Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: University of Rochester Students Silently Protest Professor Who Defended Limbaugh, Ridiculed Fluke [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)1. Voted for Bush
Steven Landsburg, EconomicWriter:Bush
If George Bush had chosen the racist David Duke as a running mate, I'd have voted against him, almost without regard to any other issue. Instead, John Kerry chose the xenophobe John Edwards as a running mate. I will therefore vote against John Kerry.
Duke thinks it's imperative to protect white jobs from black competition. Edwards thinks it's imperative to protect American jobs from foreign competition. There's not a dime's worth of moral difference there. While Duke would discriminate on the arbitrary basis of skin color, Edwards would discriminate on the arbitrary basis of birthplace. Either way, bigotry is bigotry, and appeals to base instincts should always be repudiated.
Bush's reckless spending and disregard for the truth had me almost ready to vote for Kerryuntil Kerry picked his running mate. When the real David Duke ran against a corrupt felon for governor of Lousiana, the bumper stickers read, "Vote for the crook. It's important." Well, I'm voting for the reckless spendthrift. It's important again.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2004/10/slate_votes.single.html
If George Bush had chosen the racist David Duke as a running mate, I'd have voted against him, almost without regard to any other issue. Instead, John Kerry chose the xenophobe John Edwards as a running mate. I will therefore vote against John Kerry.
Duke thinks it's imperative to protect white jobs from black competition. Edwards thinks it's imperative to protect American jobs from foreign competition. There's not a dime's worth of moral difference there. While Duke would discriminate on the arbitrary basis of skin color, Edwards would discriminate on the arbitrary basis of birthplace. Either way, bigotry is bigotry, and appeals to base instincts should always be repudiated.
Bush's reckless spending and disregard for the truth had me almost ready to vote for Kerryuntil Kerry picked his running mate. When the real David Duke ran against a corrupt felon for governor of Lousiana, the bumper stickers read, "Vote for the crook. It's important." Well, I'm voting for the reckless spendthrift. It's important again.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2004/10/slate_votes.single.html
Nut!
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
43 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
University of Rochester Students Silently Protest Professor Who Defended Limbaugh, Ridiculed Fluke [View all]
SunsetDreams
Mar 2012
OP
The people in Freeper land are calling those students Obama-Hitlers. They hold a dignified protest
appleannie1
Mar 2012
#4
silent protests are super creepy. I recall the silent protest of the UC davis chancellor
Liberal_in_LA
Mar 2012
#15
“I am outraged that any professor would demean a student in this fashion"
GopperStopper2680
Mar 2012
#21
Silly students don't understand university administration - there are MUCH more effective protests
saras
Mar 2012
#31
I noticed all the GOP ignore the ovarian cyst that was another woman's problem &
StarsInHerHair
Mar 2012
#39