is the term latte liberal...

[Badger]

Your implication was, and remains clear, no matter how much you try backtracking from it now. Go back to demonizing "union lords" the like.

Nobody's backtracking. You ought to not take such a categorization of yourself so personally.

So now I'm a latte liberal for disagreeing with you? Cute. Your powers of convinient catagorization know no bounds do they?

[krazen1211]

So now I'm a latte liberal for disagreeing with you? Cute. Your powers of convinient catagorization know no bounds do they?

You go ahead and tell me. It's obvious you have the smugness part down.

Here's your own set of categorization: Anyone liberal who isn't poor, an union member, or a minority is obviously a trust fund kid or adults to financially inept to move out from their parents.

[Badger]

So now I'm a latte liberal for disagreeing with you? Cute. Your powers of convinient catagorization know no bounds do they?

You go ahead and tell me. It's obvious you have the smugness part down.

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

Here's your own set of categorization: Anyone liberal who isn't poor, an union member, or a minority is obviously a trust fund kid or adults to financially inept to move out from their parents.

My "own set of categorization"? What the hell does that even mean? You are, somehow, making even less sense than usual. That is obviously the categorization you and other conservatives have used to pigeonhole liberals who aren't minorities, poor or unionized. Your "arguments" here reinforce that.

Great talking with you Krazy. We'll have to do it again next time you're not busy sticking pins in your teachers union voodoo doll.



[/quote]

[Dgov]

And so you prove my point. Anyone liberal who isn't poor, an union member, or a minority is obviously a trust fund kid or adults to financially inept to move out from their parents.

Just like any Republican who isn't a Rich White Southern Corporate Executive is obviously a trailer trash racist skinhead with swastikas tattooed on his chest.  Because, as we all know, there's no legitimate reason a poor person would vote R on economic issues alone.

Really, you're going to lose an "Our Opponents Label us Meanly" argument.  I cannot tell you how many Liberals are absolutely astounded to find that poor whites vote Republican, and have to invent their own absurd reasons to explain it, ranging from that they're Neo-Nazis or Xenophobes to that the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" brainwashed them with hypnotic waves emanating from Fox News.

Not to mention the even more ridiculous labels you come up with to explain why non-whites vote R.  "Uncle Tom", or more broadly "Race Traitor" are slightly worse labels than "Latte Liberal".

[krazen1211]

My "own set of categorization"? What the hell does that even mean? You are, somehow, making even less sense than usual. That is obviously the categorization you and other conservatives have used to pigeonhole liberals who aren't minorities, poor or unionized. Your "arguments" here reinforce that.

It's not a categorization that I or other conservatives have used at all. You're the one who made the statement, not me, and its your quote, not mine.

I clearly differentiated between financially successful people and basement dwellers from the beginning. You did not. Why?


The point about teachers unions? Kind of interesting. It's the financially successful Democrats in places like Middlesex County that turned on the NJEA/Corzine, and its the financially poor Democrats in places like Essex County that stuck with them....

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Kind of sad that you would view it that way.

[Badger]

And so you prove my point. Anyone liberal who isn't poor, an union member, or a minority is obviously a trust fund kid or adults to financially inept to move out from their parents.

Just like any Republican who isn't a Rich White Southern Corporate Executive is obviously a trailer trash racist skinhead with swastikas tattooed on his chest.  Because, as we all know, there's no legitimate reason a poor person would vote R on economic issues alone.

Really, you're going to lose an "Our Opponents Label us Meanly" argument.  I cannot tell you how many Liberals are absolutely astounded to find that poor whites vote Republican, and have to invent their own absurd reasons to explain it, ranging from that they're Neo-Nazis or Xenophobes to that the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" brainwashed them with hypnotic waves emanating from Fox News.

Not to mention the even more ridiculous labels you come up with to explain why non-whites vote R.  "Uncle Tom", or more broadly "Race Traitor" are slightly worse labels than "Latte Liberal".

I'll charitably assume you mean the collective 'you' to assume that refers to liberals in generally rather than myself personally. I've never said--or for that matter ever even heard other liberals--refer to conservatives of color as "race traitors" and the like. I'm not denying it happens, but its not nearly as common as you claim.

Saying working class persons vote against their economic interest is hardly anything new or controversial. Social issues like abortion, gays, religion, immigration and foreign policy are all great pulls. The fact that upper middle class liberals choose to vote on those issues hardly makes them dilettantes though.

Beyond that, I'm trying to simply remind myself that Krazy's posts are marginally more worth the comedic value than just putting him on ignore.

[Napoleon]

The thesis of this thread was dumb enough out the gate but it has now devolved to dumbest thread ever. Thank you, partisan hacks, for an insightful discussion.