Each of my sources are loaded with words that libertarians and small-government advocates use consistently: the article is a subtle attack on them while being an overt attack on Republicans
If I understand you correctly, you’re being openly attacked, and loaded code words are subtly being used against you. That must be terrible for you.
Seriously, not everyone would take criticism of the racist legacy of the modern Republican Party as personally as you have. It’s a shame that you can’t hold two contradictory ideas at one time; that there is a openly-embraced racist constituency in the Republican Party; and that you, personally, aren’t necessarily being attacked when that’s publically discussed.
You’ve made it clear than you can distinguish between libertarians and Republicans, so why couldn’t you make an even easier distinction? Or are we going to pretend that there are no racists in the Republican Party and that they’re for some reason only found among statists?
As for Atwater’s admission, you can batter fry that in Reagan sauce and serve it with greens if you want, the thing speaks for itself. I don’t know why anyone would need so badly to swaddle the Southern racist strategy up in surrounding context to deny it continues to this day.
If I understand you correctly, you’re being openly attacked, and loaded code words are subtly being used against you. That must be terrible for you.
Don't act as if words don't have power and that people don't form associations between ideas when they are presented together, exactly as this article does. It's terrible for everyone because it kills discussion.
Seriously, not everyone would take criticism of the racist legacy of the modern Republican Party as personally as you have. It’s a shame that you can’t hold two contradictory ideas at one time; that there is a openly-embraced racist constituency in the Republican Party; and that you, personally, aren’t necessarily being attacked when that’s publically discussed.
First of all, I never said anything about the racist legacy of the Republican Party. Secondly, I don't take it personally because I am not a Republican.
You’ve made it clear than you can distinguish between libertarians and Republicans, so why couldn’t you make an even easier distinction? Or are we going to pretend that there are no racists in the Republican Party and that they’re for some reason only found among statists?
Lots of grand assumptions and stuffing words in my mouth. I'd appreciate if you didn't do either. I'd also appreciate if you would stop attacking me, it isn't adding to the discussion.
I don’t know why anyone would need so badly to swaddle the Southern racist strategy up in surrounding context to deny it continues to this day.
Where exactly did I do or claim any of that? All I said was that Atwater's quote is being taken out of context of the entire interview. Context is important.
If I understand you correctly, you’re being openly attacked, and loaded code words are subtly being used against you. That must be terrible for you.
Seriously, not everyone would take criticism of the racist legacy of the modern Republican Party as personally as you have. It’s a shame that you can’t hold two contradictory ideas at one time; that there is a openly-embraced racist constituency in the Republican Party; and that you, personally, aren’t necessarily being attacked when that’s publically discussed.
You’ve made it clear than you can distinguish between libertarians and Republicans, so why couldn’t you make an even easier distinction? Or are we going to pretend that there are no racists in the Republican Party and that they’re for some reason only found among statists?
As for Atwater’s admission, you can batter fry that in Reagan sauce and serve it with greens if you want, the thing speaks for itself. I don’t know why anyone would need so badly to swaddle the Southern racist strategy up in surrounding context to deny it continues to this day.
Don't act as if words don't have power and that people don't form associations between ideas when they are presented together, exactly as this article does. It's terrible for everyone because it kills discussion.
First of all, I never said anything about the racist legacy of the Republican Party. Secondly, I don't take it personally because I am not a Republican.
Lots of grand assumptions and stuffing words in my mouth. I'd appreciate if you didn't do either. I'd also appreciate if you would stop attacking me, it isn't adding to the discussion.
Where exactly did I do or claim any of that? All I said was that Atwater's quote is being taken out of context of the entire interview. Context is important.
Yes, let’s think about what being attacked means. You know, in this context.