Geeto67

I swear, the irony writes itself. here let me fix this for you..... You are part of that community, stop dodging your responsibility. Or rather, how about you just stop continuing to be blind to the racist rhetoric you support and stop becoming outraged at ones you feel are directed to you but really aren't really because you've made some little excuse as to why this doesn't apply to you (I'm not white trash and therefore not my problem). either it is all bad, or none of it is - you can't really cherry pick your racism.

and it seems like everyone who brings up this point forgets that the democratic party in the 1800's was the party of conservatism. The party also split into war democrats (copperheads) and Dixiecrats with the northern copperheads backing Lincoln in 1864. In the 1920's a lot of the conservative democrats began to migrate to the republican party because the democrat label was unpopular and losing ground in the federal government. By running as republicans conservatives could still advance their agenda and support of segregation during the Jim crow era. The democrats saw a resurgence in the 1930's following the crash of the stock market, but as many of them had crossed party lines, the democratic party was now occupied by liberals and socialists with a few dixiecrat loyalists holding out. In 1964, when Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights act into law, the remaining dixiecrats began their final migration and by the early 1970's the Republican Party was fully a conservative political party. yes the democratic party did some awful things to minorities as well, Mayor Daley in chicago, a blue conservative, comes to mind, but you have to remember one thing: Regardless of party, be it democrat, republican, or libertarian, conservatism in American politics has ALWAYS supported white supremacy. Sometimes it has been subtle, sometimes it has open, but it has never wavered in this pursuit. This is why history is important, and when you make statements like "democrats were the party of slavery" in a modern context to try to discredit liberalism, all you do is show your ignorance of history and support the statement that social conservatism is a historically racist political ideology in America and that is unlikely to change. TL; DR version: Social conservatives are racist regardless of political party and you are ignorant about history. riiiight....but the black community needs to "pull itself up by it's bootstraps" and take responsibility for black criminals, right? Here is the problem, you feel like you are "under attack" because there are a minority group of white people that you don't agree with (mostly), and you are getting lumped in with their bad behavior based solely on race and think it's unfair. Yet you support a group that constantly advances this same type of rhetoric on black people, Hispanic people, Asians, etc.....I'm sorry I just don't feel any empathy for your rage about this and your double standard of saying racial communities need to take care of its own, except white people because they get a pass and don't have to take care of the white supremacists that plague the white community. Let's not forget that this is a crazy white lady saying it in the first place, I mean how much does Sinead O'connor's opinion really matter in your life? Is it a shitty thing for her to say...eh, it's not well thought out....but I think what you should be more concerned about is that it's not entirely without precedent and may have a smidgen of merit. Or....you could realize that the shitty extremist opinions of both sides are both a minority position and not really representative of either party's mainstream and focus on the real issues at hand and what's the right thing to do regardless of party and what your personal values really stand for. the choice is yours.

https://www.dispatch.com/news/20181010/columbus-four-string-brewing-co-closes

We all knew it was coming, but much like Trump's staff I didn't think it would be the day after the election. Sessions was a pretty racist piece of old guard conservative trash, but at least he was reliable old guard conservative trash, with the fatal flaw of being principled enough to not end up like John Mitchell (Nixon's AG who spent 2 years in jail for obstruction in the Watergate scandal). I shudder to think whom Trump seeks to put in Sessions place that will be more pliant to trumps requests for the AG to "defend him". Don Jr. has been moaning about the possibility of going to prison since august, so it's not that much of a coincidence. The speculation is that it will be a perjury charge, and not one of collusion, which...I'm not really sure how to feel about.

I mean, she kinda has a point, it's not exactly white people's finest hour right now in the US, what with the rise of white supremacy, antisemitism, xenophobia, and other forms of nationalistic violence. It's not the most eloquent way to put it, but then again, neither is your response (which kind of also makes her point). I mean, if you want to hate Sinead O'conor for something, hate her for that interview she gave a while back where she recounted in unnecessarily graphic detail her love of anal sex. yeah and that is probably why you will never see the church prosecuted as a criminal organization in this country despite the fact that in our lifetimes they have completely and intentionally acted like one. Australia is at least willing to put an Archbishop in jail for the cover up, but here in the US we wouldn't even put the bishops in jail and it was proven that they knew and made efforts to cover it up. I remember the SNL stunt too, I think my reaction at the time was "cool", my grandmother, who was a devout catholic was like "who cares, we have bigger problems". How right she was.

No nothing is broken in the legislative branch that would prevent this procedurally. yes something is broken in how districts are drawn that has an impact as to whether something like this would pass based on political party and the state of ohio isn't really capable of voting those people out of office, but in theory it could at least be submitted for legislative review and voted on by the state senate. Changing something like this at the legislative level, while appropriate and the preferred method, does come with it's own challenges, namely that it is changing something from the middle out and can be attacked from both sides on state constitutional grounds as well as municipal legislation, policy, and rule making. Approaching it from the top down, the state and municipal lawmakers can test the boundaries of the amendment, but they can't outright undermine it. What I like about the constitutional amendment approach is that it takes the fate of the issue to the people in spite of unpopularity with the ruling political party. It puts the choice directly in the hands of the people of ohio, rather than by proxy through the system of electing lawmakers that they hope will pass it as part of their agenda. I think where you and I differ is as to whether it should be "extreme situations" or merely situations that have a negative collective effect on the citizens of this state. If you look at how drug reform like this is passing in other states, there is a precedent for using the constitutional amendment path where available. And, from my perspective, this opiate crisis is only getting worse under the current system, the federal government is doing naught to stem it's progress, the current administration has no incentive to make changes and profits off the current system, and it's impact affects every person living or visiting ohio - and that alone means it should at least be given the chance to be considered by the people of ohio rather than it's politicians. Where I have concern is whether too many people put the "appropriateness of amending a state constitution" before the substance of the bill and the harm it seeks to reduce. And let me be clear here, I am not advocating "cheating" the system in any way - a constitutional amendment is a perfectly legitimate path to have something considered by the people when they feel like their lawmakers might not act in their best interests. Nothing about it is a short cut, or "the wrong way". Where I feel it falls down is that some people think of their state constitution like the federal constitution, where as the state constitution is meant to be more specifically tailored to the needs of the state, more detailed, and narrower in scope than the federal constitution.

state constitutions don't function entirely the same way as the federal constitution, and there are a lot more topics covered. Article XV, the section they wanted to add to with issue 1, of the ohio constitution has language on the lottery and marriage so....it is kinda hard to argue that it doesn't "totally" belong. Often broad sweeping reform like this needs a state constitutional amendment because it touches so many different areas of state and local law which can't be individually amended in any practical way. Additionally if something is considered a statewide epidemic, the state constitution is the most appropriate place to address it.

Ohio let you down on that one, not any particular party. we are in agreement on issue 1, but it had a 63% loss.

well it is a highly gerrymandered state on the whole. even still, it is a blue state in the senate.

It manifested in a massive popular vote despite a heavily gerrymandered system.

careful clay, they might brand you a liberal cuck for all them fancy, level headed talking points.

I don't think anybody could have predicted that outcome. Still It's not a bad start, giving the other side oversight of the executive office and resistance to the senate is good for the country as a whole. My only real concern is - this election basically saw moderate republicans losing their house seats to democrats, and the republicans keeping their seats are basically trump supporters and far right to extremist on the spectrum. So where does that leave the moderate conservative voter if their party no longer wants them? It's interesting.

at the end of the day it is a stick minivan. Not a lot of options in a row your own family bus. I think the last 2 stick minivans I ever saw were a 1980's dodge caravan (1st gen) a high school friend bought as a $400 beater and a ford aerostar that a buddy's dad had in college. I heard they made pontiac transports in stick but I think I have only seen one in the wild and it was parked on the street (it may have been an auto with an aftermarket shifter). only factory modern van is the VW eurovan and they stopped making them in 2003.

yeah, don't care. With the right combination red interior can look fantastic. Has to be a silver, white, gray, black or red car though. I mean, if you want a unique car, having a unique interior color is usually part of it. The Midnight Blue with grabber blue stitching is also pretty fetching, and personally I like the tan, esp with the blue or magnetic paint.

my vote? 1. Velocity Blue 2. magnetic gray only with a red interior 3. Orange Fury 4. Need for Green

https://rochester.craigslist.org/cto/d/2002-honda-odyssey-6-spd/6734283354.html

photos look great. Nice composition, good color and lighting. As for the car - I always wanted to know what the love child of an X6M and a Porsche Cayenne would look like. Now I know. those calipers look massive.

Except that they didn't say fuck you at all. As of Nov 4th, 3000 asylum seekers had filed for asylum in mexico but are still waiting for approval. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/migrant-caravan-embarks-route-death-through-mexico-n931041 Explain this. How does Mexico fit these people's needs better? Paranoid much? this isn't the first time something like this has happened, this happens every year, seasonally - it just happens that this year the caravan was larger than previous. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/us/migrant-caravan-border.html It's certainly convenient for republicans who are beating the brown scare drum pretty loud right before the midterm election.

Do you just hear/read something and attach the word "free market" to it and think that is somehow vaguely libertarian? read this. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/03/07/there-is-never-a-free-market-in-health-care/#5e4d75341147

this one has to be my favorite one because it it literally a collection of words where in the context of the sentence actually make less sense then each of the words individually. Medicare is a single payer health care program administered by the federal government. It's literally the thing "conservatives" describe as the bogey man when they talk about health care "socialism"....and yet here it is framed as the thing that needs saving from socialism....WTF?

Black book is the national auto research guide published by Hearst publishing. It's an independent pub similar to nada and blue book.

Tons really? is it tons? Border patrol claims an 81% success rate in apprehending illegal crossings - so either they are lying or you and I have very different definitions for "tons". Even if we take the lower independent (and possibly baised estimated) of a 40-55% success rate for border patrol, that's still not a lot of people overall considering the geography. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-mexico-wall/how-many-people-currently-cross/ so many? it's less than 1% of our population, doesn't sound like "so many" to me. Also I am not the government, you and I have equal right to not be arrested for the things we say in a public place. That's it. You aren't free from criticism. Do you need a safe "judgement free" space honey so you can rant about how the sub textually racist thing you say aren't racist? because I think you are pretty against safe spaces if I remember correctly.

In a helmet and military or riot gear? sure. They are unarmed. It's pretty rare for any case of stone throwing to be considered an imminent threat of death or bodily harm to justify lethal force. Federal Border Agents are allowed to respond to rock throwing with lethal force only as a last resort as of 2014. However, The Hague has no such prohibition and as this is an international issue, involving the US military and foreign nationals, all bets are off. By the way, have we talked about how it is illegal for the US military to deploy on US soil? because it is (Posse Comitatus Act). trump would have to beg the governors of bordering states to deploy the national guard, and the national guard isn't subject to his authority. but let's not forget - this is a big nothing burger. This isn't a real threat, it's a racist dog whistle 1 week before the midterm election to scare people like tim into thinking they aren't going to be able to understand their vaguely brown waiter, but don't take my word for it: https://www.businessinsider.com/shep-smith-fox-news-caravan-midterm-election-2018-10

Intention and action are two different things. I intend to fly without the aid of an airplane someday, doesn't make my intention realistic. No other "caravan" of migrants in recent history has ever gotten through the border, and we didn't need the military to prevent it, being worried that this is going to be the one is like being worried about the taxes if you win the lottery before you bought your ticket. Come on tim, you and I both know that you aren't entitled to free speech on this forum - you, me and everyone else are subject to its rules because it is private property. It is a courtesy that we get to have our conversation and one which I think we should thank Anthony for. But way to feel entitled. This is part of why arguing with you is annoying, I have to educate you first on the subject you have an opinion about before I can show you how you are factually wrong. Free speech only applies to action by the government - it doesn't protect you from other people thinking and vocalizing your opinion is shitty. Stop being a dumbshit. I am not joking literally. stop it. If you are going to be a constitutional "defender" - then for fuck sake know what the document actually says and stands for. If our borders were "open" then this would be relevant. They are heavily regulated and for the most part, illegal immigrants make up 3% of the population - that's a very small number when you consider that it includes people that crossed in 1995 and people that crossed in January. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/ Also, I think you have the exploitation thing backwards there buddy. It's Americans that tend to exploit illegal immigrants by paying them less than minimum wage, working them longer hours than allowed, and in conditions that would be considered at best unsafe. And it's not just individuals, whole industries are built off this exploitation - esp farms in the southwest. It's more than dumb to complain about illegal immigrants exploiting Americans when you buy lettuce, strawberries, and grapes at the kroger for cheap on the sweat and lives of an exploited invisible workforce. And that is before we get into the human trafficking for sex and drugs. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/09/03/is-immigration-really-a-problem-in-the-us/employers-exploit-unauthorized-immigrants-to-keep-wages-low exploit Americans - I dare you to say something dumber.

If you have advocated against social programs like welfare at any point, then you can't make this argument without being thought a hypocrite. So, tell me how you feel about welfare again? I wanted to live in a state where people defend the military killing unarmed civilians. you know, like Diane Fossey lived with the gorillas.