insistence upon regulations against "corporate greed". Or have you changed your position on these things? Are you now in favor of working to an ultimate removal of all forms of a central bank and "welfare"? Are you for deregulation? Are you for removal of government influence on the economy? Are you for ending the minimum wage? Corporate taxation? Are you now an Austrian? Are you now in favor of lassez faire? And before I forget . . .
And raising the minimum wage combats inflation exactly how? The increased cost of production incurred by labor has to either be absorbed by the producers or transferred to the consumer. Of course you can’t be suggesting that these greedy corporations are going to eat the cost . . . I mean they are after all “greedy corporations”. So the net effect of this policy is a driving up of the cost of living. Which is, in party, why the value of our dollars are diminished.
I am also curious as to how corporate greed is driving this inflation. Of course there are reasons to be made for this suggestion. But do you understand them? Can enumerate them? What is the Austrian perspective on the matter in relation to that of macro? And how is it the case that rampant consumerism can be attributed to the fair market system when that approach to economics would likely have produced interest rates forcing savings and austerity rather than cheap money and indiscriminate stimulus of sectors supposedly in glut.
Romney wants small government too, but only for his corporate buddies. He wants corporate america to do whatever they want without government interference while the working class is at their whim. Corporatism can't have the benefits of small government without taking on the responsibility that comes with it. Responsibility like fair wages, domestic job growth (or at least maintaining the jobs we already have), and staying away from corruption by ceos who take bonus (and bailout) money for themselves rather then using it to grow the economy.
Ron Paul wants to bring both priviledge and responsibility to both working and rich, rather then just using deregulation as a way to help his 1% buddies like Romney wants.
Ah, fail. You don't support what Ron Paul supports. You support the opposite. You support a continuation of corporatism. You support a continuation of the regulations that keep cronies in business while raising the cost of living of the average people and making sure they can never start the businesses that will compete against those lucky few selected to run the economy for the government. But it is understandable. If your supported the system that Ron Paul supports there would be no more goodies for you. You'd have to subsist on what you could earn rather than what others have earned. No worries though . . . your Flea Bagger friends are likely not smart enough to realize what a corporatist you are and how much of an enabler of "corporate greed" you seek to be.
You didn't even read, I specifically said that I wanted and end to corporate bailouts and backroom corporate policies. Romney doesn't want that, he wants to keep giving his 1% buddies more tax cuts and priviledges to screw over the working class. Not even his fellow Republicans support that, as was proved how they had to essencially rig their primaries to get him the nomination.
Please cite a specific example where Romney has even INDICATED he want's to "screw over the working class." You have swallowed the leftist Kool-aid, not Ron Pauls views.
Good point sa_rose.
You want to remove from the system that which does not specifically benefits you. You do not want to remove the system. You want to enhance the system. You do not get one without the other. Either corporatism exists or it does not. There is no distinction owed by which master it serves.
I want to end the system. Ron Paul wants to end the system. You want to feed it with a never ending supply of my labor and property. Get the difference?
Unfortunately, probably true. Too many people, and particularly young people, don't reason or think anymore, they emote. It's one of the rotten fruits of liberalism, feelings raised above reason. Reason should guide feelings, not the other way around. It's a sign of a perpetual arrested development immaturity when feelings lead reason.