Arkansas GOPer: We'll take the country back from Obama and the minorities!

[BigSkyBob]

The chap said "the minorities," as in plural, not "a minority." So if he meant an ideological minority, rather than an ethnic/racial reference, running roughshod over the "silent majority" or something, it is odd that he used the plural form, as if it were a coalition of ideological "minorities." I don't think so. When you talk about "the minorities" down on the street, you ain't talkin' ideology baby, and this guy is all street - a veritable barker. And he's good at it to boot.

PS: I watched the relevant portions of the video ... yes, watching the whole thing would have been cruel and unusual punishment. I just cringe at this sort of thing.

Did you click the popup box in the upper right hand corner which links a video to his previous remarks when he denounced, "minority political interests?"

Earlier, he said, "minority political interests." Later, he said, "minorities." They are both plural.  

[Link]

Only a moron would claim that "at night" means "either in daylight or dark of night."

Well I guess it's a good thing I never said that and it's just another one of you strawmen.

I found it rather bizarre that you brought stepfathers into a discussion of women venturing out at night alone.

I never typed the word "stepfathers."  That's probably why you found it bizarre.  It was a voice in your head.

While it is unfortunately True that a large number of young women cannot reasonably trust their stepfathers, such rapes are more apt to occur at home.

I'll trust you on that.  I made no statement about the geographic location where the most rapes occur.

A close male associate may or may not in fact be the optimal choice. But, that is a giant aside. The social reality in which I live is that parents often tell their daughters when traveling to not venture out alone after dark. It is not the social reality in which I live that parents often tell their daughters when traveling to not venture out after dark unless escorted by at least one male. Most parents advice the safety in numbers theory that allows for a group of women to venture out at night.

Where I live women are free to move about as they please regardless of the time of day and they do things like go to school and work so they don't have the luxury of scurrying home at sunset.  And while I know some that have been raped I have never met one that's said it happened while they were transiting the city at night unescorted.

When you play the race card by claiming that I am believe the threat to women out alone at night is racial, you are pretty much announcing your intellectual bankruptcy.

I didn't claim it was racial.  I said you may choose your boogeyman of choice.  I freely admit I don't know what caricature you were trying to construct.  But whatever it was it did not represent the average rapist or the average rape scenario.  Even this stepfather kick you are on now is strange.

The fact of the matter is millions of women move around this country AT NIGHT in every 24 hour cycle ALONE and no harm befalls them.  And even the ones who do get raped by these boogeymen in that narrow scenario represent a minority of the rapes that occur.  Your bizarre fixation on some fantasy quick fix solution for this population while you have ignored the bulk of the problem is unsettling.

[BigSkyBob]

Here is the direct link to a video of the remarks he made earlier in the same speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_473714&feature=iv&src_vid=rzIQuvMzQAY&v=eGZA578WTMM#t=4m30s

His reference was to "minority political interests."

[Napoleon]

Earlier, he said, "minority political interests."   

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I've never been called Orwellian before, Bob. It's nice to gauge the extensiveness of your personal dictionary sometimes. Thank you.

[pbrower2a]

The chap said "the minorities," as in plural, not "a minority." So if he meant an ideological minority, rather than an ethnic/racial reference, running roughshod over the "silent majority" or something, it is odd that he used the plural form, as if it were a coalition of ideological "minorities." I don't think so. When you talk about "the minorities" down on the street, you ain't talkin' ideology baby, and this guy is all street - a veritable barker. And he's good at it to boot.

PS: I watched the relevant portions of the video ... yes, watching the whole thing would have been cruel and unusual punishment. I just cringe at this sort of thing.

Some people just cannot accept that non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, and non-straight people can be equal participants in American life. Some crass politicians (like the hack Rapert) exploit the mass resentment of people who feel left behind by economic and social progress (in fact culpability lies to no small extent with economic elites who have treated working people of any kind badly and have tried to squeeze away competition by small business and otherwise pare the middle class) but serve the economic elites.

It is safe to say that non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, and non-straight Americans who have gotten ahead of the economic proletariat in any way in America got what they have through their own honest efforts and talents.  Many white Christians fail to recognize that, and the most rapacious elements in America -- people who often inherited their wealth or achieved economic power through their personal ruthlessness and amorality -- keep reminding poor white people that ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities are the Enemy.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Northern liberals are the racists, fools.  I don't care for the unwarranted attack on this good-natured Southern fella. 

[BigSkyBob]

The chap said "the minorities," as in plural, not "a minority." So if he meant an ideological minority, rather than an ethnic/racial reference, running roughshod over the "silent majority" or something, it is odd that he used the plural form, as if it were a coalition of ideological "minorities." I don't think so. When you talk about "the minorities" down on the street, you ain't talkin' ideology baby, and this guy is all street - a veritable barker. And he's good at it to boot.

PS: I watched the relevant portions of the video ... yes, watching the whole thing would have been cruel and unusual punishment. I just cringe at this sort of thing.

Some people just cannot accept that non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, and non-straight people can be equal participants in American life.

That may very well be true of some unspecified people, but, that has absolutely nothing to do with the person in question. His objection was to political positions having support from fewer than the majority of the electorate having more influence than the positions held by the majority of the electorate. If all political viewpoints were allowed to participate "equally," as you suggest, presumably the majority would work its will in a democracy.

[Franzl]

The chap said "the minorities," as in plural, not "a minority." So if he meant an ideological minority, rather than an ethnic/racial reference, running roughshod over the "silent majority" or something, it is odd that he used the plural form, as if it were a coalition of ideological "minorities." I don't think so. When you talk about "the minorities" down on the street, you ain't talkin' ideology baby, and this guy is all street - a veritable barker. And he's good at it to boot.

PS: I watched the relevant portions of the video ... yes, watching the whole thing would have been cruel and unusual punishment. I just cringe at this sort of thing.

Some people just cannot accept that non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, and non-straight people can be equal participants in American life.

That may very well be true of some unspecified people, but, that has absolutely nothing to do with the person in question. His objection was to political positions having support from fewer than the majority of the electorate having more influence than the positions held by the majority of the electorate. If all political viewpoints were allowed to participate "equally," as you suggest, presumably the majority would work its will in a democracy.

Indeed. Let's talk about majority rule. What do you think of Republican filibustering preventing the elected majority from governing (particularly a few years ago when Democrats also had the House?)

[BigSkyBob]

The chap said "the minorities," as in plural, not "a minority." So if he meant an ideological minority, rather than an ethnic/racial reference, running roughshod over the "silent majority" or something, it is odd that he used the plural form, as if it were a coalition of ideological "minorities." I don't think so. When you talk about "the minorities" down on the street, you ain't talkin' ideology baby, and this guy is all street - a veritable barker. And he's good at it to boot.

PS: I watched the relevant portions of the video ... yes, watching the whole thing would have been cruel and unusual punishment. I just cringe at this sort of thing.

Some people just cannot accept that non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, and non-straight people can be equal participants in American life.

That may very well be true of some unspecified people, but, that has absolutely nothing to do with the person in question. His objection was to political positions having support from fewer than the majority of the electorate having more influence than the positions held by the majority of the electorate. If all political viewpoints were allowed to participate "equally," as you suggest, presumably the majority would work its will in a democracy.

Indeed. Let's talk about majority rule. What do you think of Republican filibustering preventing the elected majority from governing (particularly a few years ago when Democrats also had the House?)

Is that right before, or after, amending the Constitution to allow amendments ratified by 26 states to take effect?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I'm sad to say I knew this guy personally years ago.....he's worse than the guy in the first post.

[Franzl]

I'm sad to say I knew this guy personally years ago.....he's worse than the guy in the first post.

Unsurprising.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I'm sad to say I knew this guy personally years ago.....he's worse than the guy in the first post.

Unsurprising.

It was to me.  I never knew he was like that.  He hid it well.

[Franzl]

Not knowing him myself, R-SC gives you a good idea

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Not knowing him myself, R-SC gives you a good idea

Oh c'mon Franzl, not all SC GOP'ers are like this asshole.  Ugh.  Maybe that's why he's the "ex" executive director.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The chap said "the minorities," as in plural, not "a minority." So if he meant an ideological minority, rather than an ethnic/racial reference, running roughshod over the "silent majority" or something, it is odd that he used the plural form, as if it were a coalition of ideological "minorities." I don't think so. When you talk about "the minorities" down on the street, you ain't talkin' ideology baby, and this guy is all street - a veritable barker. And he's good at it to boot.

PS: I watched the relevant portions of the video ... yes, watching the whole thing would have been cruel and unusual punishment. I just cringe at this sort of thing.

Some people just cannot accept that non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, and non-straight people can be equal participants in American life.

That may very well be true of some unspecified people, but, that has absolutely nothing to do with the person in question. His objection was to political positions having support from fewer than the majority of the electorate having more influence than the positions held by the majority of the electorate. If all political viewpoints were allowed to participate "equally," as you suggest, presumably the majority would work its will in a democracy.

Indeed. Let's talk about majority rule. What do you think of Republican filibustering preventing the elected majority from governing (particularly a few years ago when Democrats also had the House?)

Is that right before, or after, amending the Constitution to allow amendments ratified by 26 states to take effect?

Amending the Constitution and passing statute law/confirming nominations don't strike you as qualitiatively different in any meaningful way?

[BigSkyBob]

The chap said "the minorities," as in plural, not "a minority." So if he meant an ideological minority, rather than an ethnic/racial reference, running roughshod over the "silent majority" or something, it is odd that he used the plural form, as if it were a coalition of ideological "minorities." I don't think so. When you talk about "the minorities" down on the street, you ain't talkin' ideology baby, and this guy is all street - a veritable barker. And he's good at it to boot.

PS: I watched the relevant portions of the video ... yes, watching the whole thing would have been cruel and unusual punishment. I just cringe at this sort of thing.

Some people just cannot accept that non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, and non-straight people can be equal participants in American life.

That may very well be true of some unspecified people, but, that has absolutely nothing to do with the person in question. His objection was to political positions having support from fewer than the majority of the electorate having more influence than the positions held by the majority of the electorate. If all political viewpoints were allowed to participate "equally," as you suggest, presumably the majority would work its will in a democracy.

Indeed. Let's talk about majority rule. What do you think of Republican filibustering preventing the elected majority from governing (particularly a few years ago when Democrats also had the House?)

Is that right before, or after, amending the Constitution to allow amendments ratified by 26 states to take effect?

Amending the Constitution and passing statute law/confirming nominations don't strike you as qualitiatively different in any meaningful way?

Either the rules are strictly majoritarian, or they are not. You are raising a distinction that simply cannot make a difference.

[Franzl]

And do you believe allowing 26 states to amend the Constitution would be a majoritarian principle?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The chap said "the minorities," as in plural, not "a minority." So if he meant an ideological minority, rather than an ethnic/racial reference, running roughshod over the "silent majority" or something, it is odd that he used the plural form, as if it were a coalition of ideological "minorities." I don't think so. When you talk about "the minorities" down on the street, you ain't talkin' ideology baby, and this guy is all street - a veritable barker. And he's good at it to boot.

PS: I watched the relevant portions of the video ... yes, watching the whole thing would have been cruel and unusual punishment. I just cringe at this sort of thing.

Some people just cannot accept that non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, and non-straight people can be equal participants in American life.

That may very well be true of some unspecified people, but, that has absolutely nothing to do with the person in question. His objection was to political positions having support from fewer than the majority of the electorate having more influence than the positions held by the majority of the electorate. If all political viewpoints were allowed to participate "equally," as you suggest, presumably the majority would work its will in a democracy.

Indeed. Let's talk about majority rule. What do you think of Republican filibustering preventing the elected majority from governing (particularly a few years ago when Democrats also had the House?)

Is that right before, or after, amending the Constitution to allow amendments ratified by 26 states to take effect?

Amending the Constitution and passing statute law/confirming nominations don't strike you as qualitiatively different in any meaningful way?

Either the rules are strictly majoritarian, or they are not. You are raising a distinction that simply cannot make a difference.

Bob, almost all countries have Constitutions that are harder to change than their statutes.

[BigSkyBob]

The chap said "the minorities," as in plural, not "a minority." So if he meant an ideological minority, rather than an ethnic/racial reference, running roughshod over the "silent majority" or something, it is odd that he used the plural form, as if it were a coalition of ideological "minorities." I don't think so. When you talk about "the minorities" down on the street, you ain't talkin' ideology baby, and this guy is all street - a veritable barker. And he's good at it to boot.

PS: I watched the relevant portions of the video ... yes, watching the whole thing would have been cruel and unusual punishment. I just cringe at this sort of thing.

Some people just cannot accept that non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, and non-straight people can be equal participants in American life.

That may very well be true of some unspecified people, but, that has absolutely nothing to do with the person in question. His objection was to political positions having support from fewer than the majority of the electorate having more influence than the positions held by the majority of the electorate. If all political viewpoints were allowed to participate "equally," as you suggest, presumably the majority would work its will in a democracy.

Indeed. Let's talk about majority rule. What do you think of Republican filibustering preventing the elected majority from governing (particularly a few years ago when Democrats also had the House?)

Is that right before, or after, amending the Constitution to allow amendments ratified by 26 states to take effect?

Amending the Constitution and passing statute law/confirming nominations don't strike you as qualitiatively different in any meaningful way?

Either the rules are strictly majoritarian, or they are not. You are raising a distinction that simply cannot make a difference.

Bob, almost all countries have Constitutions that are harder to change than their statutes.

Again, irrelevant to the point at hand. Again, the writers of the Constitution formed rules that allowed the majority to rule in some cases, but, required a supermajority in others.

Again, state Senator Rapert is being villified for opposing the concept that a minority of Senators could pass legislation or a minority of states could amend the Constitution.

[Franzl]

Why would Senator Rapert make a point of discussing the issue you claim he is discussing, considering that minority rule is not possible at present, and no attempts are being made at establishing such an (impossible) system?

[BigSkyBob]

And do you believe allowing 26 states to amend the Constitution would be a majoritarian principle?

Do you believe that requiring 38 states to ratify an amendment is not a "majoritarian principle?"

[pbrower2a]

The chap said "the minorities," as in plural, not "a minority." So if he meant an ideological minority, rather than an ethnic/racial reference, running roughshod over the "silent majority" or something, it is odd that he used the plural form, as if it were a coalition of ideological "minorities." I don't think so. When you talk about "the minorities" down on the street, you ain't talkin' ideology baby, and this guy is all street - a veritable barker. And he's good at it to boot.

PS: I watched the relevant portions of the video ... yes, watching the whole thing would have been cruel and unusual punishment. I just cringe at this sort of thing.

Some people just cannot accept that non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, and non-straight people can be equal participants in American life.

That may very well be true of some unspecified people, but, that has absolutely nothing to do with the person in question. His objection was to political positions having support from fewer than the majority of the electorate having more influence than the positions held by the majority of the electorate. If all political viewpoints were allowed to participate "equally," as you suggest, presumably the majority would work its will in a democracy.

Indeed. Let's talk about majority rule. What do you think of Republican filibustering preventing the elected majority from governing (particularly a few years ago when Democrats also had the House?)

Veto power without authorization in the Constitution.

At best it forces the majority to attempt to avoid legislating completely along party lines. At worst ...

[Ban my account ffs!]

I love how Bob skirts around any meaningful question that others pose to him.  He just ignores them completely or moves the goalpost.  All it shows is delusion.  Since he won't reveal what he actually thinks (because deep down he knows his thinking is flawed but his ego won't let him admit it)... we'll just have to do it for him.

He believes what the GOP did when the Dems controlled congress was alright.  But when the tables are turned... well, that's a different story.

[BigSkyBob]

Why would Senator Rapert make a point of discussing the issue you claim he is discussing, considering that minority rule is not possible at present, and no attempts are being made at establishing such an (impossible) system?

If some group invariably went to the Courts every time they lost a political debate, and, the Courts invariably implemented their preferred policies by judicial fiat, then, yes, that minority would rule. Fundamentally, in such a situation elections wouldn't matter. We move in exactly that directly every time a judge rules on something that is properly the perview of legislatures.