SkyDekker

How do you reconcile that with the almost exponential growth in millionaires and billionaires in the US since the 1960s? (up until maybe 2008, or do you think this post 60's liberalism didn't take hold until 2008?)

Does the prosecutor have to ask HowZat first? Oops, wrong game with a bat....

Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the liver and onions.

Fair enough. Would you then have any other examples of this post 60's liberalism that is against American exceptionalism?

I hope you wore ear protection.

I'm clearly not that smart.

If she was deliberately run down by a guy in a Hummer, and they were auctioning off a Hummer or even a diecast model Hummer, I am pretty sure the reaction would have been the same. Let me ask you a similar question: Would you have reacted the same way if it was a group selling (or auctioning off) diecast model boeing 767s in United livery to raise money for a mosque in New York City?

That's not quite what I wrote. I wrote that what you call attacking the author, I see as a process of critical thinking when dealing with an opinion piece. I explained what my issues are with Steele's piece. Why do you think "he nailed it"? Is there anything that gives any particular weight to his opinion, other than your agreement with it?

And what prejudices would those be?

Um, not quite. When you read an opinion piece, you have to have some understanding of the person stating the opinion to give some kind of weight to the opinion stated. On top of that, you would look at how the opinion is stated and if it is backed up by any kind of evidence, examples etc. When I read the opinion of a plumber on neurosurgical techniques, I will likely respond by saying: the guy is a plumber. That is not attacking the writer, it is a statement of fact which has direct baring on the validity of the stated opinion Hence, when I read a political opinion piece by somebody who has a tendency of writing what will get sold, I will take that into account when assessing the opinion. That is not attacking the author, it is really just critical thinking. I agree that Obama has been very ineffective as a US President. Quite frankly I think he should not seek re-election and withdraw himself. However, I disagree with "Steele's opinions". I'm also not convinced these are his actual opinions and have a suspicion that the writing is based more on what would sell. Hence, I feel there is no real merit to the article itself.

I can understand labelling people who disagree with facts. But, have a harder time understanding the labelling of everybody who disagrees with an opinion.

But his opinion is not backed up by any examples, just vague generalizations which certain groups will swallow as gospel. On top of that, and I didn't put this in my first post since I didn';t instantly want to get accused of attacking the author, but Steele is somewhat known to let his (written) opinion be guided more by what sells than thought.

That quote said money, not stuff. Since you can't quote it, I guess you will now have to admit you were wrong and made it up. Why are you always putting words in other people's mouths? Provide a quote where somebody said they voted for Obama cause "he would give them stuff" or admit you made it up.

No basis in fact, not provable and pure opinion. No basis in fact, not provable and more akin to "party speech" No examples to back up his claims More claims without evidence. Starting to become clear he is pandering to a defined audience. It is an opinion piece, which people are entitles to write. Unfortunately he is not backing up his opinions with examples and as such, this would be teh time I would stop reading the article.

Three of my recent (recently read not necessarily recently written) favourites: Book of Negroes by Lawrence Hill (Titled: "Someone Knows My Name" in the US) The Bishop's Man by Linden MacIntyre A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius by Dave Eggers

So, who voted for Obama cause "he would give them stuff"? Can you quote somebody or did you just make it up?

I believe his argument on this point to boil down to: The DMV did it first.

That car is available in a man's version as well.

That's not a car, its a pride week advertising sign.

A guy in a convertible is gayer than a rainbow flag. There simply isnt a manly convertible.

nah, I have always been pretty shallow.

loverboy

It is incredible that she has won a couple of elections to date. It also amazes me that the Republican Party allows idiots like her and Palin to represent the party.

I am sure the downgrade moved the file to the top of the pile on somebody's desk though...

Thanks for clarifying Southern