Matt Taibbi breaks the issue down.

[Langston Hughes]

I know that many of you might feel that this is a bit harsh and I'm sorry if it is. It's not meant to be mean spirited nor just to be a gotcha moment. I really think that Matt Taibbi who is admittedly a liberal bias guy has the correct idea even if the message is the brutally honest and hard to swallow. This is the base he's talking about and the same message i just posted to Fired. You guys look at these large groups and castigate them which allows Obama with a better ground game to reach out to them and offer them inclusion. You lose your shot at talking values to them because you've already suggested they have little to none.

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/hey-rush-limbaugh-starting-an-abortion-industry-wont-win-you-female-voters-20121108

 

.....But what are supposed to do, in order to get the Hispanic vote now? Does that mean, open the borders and embrace the illegals? I want you to think about this. So – the Republican establishment, does that mean, if we're not getting the female vote, do we become pro-choice? Do we have to start giving out birth control pills? Is that what we have to do?

 

From there he self-apostrophizes, asking what the Republicans need to do to get those votes. He answers the question in a mocking tone that in fact is the entire source of his problem – the very answer to his question is drop the freaking sarcasm when you talk about minorities and minority issues, and you just might get their votes – but he's so psychologically well-defended that this never occurs to him, and he just plows on.

 

Here's the part that really strikes me. I know that many of you will not feel that Rush is being condescending to minorities but they take it that way when they see and hear this stuff.

 

 

This next part is awesome. He again asks the "isn't it enough to have Condoleeza Rice" question, and here even supplies an answer – it should be enough, because, get this: she's not just black and a woman, she's WELL-SPOKEN! He actually plays the "well-spoken" card:

Okay, if that's what we have to do, pretend we're doing it. Pretend that in the next couple of weeks, couple of months, the Republican Party announces that it is for contraception being given out by the state, and in fact the Catholic Church must give contraception away and make abortion available. Are we going to get the votes Obama got last night. We're not? Really, we're not?

 

 

We won't. But we're not getting the votes that Obama got last night because we have Condoleeza Rice – and she is a pinnacle of achievement, and intelligent, and well-spoken . . . You can't find a more accomplished person. Marco Rubio. And really, speaking in street lingo, we're not getting credit for it. Now is it that Republicans are looking for credit? And it's not perceived as genuine? Are these people perceived as tokens?

 

If they are perceived as tokens, and they are, why is that? Is it because of some failing on the minorities themselves or is it the conservative movement not really wanting them?

 

 

 

Similarly, the fact that so many Republicans this week think that all Hispanics care about is amnesty, all women want is abortions (and lots of them) and all teenagers want is to sit on their couches and smoke tons of weed legally, that tells you everything you need to know about the hopeless, anachronistic cluelessness of the modern Republican Party. A lot of these people, believe it or not, would respond positively, or at least with genuine curiosity, to the traditional conservative message of self-reliance and fiscal responsibility.

 

But modern Republicans will never be able to spread that message effectively, because they have so much of their own collective identity wrapped up in the belief that they're surrounded by free-loading, job-averse parasites who not only want to smoke weed and have recreational abortions all day long, but want hardworking white Christians like them to pay the tab. Their whole belief system, which is really an endless effort at congratulating themselves for how hard they work compared to everyone else (by the way, the average "illegal," as Rush calls them, does more real work in 24 hours than people like Rush and me do in a year), is inherently insulting to everyone outside the tent – and you can't win votes when you're calling people lazy, stoned moochers.

 

It's hard to say whether it's good or bad that the Rushes of the world are too clueless to realize that it's their attitude, not their policies, that is screwing them most with minority voters. If they were self-aware at all, Mitt Romney would probably be president right now. So I guess we should be grateful that the light doesn't look like it will ever go on. But wow, is their angst tough to listen to.

[grbeck]

]But modern Republicans will never be able to spread that message effectively, because they have so much of their own collective identity wrapped up in the belief that they're surrounded by free-loading, job-averse parasites who not only want to smoke weed and have recreational abortions all day long, but want hardworking white Christians like them to pay the tab. [/b]

 

I don't know where on earth these crazy Republicans get that idea. I mean, it's not as though the Democrats featured as a convention speaker a law student who expects her Catholic-affiliated law school to provide her with free contraception, even though this would violate the school's religious beliefs.

 

Oh, wait...

Edited November 9, 2012 by grbeck

[RangerM]

Some In Line For City Job Fair Upset There’s No Hiring On The Spot

 

Thousands of people waited in line for hours Friday morning at Kennedy-King College, to attend a job fair hosted by the city of Chicago, but many of those people left upset, when they found out the job fair wasn’t quite what they were expecting.

 

WBBM Newsradio’s Bernie Tafoya reports the line for the job fair went down 63rd Street, around the corner, and about a half block north on Halsted Street, and many of the people in line said they were expecting to be interviewed for jobs with the city and its sister agencies, not simply find out how to apply........

 

.........“I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.”

 

How do you convince a person like this that a job is something you earn, and not something that someone gives you?

[FiredMotorCompany]

Wow. Could it be Condi is considered a token because liberals classify her as one? Because they are only looking for points against the party, never acknowledging their accomplishments. Look at what happens to a black actress who speaks out in support of the republicans. Did anyone hear Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews defend her right to independent opinion and choice?

[xr7g428]

So Obama runs a divide and conquer strategy and you expect the Republicans to solve the issue through navel gazing? LOL!

 

Since you like Rolling Stone so much this is what really breaks out the election.

 

2) Younger Voters

Sorry, Boomer Nation: President Obama owes his second term to Generation Y. Voters under 30 turned out in greater numbers than senior citizens and broke for Obama over Romney 60-37. Gen X wasn't too shabby, either: Voters 30 to 44 gave Obama a 7 point edge. (Romney, on the other hand, won convincingly among voters 45 and older.) The numbers in Florida are particularly striking. According to exit polling, the Obama campaign not only improved turnout among the under-30 set there, it ran up the margin, too: Young Floridians broke 67-31 for Obama, better than the 61-37 margin over McCain in 2008.

3) The Latino Vote

With 4 million more registered voters in 2012 than in 2008, Latinos accounted for one in every ten voters in 2012, and these voters broke for Obama by an epic 71-27 split nationally. That is almost exactly the margin Bill Clinton hung on Bob Dole in 1996, when there were only half as many Hispanic votes. Messina told me earlier in the campaign that he was "obsessed" with the Latino vote, and that reproducing Clinton's numbers against Romney this year would mean Game Over for the Republican. He was absolutely right – particularly in Colorado, where the split was even more lopsided: 75-23, up from 61-38.

4) African-Americans

The historic turnout of African-Americans from 2008 held steady in 2012 at 13 percent of the electorate, nationwide. And the Obama campaign actually managed to increase black turnout in pivotal states like Virginia, where one in five voters was African American. Romney earned only 5 percent of that vote, compared to the 8 percent won by John McCain.

5) Ohio Working Stiffs

Call it the "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" factor. In Ohio, where the auto industry employs one in eight workers, Obama actually gained ground – 2 points – among high-school educated voters without college degrees, about a quarter of the state's electorate. Compare that to Wisconsin, where Obama lost 6 points among this cohort. Or North Carolina, where the dropoff was 11 points.

6) All the Single Ladies

Romney was haunted by a yawning gender gap, particularly among unmarried women, who accounted for 23 percent of voters (up three points from 2008). While Romney himself took awkward pains to reach out to female voters, he was yoked to his running mate's moves to redefine rape, and to the GOP's broader agenda to limit access to not only abortion but birth control. Obama took this voting bloc by a 67-31 margin, nationally, and by nearly identical tallies in Ohio and Paul Ryan's home state of Wisconsin. The intersection of race and gender was especially powerful for the president in states like North Carolina, where black women accounted for 14 percent of the electorate – and 99 out of 100 voted to defeat Mitt Romney.

 

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-president-obama-beat-mitt-romney-20121107#ixzz2BlcwK134

[xr7g428]

All of those groups might agree with the Republicans on some, or even most, issues, but each of them was targeted using a litmus issue. The one group left off this list that really should get more credit is the gay and lesbian community. All in all, it was and is a brilliant strategy. Hats of to the Obama team. The big challenge is to try to keep everyone in the tent. A lot of African Americans are not happy about gay marriage. A lot of Hispanics are not happy about the beating Obama is giving the Catholic Church. A lot of those UAW / union workers already have thier hand out, and you can't bail out GM twice in a row. Eventually student loans won't be the biggest issue in the lives of Gen X and Y. Good luck with that...

 

Don't mistake what I am saying, the Republicans are as dead as they think they are. There really isn't a fix for them. The silver lining for them is that this is most likely a hollow victory for Obama. When the wheels come off the economy due to the debt, he will go down in history as the new Herbert Hoover. And it could come as soon as January.

Edited November 9, 2012 by xr7g428

[Edstock]

How do you convince a person like this that a job is something you earn, and not something that someone gives you?

 

Um, it seems you use English differently than some. Perhaps this is a conservative problem? My employer gave me a job (actually it was a someone, aka the general manager). So did the employer before that one. Maybe it works differently for you?

[TomServo92]

Um, it seems you use English differently than some. Perhaps this is a conservative problem? My employer gave me a job (actually it was a someone, aka the general manager). So did the employer before that one. Maybe it works differently for you?

 

I've never been "given" a job in my life. I earned my jobs by proving to potential employers I was right choice, by going to college to get my degree, or standing out from co-workers for a promotion by busting my ass. Perhaps you were given jobs, but I earned mine.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Um, it seems you use English differently than some. Perhaps this is a conservative problem? My employer gave me a job (actually it was a someone, aka the general manager). So did the employer before that one. Maybe it works differently for you?

ACTUALLY, it's NOT your job. It is the employer's. They created it. They select you to fill the position, earn them money and compensate you in exchange for consuming a portion of your limited days on this earth for the labor you provide their business.

 

Never seen a man snap his fingers "POOF" and have a job. He either creates a business or appeals to an employer to take a chance on him. Granted, there are occasions where the company "head hunts" or romances a particular candidate to fill a position. That is the exception by far.

[TomServo92]

ACTUALLY, it's NOT your job. It is the employer's. They created it. They select you to fill the position, earn them money and compensate you in exchange for consuming a portion of your limited days on this earth for the labor you provide their business.

 

Never seen a man snap his fingers "POOF" and have a job. He either creates a business or appeals to an employer to take a chance on him. Granted, there are occasions where the company "head hunts" or romances a particular candidate to fill a position. That is the exception by far.

 

Even when they head hunt you it's because you've proven your worth either through excelling in school or your career. Either one is the result of hard work.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Even when they head hunt you it's because you've proven your worth either through excelling in school or your career. Either one is the result of hard work.

 

"I have a right to a job. Ima gonna get mah gubment to make you gimme one."

 

 

 

If the government can force employers to provide health care or pay a "tax" penalty, the next logical step is mandating employers hire people to draw down the unemployment numbers.

Edited November 10, 2012 by FiredMotorCompany

[RangerM]

Um, it seems you use English differently than some. Perhaps this is a conservative problem? My employer gave me a job (actually it was a someone, aka the general manager). So did the employer before that one. Maybe it works differently for you?

Apparently so, in my case.

 

Canada must be a wonderful country if you only have to sit idly by and people give you a job, just for being you.

 

Unfortunately, I had to acquire the degree (not given to me, either) that got me my first interview with DuPont. From there, I got my job with my current employer, and after 20 years of doing more than just showing up, I managed to become Vice President.

 

If I knew it would be given to me, I could have saved a whole lot of effort.

Edited November 10, 2012 by RangerM

[FiredMotorCompany]

Apparently so, in my case.

 

Canada must be a wonderful country if you only have to sit idly by and people give you a job, just for being you.

 

Unfortunately, I had to acquire the degree (not given to me, either) that got me my first interview with DuPont. From there, I got my job with my current employer, and after 20 years of doing more than just showing up, I managed to become Vice President.

 

If I knew it would be given to me, I could have saved a whole lot of effort.

 

AND.........that solves the Student Loan problem!

 

 

Next comes the right to work as a birthright. The government will be your employer. Fascism comes of age.

Edited November 10, 2012 by FiredMotorCompany

[napfirst]

I think Taibbi may be........wait....

 

 

anti dentite

term used in seinfeld defining people who hate or dislike dentists

Tom: " argh i have to go to the entist tomorrow, i really dont want to go because i hate all dentists"

 

Jeremy: " tom ur such an anti dentite"

[Langston Hughes]

Some In Line For City Job Fair Upset There’s No Hiring On The Spot

 

 

How do you convince a person like this that a job is something you earn, and not something that someone gives you?

Um, it seems you use English differently than some. Perhaps this is a conservative problem? My employer gave me a job (actually it was a someone, aka the general manager). So did the employer before that one. Maybe it works differently for you?

I've never been "given" a job in my life. I earned my jobs by proving to potential employers I was right choice, by going to college to get my degree, or standing out from co-workers for a promotion by busting my ass. Perhaps you were given jobs, but I earned mine.

ACTUALLY, it's NOT your job. It is the employer's. They created it. They select you to fill the position, earn them money and compensate you in exchange for consuming a portion of your limited days on this earth for the labor you provide their business.

 

Never seen a man snap his fingers "POOF" and have a job. He either creates a business or appeals to an employer to take a chance on him. Granted, there are occasions where the company "head hunts" or romances a particular candidate to fill a position. That is the exception by far.

 

In reply to this hijacking of the thread I am going to say that you are all wrong.

 

You are given the opportunity to earn a job!

 

When you get hired it is merely a formality. You have been asked to come in and work for the employer to see if your capable of the job and if your to his/her liking. Nothing you have done to that point has earned you the Job. It has earned you a chance at a job, which someone else may have a better or worse chance than you. Your credentials, experience, knowledge, relatives do not earn you anything more than a opportunity to impress the person you work for and thereby be kept on. Thus the saying.

 

 

All that matters is what you do after you get your foot in the door.

 

Everything up to that point was to get in the door.

[Langston Hughes]

"I have a right to a job. Ima gonna get mah gubment to make you gimme one."

 

If the government can force employers to provide health care or pay a "tax" penalty, the next logical step is mandating employers hire people to draw down the unemployment numbers.

 

Fired, again i think your going to far with things. Relax, let the pendulum swing and in time things will move back. It won't move back to the 50's or even the 80's as those times are gone. It will swing back your way a little and you can enjoy then that I will hate every minute of it. Okay.

[FiredMotorCompany]

In reply to this hijacking of the thread I am going to say that you are all wrong.

 

You are given the opportunity to earn a job!

 

When you get hired it is merely a formality. You have been asked to come in and work for the employer to see if your capable of the job and if your to his/her liking. Nothing you have done to that point has earned you the Job. It has earned you a chance at a job, which someone else may have a better or worse chance than you. Your credentials, experience, knowledge, relatives do not earn you anything more than a opportunity to impress the person you work for and thereby be kept on. Thus the saying.

 

 

 

 

Everything up to that point was to get in the door.

 

You are making my point, if not paraphrasing it.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Fired, again i think your going to far with things. Relax, let the pendulum swing and in time things will move back. It won't move back to the 50's or even the 80's as those times are gone. It will swing back your way a little and you can enjoy then that I will hate every minute of it. Okay.

Pendulum swing implies the pendulum is rigidly mounted. Recent events and human nature are tilting the frame so the swing is permanently shifted to the left of center.

[RangerM]

In reply to this hijacking of the thread I am going to say that you are all wrong.

 

You are given the opportunity to earn a job!

 

That's called "applying". And what types of information does one put on an application (for those jobs that require an application and not a resume)? Education? Experience? Are those items that are given, or are they earned?

When you get hired it is merely a formality. You have been asked to come in and work for the employer to see if your capable of the job and if your to his/her liking. Nothing you have done to that point has earned you the Job.

How many people hire someone without meeting them first? Do you believe one's performance during an interview matters, or they just check for a pulse?

 

Believe it or not, hiring someone is an expense. Want ads cost. Paying someone to cull the unqualified from consideration costs. Interviews take time (ie. money). And once the person is hired, there are papers that have to be filed with various government agencies. Employee cards have to be made. Uniforms and/or name tags have to be produced (if it's that kind of a job).

 

Most companies care enough about their image that they have standards (of skills/education, experience, ability to communicate clearly, disposition, etc) for anyone they will let represent them.

 

They don't simply take the first person who walks through the door, and sit him/her at a desk, workbench, or customer service counter.

It has earned you a chance at a job, which someone else may have a better or worse chance than you. Your credentials, experience, knowledge, relatives do not earn you anything more than a opportunity to impress the person you work for and thereby be kept on. Thus the saying.

 

Everything up to that point was to get in the door.

 

That "everything up to that point" part was what earned you the position. Your ongoing performance is what keeps you there.

 

BTW, the purpose of my post was not to hijack your thread. It was to point out that the "free-loading, job-averse parasites" mentioned in your post (a.k.a. the entitlement mindset) is not a fantasy.

 

If someone I interviewed told me they wanted a "Wal-Mart gift card, or something" for having to wait, I'd laugh them out of the office. But in fairness I'll ask, what would be your response to this? How do you justify a mindset that allows someone to believe they should get something for waiting in line to apply for a job? OR, do you believe a person SHOULD get a Wal-mart gift card for waiting to apply?

Edited November 10, 2012 by RangerM

[TomServo92]

In reply to this hijacking of the thread I am going to say that you are all wrong.

 

You are given the opportunity to earn a job!

 

When you get hired it is merely a formality. You have been asked to come in and work for the employer to see if your capable of the job and if your to his/her liking. Nothing you have done to that point has earned you the Job. It has earned you a chance at a job, which someone else may have a better or worse chance than you. Your credentials, experience, knowledge, relatives do not earn you anything more than a opportunity to impress the person you work for and thereby be kept on. Thus the saying.

 

 

 

 

Everything up to that point was to get in the door.

 

You're given the opportunity, not the job. The job you earn.

[Langston Hughes]

Look I thought this post might be met with some level of self-reflection. I'm sorry i didn't mean for it to turn into the typical posts here. Ranger, Fired, I thought of everyone here there might be introspection on the concept Taibbi is presenting by you two. It boils down to this, you will not win elections by blaming brown and black people for your woes, nor will you win if you continue to label them, both as a party and as a rough group of conservative voters as lazy and job averse. The sooner that level of rhetoric leaves the sooner you can find moderates on social issues who embrace some level of further right fiscal conservatism. The far right and that message will leave you out in the cold more often than not as minorities expand with or without amnesty.

 

For the record I could embrace some more fiscal restraint in entitlements and I could be moved to support thoughtful and compassionate welfare reform. I can not embrace Paul Ryan's ideas and a majority of us won't. They didn't this time and they won't in the future.

 

As for expecting Wal mart cards, they can go F^&* themselves. Not a chance would i support that.

[retro-man]

I'm as liberal as they come. I started working when I was 16 (a few years before that, cutting lawns, baby-sitting, and subbing on friends' paper routes), and never stopped. I worked restaurants, gas stations, construction, aerospace, graveyard shift in a roof truss factory while earning my undergraduate degree. I worked in cabinet shops and in construction while earning my Masters degree. I have worked plenty of 60 - 70 hour weeks in the last 20 years - missed plenty of holidays and birthdays and anniversaries. There are plenty, plenty others like me. My father was a successful business owner who worked his ass off, and who would have described his own politics as something akin to Nordic Socialism.

 

You saw Jim Sinegal speak at the Democratic Convention. Bill Gates is a liberal, as is his father. I would say both of them have created a few jobs. But they were wealth creators - not just wealth concentrators. I think Republicans would serve themselves well to start to recognize the difference and make an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff. (The primaries did show some dawning of this notion.)

Edited November 11, 2012 by retro-man

[RangerM]

Look I thought this post might be met with some level of self-reflection. I'm sorry i didn't mean for it to turn into the typical posts here. Ranger, Fired, I thought of everyone here there might be introspection on the concept Taibbi is presenting by you two. It boils down to this, you will not win elections by blaming brown and black people for your woes, nor will you win if you continue to label them, both as a party and as a rough group of conservative voters as lazy and job averse. The sooner that level of rhetoric leaves the sooner you can find moderates on social issues who embrace some level of further right fiscal conservatism. The far right and that message will leave you out in the cold more often than not as minorities expand with or without amnesty.

 

I understand that conservatives like myself are portrayed as, "blaming brown and black people" and labeling them "as lazy and job averse". My question is, where have I (or any conservative) specifically called out brown/black people....as....a.....group? (that distinction is important, btw) I've certainly seen many on the left SAY that--every time a conservative says anything about social programs, amnesty, or birth control--conservatives are "targeting" blacks/Hispanics/women. The left is very good at vilifying conservatives, but to suggest that any conservative is going to go out of their way to target a specific group of people seems to be the only defense proffered to avoid the policy argument.

For the record I could embrace some more fiscal restraint in entitlements and I could be moved to support thoughtful and compassionate welfare reform. I can not embrace Paul Ryan's ideas and a majority of us won't. They didn't this time and they won't in the future.

See what I mean? You say you "could embrace some more fiscal restraint in entitlements", but if anyone actually does, your side portrays it as pushing an old lady over a cliff. What does it mean to favor restraint on entitlements when no proposal is good enough, and the opposition refuses to offer any alternative that could achieve anything meaningful?

 

Maybe you thought Ryan's proposal was draconian and really would push old people off a cliff, but what proposals have been offered by the Left that could possibly work?

 

As for expecting Wal mart cards, they can go F^&* themselves. Not a chance would i support that.

If Rush Limbaugh said it first (they can go F^&* themselves), would you still think that way?

 

 

Here's an example of "vilifying" while avoiding the policy argument.......

 

 

Zane Tankel, the CEO of Applebee’s New York Franchise, Apple-Metro, is so dedicated to not spending money on his employees that he’s refusing to hire anyone new. Why? Because he might have to provide them health care.

......so dedicated to not spending money on his employees.....might have to provide them healthcare.

 

That's the straw man here.

Under the Affordable Care Act, a business of 50 people or more must provide a health care option for its employees by 2014. The 40 Applebee’s restaurants in New York employ hundreds of people, and Tankel believes providing them with health insurance plans will be too costly. In an appearance on Fox Business News, the CEO said he won’t be able to hire new people because of the law, and even floated the idea of layoffs:

 

TANKEL:

We’ve calculated it will be some millions of dollars across our system. So what does that say — that says we won’t build more restaurants. We won’t hire more people — exactly the opposite of what the President says.

HOST:

Do you feel under pressure to move to a more part-time workforce, as other restaurants are doing because of Obamacare?

TANKEL:

The model’s been set. I’m sure all our people are watching this right now, so I don’t want to make any commitments one way or another. I just want to say we’re looking at it, we’re evaluating it, if it’s possible to do without cutting people back, I’m delighted to do it. But that also rolls back expansion, it rolls back hiring more people, and in a best-case scenario we only shrink the labor force minimally.

Is he really dedicated to keeping his employees down, or is he dedicated to maintaining a successful, competitive business?

Edited November 11, 2012 by RangerM

[Cocheese]

You're given the opportunity, not the job. The job you earn.

 

Unless there is a government forced affirmative action program in place

[Langston Hughes]

If Rush Limbaugh said it first (they can go F^&* themselves), would you still think that way?

 

Can we agree that we both knew he felt that way when I posted it here? We also both know that rush is going to attach it to liberals and it's going to be a big rant. So lets just leave it at anyone who expects a Wal Mart should F$%^ off and let the partisan stuff go.