Unless you're channelling Paul Craig Roberts, he was actually shot. Obviously not lethally, though. And he didn't walk to the hospital, he walked out of the presidential limo that carried him to the hospital rather than waiting for a stretcher.
Not recommended.
Where did I say he walked to the hospital. Of course I could have misspoke. But yeah,he walked into the hospital as the story goes.What if we just agree that he probably did walk the last 40 feet?
But can you flesh out what you mean by "allegedly" shot?
Was he not shot?
Was he shot, but it was only an "alleged" bullet? Or what's that story?
From what I remember,as soon as Hinckley pulled the gun out,he was swarmed by what seemed to be a good 20 secret service officers. Reagan was forcefully pushed tnto his big black limo and James Brady laid face first on the sidewalk in a growing pool of blood. I remember that ABC News had an aerial view of Reagan's limo arriving at the hospital (sorry,I don't remember which hospital) It showed Reagan on his feet but not necesarily walking on his own. He was still being lead by secret service. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was able to walk into the hospital on his own. It makes me question the validity that he was 'seriously' injured. Hinckley used a ,22 handgun,not a .357 magnum. If so both Brady and Reagan would have been dead.
The 'alleged' part of my comment is my deep distrust of the Republican party. I don't usually fall for conspiracy theories but I always found it odd that a the AIDS epidemic and John Lennon's assassiation would happen within months to a year after a hardline moralist government was elected. Strange coincidence.
And as mentioned about Carter,Iran was ready to free the hostages and it was the Republicans who made a back room deal with Iran to delay their release until just befoore election day or just after election day.
The Iranian-Contra scandal,the loathsome things the Reagan administration was doing in Central America,How the Reagan administration took full cedit fo the fall of the Soviet Union evn though it was going to happen regardless who the American government was.
They were shady as fuck. I agree that the AIDS/John Lednnon conspiracy throry is most likely just that -- a conspiracy theory. But the dirty trick they played on Carter in the 1980 Presidential race is true. As was Iran-Contra,the mass murder they were involved with in Central America,inviting the Mujahideen to the White House,arming them and training them just to turn aroound and use these weapons and CIA training to attack the US 20 years later.
The list of the massively corrupt Reagan administration is far too long to list and I'd pobably miss a lot of things,a lot of big things.
But next to Trump. Hmmm. This massively corrupt orange menace wants his face on Mount Rushmore,I kid you not..He's the biggest buffoon to be President ever. I'd compare the Trump administration to Reagan's.The biggest difference is that Reagan granted illegal aliens amnesty. But I wouldn't trust the Republicans as far as I can spit. They become crazier with every new administration.
From voice of the damned:
That would be the opposite of a euphemism, wouldn't it? "Plantation" carries negative, slavery-related implications that "farm" doesn't.
Correct, votd. And after a short search, I find there is a word that is the opposite of 'euphemism'. That is, 'dysphemism'.
'Dysphemism' is a derogatory or offensive word substituted for one that is fairly innocuous.
Thanks Pesky. I've wondered if such a word existed. Now I know.
From voice of the damned:
Thanks Pesky. I've wondered if such a word existed. Now I know.
I have to say that I was a bit surprised there was such a word.
In any case, I blame my mother for my curiosity (some would use the dysphemism 'obsesssion') about words. When I was young, my sibling and I were herded off the the library every Saturday where my mother cautioned us to 'make sure you get enough books, because we're not coming back until next week!'
That began a lifelong habit of reading anything and everything I could get my hands on. It's a great preparation for doing cryptic crosswords later in life. The downside is you usually have a hard time talking to people.
They were just using the term plantation as a euphemism for "farm".The way we say "Plantations feed cities" and "the Wheat Board protects the interest of plantation owners"?
You don't have to agree, but I think the word plantation was chosen over the much more obvious and common "farm" for a reason.
I'm fully aware that writers make many weighted word choices, but I've never heard anyone argue that Jimmy Carter was in any way comparable to a slaveowner, and it seems bizarre to me that someone would insinuate that about the man at this late stage of his life.
It's not a word I'd have used in the context, but it's hard to credit the notion that anybody would even imply that about this man.
It's not a word I'd have used in the context, but it's hard to credit the notion that anybody would even imply that about this man.
Personally, I did not take it as an accusation that he was a literal slave-owner, just as a hyperbolically suggestive phrasing meant to call into question his employment practices. Sort of like when we call some motivational speaker a "guru", we don't mean that he is actually a Hindu religious leader, just that his followers sort of treat him like one.
Well, they have to read their own meaning into a tiny phrase or single word lifted out of context, and with their dull senses of hyperbole and irony create something to cause them offence. It is quite delightful!
Ok.It's not a word I'd have used in the context, but it's hard to credit the notion that anybody would even imply that about this man.
Personally, I did not take it as an accusation that he was a literal slave-owner, just as a hyperbolically suggestive phrasing meant to call into question his employment practices. Sort of like when we call some motivational speaker a "guru", we don't mean that he is actually a Hindu religious leader, just that his followers sort of treat him like one.
Agricultural workers in the US and Canada are some of the lowest paid workers here. They do not enjoy the same labour standards as the rest of us, and in many cases minimum wages do not apply to them. If you have nothing left over after pay-(necessary expenses), you are working for nothing like a slave. Or was Carter paying them all $1000 a week? When the African Americans were freed from slavery, they showed up the next day for $1 per hundredweight of cotton picked. And you had to carry that on your back until the day was done. Just a different kind of slavery, with dollars involved.
But who here gives a fuck about that? I guess your cotton shirt is more important than their misery and exploitation.
Or was Carter paying them all $1000 a week?
Still on Jimmy? It did kind of look like you had some weird axe to grind.
Why not just blurt it all out? Say what you have to say about Carter, instead of being all coy about it.
Just another sacred cow.
Is there any politician in the world who does not claim to represent regular people? The so-called "populist" movement refers to politicians who act like bozos, instead of the usual sleak politicians. It's a scam, nothing more. The bozo persona works well for a divisive right wing ideologue. This is nothing new at all.
The trope that Ford is getting NDP votes is laughable. Loyal NDPs are staying right where they are.
If you notice the latest polling, Ford is pulling 20% of committed NDP voters and 17% of those who identify as "left"
And in that poll, MORE OLP voters consider themselves "Ford Nation" than ONDP voters. So the myth that Ford is somehow the fault of ONDP voters is once again totslly discredited.
So...you're singling Carter out on this just because he's a popular, respected figure?Just another sacred cow.
And in that poll, MORE OLP voters consider themselves "Ford Nation" than ONDP voters. So the myth that Ford is somehow the fault of ONDP voters is once again totslly discredited.
By 1%, and with the margin of error that is considered a statistical tie.
Is there any politician in the world who does not claim to represent regular people? The so-called "populist" movement refers to politicians who act like bozos, instead of the usual sleak politicians. It's a scam, nothing more. The bozo persona works well for a divisive right wing ideologue. This is nothing new at all.
Well, they almost all claim to be acting for the common good, but some of them try to affect a familiarity with working-class or middle-class culture, while others are more nonchalant about projecting an "elite" image.
Pierre Elliot Trudeau would probably be an example of the latter, a guy who didn't really care if people saw him as a highly educated, globe-trotting intellectual of moneyed pedigree. But even he occassionally adopted a populist mantle, eg. he liked to claim that as a federalist he was striving to protect Quebeckers from that province's nationalist elites, who would sell out the common-man as soon as they got independence, special status etc.
Granted, that kind of of rhetoric probably flowed a bit more smoothly coming from Jean Chretien, and with the perceived elitist foil being someone like Parizeau, rather than Levesque.
It still proves Ford's support isn't mainly about taking ONDP voters. And it proves that it's not the ONDP's fault that FORD took any people who identify as ONDP(as you must realize, there are a LOT of people who identify as supporting the ONDP but always end up voting Liberal on "strategic" grounds, so identification with a party really doesn't mean much).
Also, there are a much larger group of people who traditionally "identify" as OLP voters than ONDP voters, so the 21% of that group who do so are a much larger group than the group of people who "identify" as ONDP voters.
My point still stands-Rob Ford is not the FAULT of the ONDP and it's absurd to insinuate, as your posts are meant to do, that the fact that some people who identify as ONDP voters but currently say they are part of Ford Nation someone implicates the ONDP in Ford Nation's rise and someone mean that the ONDP is obligated to clear the field for the OLP in the name of "stopping Ford".
It's clear that a swing of a bloc of ONDP voters to the OLP(or the withdrawal from electoral politics of all ONDP candidates in order to give Liberal candidates everywhere the progressive votes you believe they are entitled to win, which is the arrogant goal you never, ever stop pushing for) couldn't stop Ford, anyway-especially since the OLP is in third place in most polls now and has essentially no potential to make a comeback between now and the election.
It still proves Ford's support isn't mainly about taking ONDP voters. And it proves that it's not the ONDP's fault that FORD took any people who identify as ONDP(as you must realize, there are a LOT of people who identify as supporting the ONDP but always end up voting Liberal on "strategic" grounds, so identification with a party really doesn't mean much).
It is at 20% if you choose to be in denial about that fact, fine.
It still proves Ford's support isn't mainly about taking ONDP voters. And it proves that it's not the ONDP's fault that FORD took any people who identify as ONDP(as you must realize, there are a LOT of people who identify as supporting the ONDP but always end up voting Liberal on "strategic" grounds, so identification with a party really doesn't mean much).
It is at 20% if you choose to be in denial about that fact, fine.
"OLP voter" support for Ford is at 21%...yet you seem to be in denial about that.
Why does it matter to you MORE that it's 20% of ONDP-identifying voters than 20% of OLP-identifying voters claiming to be part of Ford Nation? It doesn't make Ford the fault of ONDP voters, nor does it mean the ONDP as a party should pay an electoral price for Ford being PC leader.
The ONDP is the third-largest party in Ontario politics. Ford isn't THEIR fault, and it couldn't stop FORD for the ONDP to do worse than expected at the polls.
Look, Mighty...if you AREN'T pushing for "strategic voting", what is the point of your insistence on spreading the canard that Ford, as the poll you just posted just DISproves)somehow wins disproportionate support from previous ONDP voters?
Look, Mighty...if you AREN'T pushing for "strategic voting", what is the point of your insistence on spreading the canard that Ford, as the poll you just posted just DISproves)somehow wins disproportionate support from previous ONDP voters?
He's not pushing for anything. He is just an annoying troll who likes to get people all worked up, but believes in nothing.
He's not pushing for anything. He is just an annoying troll who likes to get people all worked up, but believes in nothing.
No one can make you feel worked up without your consent.
- Eleanor Roosevelt
Ford is attracting both NDP and Liberal voters into his coalition. Despite the polling showing that, many here are in 100% denial that traditional NDP supporters are moving to Ford.
And NO I'm not a Ford backer nor a supporter of his.
traditional NDP supporters are not "moving to Ford". If they were, the NDP wouldn't be gaining ground in the polls. It doesn't matter MORE that some past NDP voters say they'd vote Ford than it does that a slightly larger group of traditional Liberal supporters.
It would only be significant if a much larger percentage of past ONDP voters(and many of these are past ONDP-OPC swing voters, in all likelihood)were saying they'd support Ford than past OLP supporters.
The past NDP voters(who may simply be people who voted ONDP in 2014 and 2014 only)are not the issue here, and the polling findings you cite are not an indictment of the ONDP.
I wasn't claiming you were a supporter of Ford, btw...just that it's been clear to the rest of us here for a long time now that you have a singular fixation with demanding that the NDP everywhere agree to defer electorally to the Liberals-or perhaps simply just disband-until such time as the PC's cease choosing monsters as leaders.
traditional NDP supporters are not "moving to Ford". If they were, the NDP wouldn't be gaining ground in the polls.
Yes but you keep forgetting that Rachel Notley won the Alberta election. How did she do it? She attracted disafected PC voters to vote NDP. Which could explain the NDP rise in the polls in Ontario. I've read several social media posts from PC supporters that are so horrified by Ford, that they have decided to vote NDP. Because they won't vote Ford and won't vote Liberal.
Which is what Andrea Horwath strategy is. To rally as many PC supporters into her camp that can't stomach Ford.
Why can't Trump have a loser brother dragging him down? "Billy Trump", Sears suit wearing Assistant-Vice Sales Representative for Amway, and entrepreneur responsible for "Mar-a-lager" craft beer?
Haha, I love black humour.
For context, Trump had a brother who died young from alcoholism.
traditional NDP supporters are not "moving to Ford". If they were, the NDP wouldn't be gaining ground in the polls.
Yes but you keep forgetting that Rachel Notley won the Alberta election. How did she do it? She attracted disafected PC voters to vote NDP. Which could explain the NDP rise in the polls in Ontario. I've read several social media posts from PC supporters that are so horrified by Ford, that they have decided to vote NDP. Because they won't vote Ford and won't vote Liberal.
Which is what Andrea Horwath strategy is. To rally as many PC supporters into her camp that can't stomach Ford.
Which means the "ONDP voters are swinging to Ford" thing is irrelevant, since MORE PC voters seem to be swinging to the ONDP, and since Horwath is swinging those voters without compromising her party's principles or pandering to demogoguery and bigotry.
It's the ONDP that is on the move....upward...with the PC's sort of treading water and the OLP collapsing.
Yes but you keep forgetting that Rachel Notley won the Alberta election. How did she do it?
..this focus on leaders and parties then concluding that they did something right leaves a lot to be desired. this focus totally ignores the current state of affairs at the time. ie: the orange wave in que under layton. which i believe was more a matter of what was going on politically in que at the time than layton as the leader.
Which means the "ONDP voters are swinging to Ford" thing is irrelevant, since MORE PC voters seem to be swinging to the ONDP, and since Horwath is swinging those voters without compromising her party's principles or pandering to demogoguery and bigotry.
It's the ONDP that is on the move....upward...with the PC's sort of treading water and the OLP collapsing.
Yet you still seem to be in denial about Ford attracting 20% of the traditional NDP vote.
It was 2014 ONDP voters, not the "traditional NDP vote". I just proved it means nothing more than the 21% of 2014 OLP voters who say they're part of Ford Nation. The ONDP is gaining ground in the polls.
There's nothing there.
There's nothing there.
Because you are in denial. Eveytime the topic comes up about NDP voters supporting Ford, you immediately deflect and change the channel and make it all about the Liberals,
But then again you seem to have something in common with Ford Nation voters, as facts don't to you as well.
It is interesting how the Liberal supporters are lashing out at anyone who does not promote their worldview. They are losing in Quebec, they are losing in Ontario, and they are now losing federally, at least according to one poll.
Attention Liberals! You are not entitled to power. Canadians have the right to vote for other parties. People are fed up with Liberal corruption and lies. If you continue to promote Liberal corruption and lies, one can only conclude that you are corrupt liars.
I acknowledge that one snapshot poll showed that 20% of people who voted ONDP-and as I've showed "2014 ONDP voters" does not equal "traditional ONDP voters"- CLAIM they are part of "Ford Nation"(which may not even equate to an intent to vote PC). I simply reject your argument that this transitory fact(if it's still real, clearly ONDP identification with "Ford Nation" must be declining if ONDP support is increasing in the polls) statistic is the indictment of the ONDP that you keep insisting that it is. If it's still even valid, it simply reflects, in all liklihood, a temporary shift among ONDP-PC swing voters.There's nothing there.
Because you are in denial. Eveytime the topic comes up about NDP voters supporting Ford, you immediately deflect and change the channel and make it all about the Liberals,
But then again you seem to have something in common with Ford Nation voters, as facts don't to you as well.
It matters no moer that a sector of voters who claim they voted ONDP in 2014 than it does that a LARGER group of voters who say they voted Liberal in 2014 say they identify as "Ford Nation".
Why does it matter MORE to you that people who claim to be 2014 ONDP supporters said what they said in that poll than it does that people who claim to be 2014 OLP voters say the same thing? What is your point in continuing to make an issue of a non-issue?
Why do you keep acting as if this has some huge meaning when the ONDP gains in the polls in the last few weeks clearly indicate that the claim that past ONDP voters voting PC
And why would you even still support the OLP if your first concern is stopping Ford? There's no reason, at this stage, to assume the OLP has a better chance of beating Ford than any other party and when there's no areas anywhere in Ontario where tactical ONDP votes for the Liberals WOULD stop Ford?
There's nothing in that poll data that is either devastating for the ONDP or an indictment in it.
Oh, and there's a difference between trying to get voters who backed a different party in a previous election and abandoning your own party's principles in the name of appeasing supporters of an entirely different ideology. ALL that the ONDP has done here is to make an increasingly effective case for a different approach...they've sold out on nothing and in fact their platform this year is to the Left of the platform they stood on in 2014. The ONDP is trying to change people's minds, trying to win the argument-why does that offend you?
If Ford is in the lead at this point, it's Wynne's fault for pissing off three-quarters of the province-NOT the ONDP's fault. The party hasn't done anything intolerably wrong here. And it has made itself the party that can stop the PC's, while the OLP no longer can.
You've simply got nothing to be lashing out at the ONDP about here. The party isn't failing, it's not to blame for Ford, it doesn't have a duty to defer to the OLP, the OLP has no better chance of stopping Ford than the ONDP does, and you've got no reason to keep assaulting this non-corporeal equine.
As Yoda would say "a rest-give it".
You're the only person bringing up "the topic", and that indicates it isn't really a topic. It's a talking point you're using to try and badger ONDP voters into, once again "voting strategically" for the OLP.
You're the only person bringing up "the topic", and that indicates it isn't really a topic. It's a talking point you're using to try and badger ONDP voters into, once again "voting strategically" for the OLP.
Another change the channel moment by Ken Burch as you cannot find one response where I advocated "strategic" voting.
There's no channel to change. What you asserted simply isn't important. The fact that the ONDP is steadily rising in the polls utterly negates it. Why is it so important to you to keep repeating something that doesn't matter?
If the share of 2014 OLP voters saying they'd vote Ford in ONE POLL, a poll now probably outdated, is higher, even nominally higher, than the share of 2014 ONDP voters saying the same thing in one poll doesn't matter, and it serves no purpose for you to keep trying to use it as a talking point. If the ONDP is higher in voter support than the OLP now(and it clearly is), we have thus established that the OLP does NOT have a better chance of stopping Ford than the ONDP does.
The polling data you cite is not an indictment of the ONDP, and it does not indicate that Ford has a SINGULAR appeal to one-time ONDP voters. He clearly cut equally deep into 2014 support for both parties(which meant a numerically larger bloc of OLP voters identified with him in that poll).
And if this isn't part of your endless, relentless push for the NDP to vanish at all levels and for all progressives to feel obligated to vote Liberal to "stop the right", what the hell is it? What is the point of your talking point?
There's no channel to change. What you asserted simply isn't important. The fact that the ONDP is steadily rising in the polls utterly negates it. Why is it so important to you to keep repeating something that doesn't matter?
Ontario is not immune to political populism
2017 national poll by EKOS found that 40 per cent of respondents believe Canada admits too many non-white immigrants – 64 per cent of whom identified as Conservative supporters, 30 per cent as NDP supporters and 15 per cent as Liberal supporters.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-ontario-is-not-immune-to...
Now try to reply to this WITHOUT mentioning the Liberals, Kathleen Wynne or Justin Trudeau.
But I doubt you will be able to.
It is ironic that "political populism" is automatically associated with racism. This means that the NDP or whoever will never be able to use populist tactics, leaving them only for the Conservatives. The answer to the question of whether we should have more non-white immigrants indicates RACISM, nothing else.
Oh, how dumb they are. Quick to make an association, and by doing so shoot themselves in the foot. Babes in the woods. Conservatives must be laughing their heads off.
Obviously Ontario is not immune to demagogy(please stop calling it "populism"-populism is about fighting for the needs to the people, not pandering to hatred).There's no channel to change. What you asserted simply isn't important. The fact that the ONDP is steadily rising in the polls utterly negates it. Why is it so important to you to keep repeating something that doesn't matter?
Ontario is not immune to political populism
2017 national poll by EKOS found that 40 per cent of respondents believe Canada admits too many non-white immigrants – 64 per cent of whom identified as Conservative supporters, 30 per cent as NDP supporters and 15 per cent as Liberal supporters.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-ontario-is-not-immune-to...
Now try to reply to this WITHOUT mentioning the Liberals, Kathleen Wynne or Justin Trudeau.
But I doubt you will be able to.
And you've found a poll on immigration, which is not an issue in the Ontario election because the provincial government has no powers to control immigration.
Are you just trying to imply that ONDP voters are a bunch of bigots? Is THAT what this is about?
I will concede that the statistics you mention exist. But I utterly reject, as does every other progressive on this board, your implication that the ONDP and ONDP supporters are implicated in the rise of Ford. They are not. All you had was a couple of polls with some numbers. They are transitory statistics, nothing more. There's simply no reason for you to keep posting the assertion you keep posting. If you've got a point to make, would you kindly get to it already?
But I utterly reject, as does every other progressive on this board, your implication that the ONDP and ONDP supporters are implicated in the rise of Ford. They are not. All you had was a couple of polls with some numbers. They are transitory statistics, nothing more. There's simply no reason for you to keep posting the assertion you keep posting. If you've got a point to make, would you kindly get to it already?
So when the polls show 20% of NDP supporters are now backing Ford, you say that is a lie?
But I utterly reject, as does every other progressive on this board, your implication that the ONDP and ONDP supporters are implicated in the rise of Ford. They are not. All you had was a couple of polls with some numbers. They are transitory statistics, nothing more. There's simply no reason for you to keep posting the assertion you keep posting. If you've got a point to make, would you kindly get to it already?
So when the polls show 20% of NDP supporters are now backing Ford, you say that is a lie?
No it is a misrepresentation:
First it is a poll -- and that in itself not a guarantee.
Secondly these are people who previously voted NDP rather than NDP supporters.
They could have voted NDP for any number of reasons including -- as swing supporters not loyal to any party of ideology or strategically.
Also people who answer polls are known to fib about previous support anyway so this is the least reliable quesiton in a poll.
So 20% of past voters is not the same as 20% of supporters. It is not even the same as 20% of previous supporters unless you use a definition of supporter devoid of understanding, loyalty,ideology, belief, or purpose.
And it clearly isn't a swing from the ONDP TO Ford, so I have no idea why he's so obsessed with that number. Why does he insist on posting that number and that assertion over and over again when neither mean anything?
clearly isn't a swing from the ONDP TO Ford
You spoke to each and every person in that 20%?
I've put your talking point to rest. There's no difference between 20% of 2014 ONDP voters saying, in ONE poll, that they identified as "Ford Nation" and 21% of 2014 OLP voters, in the SAME poll, saying the same thing.
You have no justification for singling out the stat about 2014 ONDP voters as meaning anything more than the other. And it's despicable that you're trying to imply that the ONDP is somehow a greater harbor of xenophobes than anybody else.
You have no point to belabor, and you haven't even explained what it is about this particular transitory stat that you are so obsessed with. I've now addressed everything, so give it a freaking rest.
I've put your talking point to rest. There's no difference between 20% of 2014 ONDP voters saying, in ONE poll, that they identified as "Ford Nation" and 21% of 2014 OLP voters, in the SAME poll, saying the same thing.
There have been multiple polls (more than one) showing Ford drawing support from past NDP supporters. If you still refuse to accept that, then you are still in denial.
