"McAuliffe is not a policy person. He’s not a “statesman.” He’s a purely political hack moneyman. And he’s going to use his skills as best he can to put Virginia in the Democrats’ column in 2016." JG
You mean the women too dumb to know when they're being hustled?
BTW, the fact Cooch came within the MOE with virtually no money and actively opposed by the Whigs ought to be making a lot of Demos and Whigs very nervous.
Thanks EPR - 92% AA vote for the Democrats. Guess all that reach out by Republicans really paid off.
Only women can explain why they would vote Democrat when single, then change to Republican when they marry. I'd love to see a breakout by Divorce/Widowed/Never Married/Lesbian.
April Apple said… Machine politics is all that matters now.
Bingo. As a commenter over at Althouse said, heck, you wouldn’t even buy a used car from McAuliffe. He’s an in-your-face crook, just like the old Tammany Hall guys.
I'm not trying to do rh's job here, but have you looked around at the check-out stand at what sort of culture surrounds young women now? On TV, on radio, at the movies, in print, you name it, if it's aimed at young women, it's frighteningly stupid & vapid. Seven Machos beat me for saying so over at TOP, but I think that the cultural world of young women is even dumber than the "laddie mag" world of young men.
Why the concern of the Lena Dunham crowd with abortion? Because they live in fear that a booze or stupidity fueled sexual encounter (they have quite a few of both) will lead to an unwanted pregnancy, and they can't have all the carefully laid plans for Daddy's Little Girl & her career knocked all akimbo by some stupid baby!
I apologize for the misogyny, but I live in the DC suburbs & I see this upper-middle class white girl crap on a daily basis. My lying eyes apologize, too.
Women vote for Dems the way a daughter goes to Mommy to get permission to do what both parents agreed was a bad idea, but only Dad (Republican) was willing to stick to. Then she ends up a single mom on drugs and welfare, and blames it on daddy issues.
There's a fat joke in the air, and no open thread, so this is not off topic.
Regarding getting back into shape, it's just about impossible to burn more calories than you can eat. You have to eat right, no matter what.
Everybody knows about low carb but I wanted to tell everyone about Pure Protein. It's cheap, readily available, and practically necessary if you want to follow the standard advice about getting one gram of protein a day for every pound of lean bodyweight. I mean, if you're working with a lean bodyweight of 150 lbs, that's 25 freaking eggs!
I drink lots of water throuhout the day and I flavor it just a little with the powder so I take about a scoop a day.
Right on the package label there's a disclaimer: NOT FOR WEIGHT LOSS!!!!11!!!!!!
The feminization of America is complete. We might as well give up.
When an NFL player quits his team to go home to mommy because he was being "bullied" and most people nod their head and accept it....then it is all over.
Bullshit! The Democrat won because the bonehead Libertarian Party insisted on getting an also-ran trophy. It was stupid, ego-driven narcissism. Otherwise it would have been a powerful win for the Republicans and conservatism. I'm more libertarian than anything else, but the L Party is not helping. They are a disaster.
Sarvis was an Akin Libertarian, fueled by Democrat money.
That said, the Libs should have renounced him and thrown their support to Cooch.
Not interested in disenfranchising, ritmo--just stigmatizing--like you guys did to the Mormons in California after 2008.
"You guys"?
Stigmatizing? You mean like "you guys" did to gays desiring equal marriage rights and benefits?
What single thing have I ever said about Mormons in relation to this? Well, I can save you the suspense (not that you'd search for evidence for your assertion anyway) and say "never", which is of course true. But throwing in that little red herring apparently helps further politicize the issue, involves more groups in an ensuing and more confused food fight, and neglects addressing the actual problem of laws aimed at restricting the vote and the party that would like to rely on them.
I'm not trying to do rh's job here, but have you looked around at the check-out stand at what sort of culture surrounds young women now? On TV, on radio, at the movies, in print, you name it, if it's aimed at young women, it's frighteningly stupid & vapid. Seven Machos beat me for saying so over at TOP, but I think that the cultural world of young women is even dumber than the "laddie mag" world of young men.
Then what's the point? Both are vapid. At least Dunham et al make a fun satire out of it. What's wrong with that?
Why the concern of the Lena Dunham crowd with abortion?
My guess is that when you have a vagina, you want to keep Big Republican Government out of it.
I guess I am fully embracing stigmatizing as a weapon, ritmo. I didn't used to be this sort of person at all, honestly. But the Democrats are full-on into stigmatizing and polarizing as a political tactic and I'm interested in seeing where this will lead us. Because if we just lie down and accept being stigmatized, poked at and lied about, life itself is kinda worthless.
And honestly, I don't feel bad about lumping you together into a collective "you" on that one. I've read you long enough to know where your expressed values lie.
Dude, it's not polarization when increasing numbers of younger people embrace it. That's called change. Dividing the electorate up was Bush and Rove's specialty - they just did it in a way that favored the waning opinion, instead of the growing consensus.
What is being stigmatized? You brought up Mormons, and now can't find a specific instance of what you mean. More Republicans had problems with Romney's religion than Democrats did. Republicans are sometimes quiet about the things they hate or that make them uneasy, but still have problems with those things - shirking from taking responsibility by projecting them on others, though?
Why not just be rational, empiric and compassionate, instead? Trying to fight losing causes is making you see "stigma", belligerence, and lies? Who poked you and with what, exactly? You seem to have feelings about things that caused the Republicans to have 51% of the vote previously. Just because those feelings are no longer competitive with the feelings, facts and demography of the present and future why make that into a "fight"? Is it just about feeling invigorated? I'm not getting where in your statement you actually identify a real issue worth discussing, at all. How politically relevant is a candidate who does that?
Just because California is left doesn't mean other states won't join. Maybe you are trying to avoid looking at the issues that mean things to people and why.
And honestly, I don't feel bad about lumping you together into a collective "you" on that one. I've read you long enough to know where your expressed values lie.
No. You're just being lazy and an ungracious host of debate. I've not expressed an opinion on Mormonism once. And even if I had one what on earth would that have to do with the wrongness of carpetbagging a referendum to deny/permit civil rights? You are throwing out a curvy dodgeball to skirt discussion, or shut me down, or feel better about the vote in a state trending (as many are) blue. McAuliffe is a sleaze bag. Go ahead and feel bad about that. But apparently he knows what voters want. You don't need to play dirty games with me because of that. Direct your cheap shots where they belong or else tell me what you really mean. Yes, I think secular values are important in a diverse democracy. No, I never stigmatized Mormons.
BTW, ritmo: why is it that every time I stand up to your bullshit Titus flies off the handle against me...here and elsewhere? You two got something going on like you did with Inga?
Are you trying to be funny, lighten the mood, or really seeing an association? I don't see him on this thread… Is he going after you on Twitter or elsewhere in CH? Some things are coincidences. I know nothing about Titus IRL. But I do work in the day and tend to leave this stuff to evenings or a weekend. You might consider whether maybe Titus (and/or many others) would reasonably do so, too.
But I do work in the day and tend to leave this stuff to evenings or a weekend. You might consider whether maybe Titus (and/or many others) would reasonably do so, too.
Stop giving me more reasons to tie you two together. In the entire history of Althousia and spinoffs, there have only 2 or 3 commenters who have been obsessed with what people do during the daytime.
41 comments:
No racial breakdown? No breakout of immigrants vs. native Americans?
No breakout of single women by age?
Piss poor analysis.
Don't get me started
@rcocean: Here's some analysis by race.
If every libertarian vote went to Cuccinnelli - he would have won.
Revealed: Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian in Tight Va. Gubernatorial Race
"McAuliffe is not a policy person. He’s not a “statesman.” He’s a purely political hack moneyman. And he’s going to use his skills as best he can to put Virginia in the Democrats’ column in 2016." JG
Machine politics is all that matters now.
It's the female susceptibility to paranoia that makes the "conservatives hate you" pitch so effective.
You mean the women too dumb to know when they're being hustled?
BTW, the fact Cooch came within the MOE with virtually no money and actively opposed by the Whigs ought to be making a lot of Demos and Whigs very nervous.
Thanks EPR - 92% AA vote for the Democrats. Guess all that reach out by Republicans really paid off.
Only women can explain why they would vote Democrat when single, then change to Republican when they marry. I'd love to see a breakout by Divorce/Widowed/Never Married/Lesbian.
April Apple said…
Machine politics is all that matters now.
Bingo. As a commenter over at Althouse said, heck, you wouldn’t even buy a used car from McAuliffe. He’s an in-your-face crook, just like the old Tammany Hall guys.
Everything old is new again.
I'm not trying to do rh's job here, but have you looked around at the check-out stand at what sort of culture surrounds young women now? On TV, on radio, at the movies, in print, you name it, if it's aimed at young women, it's frighteningly stupid & vapid. Seven Machos beat me for saying so over at TOP, but I think that the cultural world of young women is even dumber than the "laddie mag" world of young men.
Why the concern of the Lena Dunham crowd with abortion? Because they live in fear that a booze or stupidity fueled sexual encounter (they have quite a few of both) will lead to an unwanted pregnancy, and they can't have all the carefully laid plans for Daddy's Little Girl & her career knocked all akimbo by some stupid baby!
I apologize for the misogyny, but I live in the DC suburbs & I see this upper-middle class white girl crap on a daily basis. My lying eyes apologize, too.
Women vote for Dems the way a daughter goes to Mommy to get permission to do what both parents agreed was a bad idea, but only Dad (Republican) was willing to stick to. Then she ends up a single mom on drugs and welfare, and blames it on daddy issues.
There's a fat joke in the air, and no open thread, so this is not off topic.
Regarding getting back into shape, it's just about impossible to burn more calories than you can eat. You have to eat right, no matter what.
Everybody knows about low carb but I wanted to tell everyone about Pure Protein. It's cheap, readily available, and practically necessary if you want to follow the standard advice about getting one gram of protein a day for every pound of lean bodyweight. I mean, if you're working with a lean bodyweight of 150 lbs, that's 25 freaking eggs!
I drink lots of water throuhout the day and I flavor it just a little with the powder so I take about a scoop a day.
Right on the package label there's a disclaimer: NOT FOR WEIGHT LOSS!!!!11!!!!!!
What more could you possibly need to know?
Help, I'm being oppressed.
I should add that there are probably lots of comparable products out there.
This morning my BMI was 23.7, down from a high of 32.4.
The protein powder was a big part of it.
@Deborah,
Help, I'm being oppressed.
AND, we're seeing the violence inherent in the system!
You are correct, sir :)
Strange women lyin' in ponds, distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government...
@palladian,
I don't know. I think your average aquatic tart might be quite a few IQ points over what we've got in the electorate now.
The feminization of America is complete. We might as well give up.
When an NFL player quits his team to go home to mommy because he was being
"bullied" and most people nod their head and accept it....then it is all over.
As rh says the soap opera women are in charge.
As rh says the soap opera women are in charge.
The Ivory Snow Girl?
Speaking of aquatic tarts...the chick playing the Mermaid Ariel on "Once Upon a Time" is one hot piece of bacala.
No.
Susan Lucci.
You know. The perennial losers.
Well, at least now you know whom next to deprive of the vote!
Losertarians performed their dutiful role as vote siphons to the democrats again. Bravo losertarians.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Well, at least now you know whom next to deprive of the vote!
Not interested in disenfranchising, ritmo--just stigmatizing--like you guys did to the Mormons in California after 2008.
bagoh20 said...
Bullshit! The Democrat won because the bonehead Libertarian Party insisted on getting an also-ran trophy. It was stupid, ego-driven narcissism. Otherwise it would have been a powerful win for the Republicans and conservatism. I'm more libertarian than anything else, but the L Party is not helping. They are a disaster.
Sarvis was an Akin Libertarian, fueled by Democrat money.
That said, the Libs should have renounced him and thrown their support to Cooch.
PS Interesting stat off Insta.
Cooch beat the sleaze 51 - 42 among married women.
Not interested in disenfranchising, ritmo--just stigmatizing--like you guys did to the Mormons in California after 2008.
"You guys"?
Stigmatizing? You mean like "you guys" did to gays desiring equal marriage rights and benefits?
What single thing have I ever said about Mormons in relation to this? Well, I can save you the suspense (not that you'd search for evidence for your assertion anyway) and say "never", which is of course true. But throwing in that little red herring apparently helps further politicize the issue, involves more groups in an ensuing and more confused food fight, and neglects addressing the actual problem of laws aimed at restricting the vote and the party that would like to rely on them.
Thanks, edutcher. It vindicates my assertion.
I'm not trying to do rh's job here, but have you looked around at the check-out stand at what sort of culture surrounds young women now? On TV, on radio, at the movies, in print, you name it, if it's aimed at young women, it's frighteningly stupid & vapid. Seven Machos beat me for saying so over at TOP, but I think that the cultural world of young women is even dumber than the "laddie mag" world of young men.
Then what's the point? Both are vapid. At least Dunham et al make a fun satire out of it. What's wrong with that?
Why the concern of the Lena Dunham crowd with abortion?
My guess is that when you have a vagina, you want to keep Big Republican Government out of it.
The funniest thing about Republicans is not knowing where they don't belong. ;-)
Inappropriate boundaries, guys.
I guess I am fully embracing stigmatizing as a weapon, ritmo. I didn't used to be this sort of person at all, honestly. But the Democrats are full-on into stigmatizing and polarizing as a political tactic and I'm interested in seeing where this will lead us. Because if we just lie down and accept being stigmatized, poked at and lied about, life itself is kinda worthless.
It's getting existential.
Lol
And honestly, I don't feel bad about lumping you together into a collective "you" on that one. I've read you long enough to know where your expressed values lie.
Dude, it's not polarization when increasing numbers of younger people embrace it. That's called change. Dividing the electorate up was Bush and Rove's specialty - they just did it in a way that favored the waning opinion, instead of the growing consensus.
What is being stigmatized? You brought up Mormons, and now can't find a specific instance of what you mean. More Republicans had problems with Romney's religion than Democrats did. Republicans are sometimes quiet about the things they hate or that make them uneasy, but still have problems with those things - shirking from taking responsibility by projecting them on others, though?
Why not just be rational, empiric and compassionate, instead? Trying to fight losing causes is making you see "stigma", belligerence, and lies? Who poked you and with what, exactly? You seem to have feelings about things that caused the Republicans to have 51% of the vote previously. Just because those feelings are no longer competitive with the feelings, facts and demography of the present and future why make that into a "fight"? Is it just about feeling invigorated? I'm not getting where in your statement you actually identify a real issue worth discussing, at all. How politically relevant is a candidate who does that?
Just because California is left doesn't mean other states won't join. Maybe you are trying to avoid looking at the issues that mean things to people and why.
And honestly, I don't feel bad about lumping you together into a collective "you" on that one. I've read you long enough to know where your expressed values lie.
No. You're just being lazy and an ungracious host of debate. I've not expressed an opinion on Mormonism once. And even if I had one what on earth would that have to do with the wrongness of carpetbagging a referendum to deny/permit civil rights? You are throwing out a curvy dodgeball to skirt discussion, or shut me down, or feel better about the vote in a state trending (as many are) blue. McAuliffe is a sleaze bag. Go ahead and feel bad about that. But apparently he knows what voters want. You don't need to play dirty games with me because of that. Direct your cheap shots where they belong or else tell me what you really mean. Yes, I think secular values are important in a diverse democracy. No, I never stigmatized Mormons.
BTW, ritmo: why is it that every time I stand up to your bullshit Titus flies off the handle against me...here and elsewhere? You two got something going on like you did with Inga?
Are you trying to be funny, lighten the mood, or really seeing an association? I don't see him on this thread… Is he going after you on Twitter or elsewhere in CH? Some things are coincidences. I know nothing about Titus IRL. But I do work in the day and tend to leave this stuff to evenings or a weekend. You might consider whether maybe Titus (and/or many others) would reasonably do so, too.
And also, as long as you said it, a clarification of whatever specific thing I said that you think was "bullshit" would be appreciated.
But maybe it was just rhetoric. I can teach you to use that more effectively too, Young Padawan. ;-)
Learn the force, you will.
But I do work in the day and tend to leave this stuff to evenings or a weekend. You might consider whether maybe Titus (and/or many others) would reasonably do so, too.
Stop giving me more reasons to tie you two together. In the entire history of Althousia and spinoffs, there have only 2 or 3 commenters who have been obsessed with what people do during the daytime.
Titus is one of them.
Ritmo wrote: At least Dunham et al make a fun satire out of it. What's wrong with that?
I wasn't talking about her show which I've never watched. I was referring to her little panty meltdown here.
Post a Comment