Attention Leftists: Thunderbolt23 Joins Your Ranks!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

In what am I being “stubborn?”

Nowhere did I say that he is a leftist.

He wanted to know why people took him to be one, and I explained why: because he screamed “racism” rather than replying with facts, which is a tactic associated with the left.

I asked him to provide another explanation for why he did so, but all he did was to continue to assert racism, rather than to ever show it or to provide any other fact.

What, I am stubborn for saying that that is what happened, I should back off and say that’s not why he was taken by some to be acting like a leftist?

He wanted an explanation, or seemed to anyway: he got it.

Is there another explanation for why some thought he seemed leftist today?

22

Maybe I should have read the other thread before responding. Or just kept my nose outta this situation.

23

No prob! :slight_smile:

24

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That’s right, Leftists - I have been branded a “leftist” in these forums. The reason? Despite my “body of work” since 2003 on PWI damning the Left and otherwise being a conservative, I am not of “the Right” for the most unforgivable of political and social sins on that side of the fence, apparently.

So, I’ll need some help, in the same manner any wayward political orphan needs it - I need the Leftist Starter Kit.

Ideas?

I’ll need a Che Guevara t-shirt for sure, and if anyone can burn me some Rage Against the Machine CDs, I’d greatly appreciate not having to pay the $12 to those capitalist-corporatist whores on iTunes.

What else? [/quote]

First of all, we’re glad to have you. Welcome.

Here’s a couple things:

A few people, pusshy and Bill especially, talk a lot of shit and think that because they post too much and try to bully people their opinions actually matter. They don’t, but don’t tell them that, they tend to get all pissy about it. If you disagree with them you get branded as a “leftie” and/or dismissed as an “anti-merican”. Just live with it.

Oh, and just put HeadHysterical on ignore, you’ll be glad you did.

26

[quote]pushharder wrote:
tme wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
That’s right, Leftists - I have been branded a “leftist” in these forums. The reason? Despite my “body of work” since 2003 on PWI damning the Left and otherwise being a conservative, I am not of “the Right” for the most unforgivable of political and social sins on that side of the fence, apparently.

So, I’ll need some help, in the same manner any wayward political orphan needs it - I need the Leftist Starter Kit.

Ideas?

I’ll need a Che Guevara t-shirt for sure, and if anyone can burn me some Rage Against the Machine CDs, I’d greatly appreciate not having to pay the $12 to those capitalist-corporatist whores on iTunes.

What else?

First of all, we’re glad to have you. Welcome.

Here’s a couple things:

A few people, pusshy and Bill especially, talk a lot of shit and think that because they post too much and try to bully people their opinions actually matter. They don’t, but don’t tell them that, they tend to get all pissy about it. If you disagree with them you get branded as a “leftie” and/or dismissed as an “anti-merican”. Just live with it.

Oh, and just put HeadHysterical on ignore, you’ll be glad you did.

Der aint no beeger opinyon bully den da Cheyenne Keed.

[/quote]

Timmuh, I doubt you’ve ever managed to tell me that because the only time I see your posts is in attribution (and often I don’t read attribution unless there is specific reason to do so), and I don’t think I’ve ever seen you say that in attribution that I’ve read.

However, you may well have said it tons of times. However, it didn’t get the response you think, out of not being read.

27

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Maybe I should have read the other thread before responding. Or just kept my nose outta this situation.[/quote]

It really is nothing - I started this thread in jest to have some fun with the preposterous nature of the claim.

Bill was not the person with which the issue arose - it was PRCCalDude’s statement in one of his rants on illegal immigration - but in trying to explain what happened, Bill continues to misstate the issue, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Bill seems to think that I said (more or less): “it’s racist to say that Mexicans don’t contribute to the intellectual capital of CA.” But, saying that Mexicans don’t contribute to the intellectual capital of CA is not a racist statement, and I never said it was. In fact, I agreed with this statement.

What I said was (more or less): “it’s racist to say that Mexicans have zero intellectual ability and could thus never contribute…”. I don’t believe that, and I would snarl at anyone who does.

Bill - in true broken record fashion - keeps insisting that I never produced the necessary “facts”, but there are none to produce for the idea I was arguing. I simply disagreed with PRCalDude’s insinuation that Mexicans somehow had “no intellectual abilities”, which in my mind, smacks of racism.

That’s it. The rest is a mosaic of straw men - Bill and PRCalDude prefer to attack positions of their own creation - and lots and lots of pride.

28

[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
I am guessing it’s because he screamed “you’re a racist” upon it being said that, demographically, illegal aliens weren’t contributing intellectual capital to the state of California and that overall they were not intellectuals, or something approximately like that.

I think he said, racist, more to the tune of. Latinos are genetically inferior and unintelligent allusion.[/quote]

As a culture they are.

29

This person neglects that I provided the full quote INCLUDING the part he says was omitted, and every statement I have made applies to the full quote just as much as to the one he pretends my statements have been limited to.

This person himself, instead of providing a true quote as I did, provides a fabricated-by-him “quote” that falsely implies that PRC said things he did not. PRC’s statements were not equivalent to what this person claims he was responding. It’s not a matter of being “more or less” being what happened but just not with exactly the same words or something: it’s simply not a true representation of what PRC said. How dishonest.

Or illustrative of what I said well back, that the problem is his readings-in of things that people never wrote and never meant and his complete failure to be able to recognize that he is doing this even after he is told. But really there is no justification for his false quote.

This person neglects that I have repeatedly pointed out to him that the statement he objects to was a DEMOGRAPHIC statement – and plainly stated as such – not a statement regarding every individual or what people could do under different circumstances. And it was a demographically accurate statement regarding illegal aliens, although the word “no” of course was hyperbole.

As for this claim that I am supposedly attacking positions of my own creation, each can see for himself that this person continues to call the statement or statements in question racist and to use words such as “stink” and “disgusting” to describe the falsely-alleged-by-him “racism” of these statements. It is no position of my own creation that this is his response method.

It’s simple enough: it’s been explained to him why his responses appeared leftist to some: obviously, he doesn’t get it. End of story. Really nothing more to be said about it, and nothing more to be said to that person, as he consistently acts precisely as if what was written, was not; and is if what was not written, was.

30

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That’s right, Leftists - I have been branded a “leftist” in these forums. The reason? Despite my “body of work” since 2003 on PWI damning the Left and otherwise being a conservative, I am not of “the Right” for the most unforgivable of political and social sins on that side of the fence, apparently.

So, I’ll need some help, in the same manner any wayward political orphan needs it - I need the Leftist Starter Kit.

Ideas?

I’ll need a Che Guevara t-shirt for sure, and if anyone can burn me some Rage Against the Machine CDs, I’d greatly appreciate not having to pay the $12 to those capitalist-corporatist whores on iTunes.

What else? [/quote]

You’re not a Leftist. You’re a Constitutionalist and very fair and objective. Who called you a Leftist? Maybe they forgot to take their meds that day.

31

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

This person neglects that I provided the full quote INCLUDING the part he says was omitted, and every statement I have made applies to the full quote just as much as to the one he pretends my statements have been limited to.

This person himself, instead of providing a true quote as I did, provides a fabricated-by-him “quote” that falsely implies that PRC said things he did not. PRC’s statements were not equivalent to what this person claims he was responding. It’s not a matter of being “more or less” being what happened but just not with exactly the same words or something: it’s simply not a true representation of what PRC said. How dishonest.

Or illustrative of what I said well back, that the problem is his readings-in of things that people never wrote and never meant and his complete failure to be able to recognize that he is doing this even after he is told. But really there is no justification for his false quote.

This person neglects that I have repeatedly pointed out to him that the statement he objects to was a DEMOGRAPHIC statement – and plainly stated as such – not a statement regarding every individual or what people could do under different circumstances. And it was a demographically accurate statement regarding illegal aliens, although the word “no” of course was hyperbole.

As for this claim that I am supposedly attacking positions of my own creation, each can see for himself that this person continues to call the statement or statements in question racist and to use words such as “stink” and “disgusting” to describe the falsely-alleged-by-him “racism” of these statements. It is no position of my own creation that this is his response method.

It’s simple enough: it’s been explained to him why his responses appeared leftist to some: obviously, he doesn’t get it. End of story. Really nothing more to be said about it, and nothing more to be said to that person, as he consistently acts precisely as if what was written, was not; and is if what was not written, was.[/quote]

No, Bill, I haven’t been ignoring the “full quote”, no matter how desperately you want or need for me to in order to advance your bizarre over-investment in defense of PRCalDude’s statement.

Earlier, you said:

I am guessing it’s because he responded forcefully with a “that’s racist” (paraphrase) type response upon it being said that, demographically, illegal aliens weren’t contributing intellectual capital to the state of California and that – again demographically, not speaking of every individual – they were describable as a third-world welfare dependent peasant class with “no” intellectual abilities.

Patently false, and this is - as I have said repeatedly - a straw man of your own device. I did not exclaim that PRC was “racist!” for noting that Mexicans/illegal immigrants did not contribute to the intellectual capital of CA. There is nothing racist about noting this, and I never said that it was, in fact, a racist statement. That is incorrect, and I have told you so.

I zeroed in on a very specific statement PRC made - that Mexicans had “no” intellectual ability. You insist that that statement was in context of other statements of a “demographic” nature and that the “no” was mere “hyperbole”.

No problem - then PRC should have been able to say that in less than ten words and show me wrong for assuming that. The rest - whether illegal immigrants hurt/helped/did nothing to CA was…wait for it…completely irrelevant to whether PRC actually believed Mexicans had “no” intellectual ability. None.

So, PRC had his opportunity to set me straight on my awful, awful mistake of thinking his comment of “no” intellectual ability, which is the only thing that was relevant. Would have been a piece of cake, and then we could resume discussion of how illegal immigration hurts CA - on which I agree with PRC.

Didn’t happen. Still hasn’t happened. I provided a direct opportunity for PRC say in no uncertain terms that he didn’t actually think Mexicans had “no” intellectual ability. Easy peasy. And, to date, he has not provided that response.

That is the only thing at issue. The rest - your continued mischaracterization of what I “thought” and “meant” despite my telling you exactly what I “meant” and “thought”, the notion that I reflexively labeled PRC a “racist!” for merely having criticisms of illegal immigrants in CA (untrue, but you continue to perpetuate it) - is just noise.

You also said:

EDIT: Rather than rely on the paraphrase, the specific reply was “I won’t join up on an ‘immigrants as subhuman parasites’ theme. This obsession linked a little too closely to race is, well, in a word, disgusting.”

I stand by every word of the quote you keep insisting I won’t recognize. It’s just that simple. PRC was clear that Mexicans take from a society that they don’t contribute to (parasitic behavior) and that they have “no” intellectual ability (if true, they are racially inferior to those who do have the requisite intellectual ability, and are naturally lesser).

Again, I had only one concern I tried to drill down on - whether or not PRC actually believed Mexicans had “no” intellectual ability. I was absolutely open to being wrong about PRC’s statement, and said so over and over and over. I opened the opportunity for PRC to correct me on it.

Never happened.

Additionally, you maintain your over-investment in defense of PRC, despite the fact that several times, you announced that there was nothing left for you to say or that your “work was done”. PRC is presumably a big boy - while the amazing lengths you obfuscate on his behalf are touching, the question is his and remains his to correct my mistake of assigning a racist “stink” to his comment.

Let’s get down to brass tacks, Bill - PRC began his rant and made a questionable comment. I called him on it and backed him into a corner over it. PRC started tap-dancing around the issue and did pretty much everything but deny the accusation. That is the beginning and end of it, your precious spin not withstanding.

PRC knows it, you know it, I know it. There is nothing “leftist!” about challenging PRC to clarify a statement that PRC made that suggested a belief in the inferiority of Mexicans.

Don’t like that I challenged PRC on it? Not my problem to fix.

EDIT: added underlined.

32

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:

Precisely how YOU interjecting an assertion of “stink of racial overtone” (to use your new phrase for the lens through which you viewed the quoted statements) or you responding with your original quoted reply does not comprise “playing the race card” is something that I suspect only you can understand.

Be disappointed all you want that others see your labeling of those statements as you did, and are now doing, as being playing the race card.

Bill, answer one question: why would I “play the race card” when I agree with PRC that:

  1. Illegal immigration is a problem

  2. It is especially a problem for CA

  3. I don’t want amnesty - I want to send offenders back to the place of origin, stronger enforcement of laws, stronger border enforcement, and higher penalties for those who employ them

In other words, I don’t want to accommodate illegal immigrants at all with policy - I don’t want to create opportunities for them or otherwise apologize for their lawbreaking. I want to hold them accountable for entering the country illegally.

What exactly would your precious “playing the race card” accomplish for someone who has the above position on illegal immigration?[/quote]

If we get rid of the Welfare state then I am sure their accommodation would go away and the only thing they would be doing is furthering our economy by producing more.

33

I see in attribution that this person now claims that I have created the phrase “stink of racial overtone” and that this is supposedly the “lens” through which I view his comments.

We are dealing with a person here who either lies, or is hopelessly incapable of knowing what he is talking about whether with regard to other people’s statements or even his own.

That was HIS statement, and a quite recent one, and is the “lens” by which he viewed PRC’s statements:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I noted that the comment had the stink of a racial overtone [/quote]

GOODBYE, Thunderbolt. There is no reason for me to correspond with a purveyor of such unending crap and repeatedly false representations. The fact is that you DID charge racism and you still do, the fact is that you DID say as I said you had, the fact is PRC did NOT say as you implied in your created “quote,” the fact is I did NOT say what you claim above.

It is not as if it is hard to go back to a previous page and see what was actually said, if you can’t remember. It SHOULD not be hard to understand the difference between things people actually said and your twistings of them, but clearly you cannot tell the difference. Or if you can tell the difference but still post as you have anyway, then that says another thing that is worse.

Your performance in this matter has been: well, each can insert his own word.

34

[quote]Valor wrote:
3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
I am guessing it’s because he screamed “you’re a racist” upon it being said that, demographically, illegal aliens weren’t contributing intellectual capital to the state of California and that overall they were not intellectuals, or something approximately like that.

I think he said, racist, more to the tune of. Latinos are genetically inferior and unintelligent allusion.

As a culture they are.[/quote]
I’m Latino. I go to college for Computer Science, my brother works for the DSS, he speaks 4 languages fluently, my sister works for Twitter and speaks 3 languages, my Father makes 150,000 dollars a year as Aeronautical engineer… and every male in my family has served in the military (with the exception of myself as I am ineligible,) we live modestly even tho we have some wealth. We repay our loans, and education is of the highest value.

So how the fuck is my culture inferior to yours?

35

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If we get rid of the Welfare state then I am sure their accommodation would go away and the only thing they would be doing is furthering our economy by producing more.[/quote]

Here’s what you’re failing to understand, BC.

Every new ethnicity entering this country becomes a voting constituency.

If one ethnicity enters the country and historically grossly underperforms another in terms of academic performance, income, etc, but at the same time figures out that they can vote themselves more public treasure, there is no way of “getting rid of the welfare state.” Essentially, you have to convince them to vote against what’s in their financial best interests.

As I attempted to show on the other thread, per Rector’s analysis and that of Telles and Ortiz, that has already happened to California.

TB23 spun us this yarn of the “intellectual capital of people coming here,” to paraphrase. The reality is that most of the people coming here can’t read and write their own language. As it turns out, their kids don’t do much better, though they can at least speak the language. Such people quickly figure out that what they can do by way of document fraud, child bearing, and just plain showing up at the ER, is collect social security benefits, WIC, welfare, affirmative action, Medi-CAL and many other financial benefits. Couple this with the fact that they have a total fertility rate of near 4 and a high crime rate, and you have a recipe for total demographic - and therefore voting pattern - transformation of an entire state.

Currently, only 21% of the students enrolled in California public schools are white. 56% are Mexican. Stop and consider that, for a second. Where’d all the white people go? It’s too racist to think about that.

When was the last time California voted red in a presidential election?

Hispanics (now the majority in CA), vote blue. They vote blue because it benefits them financially. Democrats pander racially, support AA, support unions (including public sector unions), and support tax hikes on the upper classes.

Hispanics work in union jobs, need AA, and need the benefits produced by taxing the upper classes. Trying to get them to vote otherwise is not going to happen. They’ve voted Dem by a 2:1 ratio as long as they’ve been here.

The exception, of course, is the Cubans, who vote Republican and move into the middle class. But our immigration policy over the past 40 years has not favored bringing a ton of Cubans in here to do the job Americans won’t do. No, now Cubans are being swamped demographically by Mexicans (a more accurate term than ‘Hispanics’) in places like Florida where they’ve typically resided. You’ll notice now that Florida, once solidly Republican, is a battle ground state in presidential politics, along with Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and other traditional Republican strongholds.

What this essentially means is a lot more of the welfare state as Democrats start dominating in presidential elections as more states tip blue from demographic change. Good luck getting the Dems and their constituents to respect documents written by Dead White Males either.

No doubt people will rant on about my racism here, but I’ve not said anything untrue.

36

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
If we get rid of the Welfare state then I am sure their accommodation would go away and the only thing they would be doing is furthering our economy by producing more.

Here’s what you’re failing to understand, BC.

Every new ethnicity entering this country becomes a voting constituency.

If one ethnicity enters the country and historically grossly underperforms another in terms of academic performance, income, etc, but at the same time figures out that they can vote themselves more public treasure, there is no way of “getting rid of the welfare state.” Essentially, you have to convince them to vote against what’s in their financial best interests.

As I attempted to show on the other thread, per Rector’s analysis and that of Telles and Ortiz, that has already happened to California.

TB23 spun us this yarn of the “intellectual capital of people coming here,” to paraphrase. The reality is that most of the people coming here can’t read and write their own language. As it turns out, their kids don’t do much better, though they can at least speak the language. Such people quickly figure out that what they can do by way of document fraud, child bearing, and just plain showing up at the ER, is collect social security benefits, WIC, welfare, affirmative action, Medi-CAL and many other financial benefits. Couple this with the fact that they have a total fertility rate of near 4 and a high crime rate, and you have a recipe for total demographic - and therefore voting pattern - transformation of an entire state.

Currently, only 21% of the students enrolled in California public schools are white. 56% are Mexican. Stop and consider that, for a second. Where’d all the white people go? It’s too racist to think about that.

When was the last time California voted red in a presidential election?

Hispanics (now the majority in CA), vote blue. They vote blue because it benefits them financially. Democrats pander racially, support AA, support unions (including public sector unions), and support tax hikes on the upper classes.

Hispanics work in union jobs, need AA, and need the benefits produced by taxing the upper classes. Trying to get them to vote otherwise is not going to happen. They’ve voted Dem by a 2:1 ratio as long as they’ve been here.

The exception, of course, is the Cubans, who vote Republican and move into the middle class. But our immigration policy over the past 40 years has not favored bringing a ton of Cubans in here to do the job Americans won’t do. No, now Cubans are being swamped demographically by Mexicans (a more accurate term than ‘Hispanics’) in places like Florida where they’ve typically resided. You’ll notice now that Florida, once solidly Republican, is a battle ground state in presidential politics, along with Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and other traditional Republican strongholds.

What this essentially means is a lot more of the welfare state as Democrats start dominating in presidential elections as more states tip blue from demographic change. Good luck getting the Dems and their constituents to respect documents written by Dead White Males either.

No doubt people will rant on about my racism here, but I’ve not said anything untrue.

[/quote]

I understand that completely, I think we should have a major underground revolution. We should buy a lot (like a piece, not the over used phrase) of land, storm the white house and change it so that only people who own land can vote :). Kind of like how the SEC does with some investments where you have to be above a certain level of income to put your money into the riskier (and my opinion best) investments.

I just find it ridiculous that over time our Union has become a welfare state all in the name of the founding fathers. I wonder sometimes what it would be like if it went back to the only people voting were land owners.

37

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
If we get rid of the Welfare state then I am sure their accommodation would go away and the only thing they would be doing is furthering our economy by producing more.

Here’s what you’re failing to understand, BC.

Every new ethnicity entering this country becomes a voting constituency.

If one ethnicity enters the country and historically grossly underperforms another in terms of academic performance, income, etc, but at the same time figures out that they can vote themselves more public treasure, there is no way of “getting rid of the welfare state.” Essentially, you have to convince them to vote against what’s in their financial best interests.

As I attempted to show on the other thread, per Rector’s analysis and that of Telles and Ortiz, that has already happened to California.

TB23 spun us this yarn of the “intellectual capital of people coming here,” to paraphrase. The reality is that most of the people coming here can’t read and write their own language. As it turns out, their kids don’t do much better, though they can at least speak the language. Such people quickly figure out that what they can do by way of document fraud, child bearing, and just plain showing up at the ER, is collect social security benefits, WIC, welfare, affirmative action, Medi-CAL and many other financial benefits. Couple this with the fact that they have a total fertility rate of near 4 and a high crime rate, and you have a recipe for total demographic - and therefore voting pattern - transformation of an entire state.

Currently, only 21% of the students enrolled in California public schools are white. 56% are Mexican. Stop and consider that, for a second. Where’d all the white people go? It’s too racist to think about that.

When was the last time California voted red in a presidential election?

Hispanics (now the majority in CA), vote blue. They vote blue because it benefits them financially. Democrats pander racially, support AA, support unions (including public sector unions), and support tax hikes on the upper classes.

Hispanics work in union jobs, need AA, and need the benefits produced by taxing the upper classes. Trying to get them to vote otherwise is not going to happen. They’ve voted Dem by a 2:1 ratio as long as they’ve been here.

The exception, of course, is the Cubans, who vote Republican and move into the middle class. But our immigration policy over the past 40 years has not favored bringing a ton of Cubans in here to do the job Americans won’t do. No, now Cubans are being swamped demographically by Mexicans (a more accurate term than ‘Hispanics’) in places like Florida where they’ve typically resided. You’ll notice now that Florida, once solidly Republican, is a battle ground state in presidential politics, along with Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and other traditional Republican strongholds.

What this essentially means is a lot more of the welfare state as Democrats start dominating in presidential elections as more states tip blue from demographic change. Good luck getting the Dems and their constituents to respect documents written by Dead White Males either.

No doubt people will rant on about my racism here, but I’ve not said anything untrue.

[/quote]

Untrue? What does truth have to do with it? One only need quote a crime statistic to be called racist where I come from. This has nothing to do with the facts, it’s moved way past that into la la land, otherwise known as the land of the politically correct. There are two groups, the first are those who actually believe that any sort of fact analysis, mentioning race is racist. The second are those who want to be seen as NOT being racist so they feel obligated to fall in line with the PC group. Can you imagine how many votes Obama got from this group of idiots? Anyway, you have no chance my friend, none at all.

38

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

I just find it ridiculous that over time our Union has become a welfare state all in the name of the founding fathers. I wonder sometimes what it would be like if it went back to the only people voting were land owners.[/quote]

A very easy question to answer, there would never again be a democrat elected on the national level, at least until they figured out how to move to the center.

39

Possibly one of the stupidest Bush/Rove strategies was the idea that they could shift the Hispanic vote over to the Republican Party by accomplishing legalization of illegal aliens during a Republican administration.

The first stupid thing was the idea that Hispanics who are American citizens, and let’s say outside of cases where immediate family members are illegals, overall have a position that illegals should be made citizens. I don’t believe this is the case at all. I don’t have national statistics but certainly among people I know personally this isn’t remotely the case.

And the second stupid thing was the idea that the illegals, on being made citizens, would vote Republican. Not gonna happen. (Demographically speaking, not with regard to a given individual who of course might vote in any individual way.)

Democrats in contrast have not been stupid on this. They know that if they can add the illegal alien vote (above and beyond what they already get of that, thanks to their absolute insistence that ID cannot be required to vote) to the votes of the dead, the felons, the ACORN write-ins, and the “early and often” crowd that they cannot possibly lose another election.

40

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Possibly one of the stupidest Bush/Rove strategies was the idea that they could shift the Hispanic vote over to the Republican Party by accomplishing legalization of illegal aliens during a Republican administration.
[/quote]

Oh, I agree 100%. There’s no evidence for this view.

It was sort of like the Rove strategy of getting old people to vote Republican by giving them the prescription drug entitlement. Old people promptly went to the polls and voted just as they had before.

In Bush’ case, he managed to capture a whopping 38%(!) of the Hispanic vote by helping turn on a firehose of easy mortgage credit to them. Once it shut off, they went back to their usual 2:1 Dem voting pattern, as opposed to the 1.8:1 voting pattern bush managed to eke out.

Rove was one of the most colossal idiots on the political scene in a long time. Really, if they wanted what was good for the Republican party, they’d have sealed off the borders upon Bush’ election to the White House.

But we’re constantly told we’d all starve to death if that happened.