Fish Dynasty

How is the yearbook not a school-sponsored activity? They offer a yearbook class, which is taught by a school-employed teacher, and the students in that class create the yearbook. It is explicitly sponsored by the school. Yearbook sales in high school are basically a business. Schools pay a company in order to manufacture them, and then the school sells it for high prices (since everyone wants one) in order to increase their revenue. As far as I know, yearbook prices determined by the school's leadership itself. That isn't something people would refer to as "public." Just about all the same things can be said about school lunch, and any differences are immaterial. School lunches are school-sponsored, and so is the yearbook, and they are both still governed by the rules which govern public institutions. The same could be said of any school fundraising activity, also, and I think it's clear that those are governed by public rules, too. For the record, I, too, forgot for several posts that this was about the yearbook and not prom. I still stand by all my points, but if they seem off-topic, this may be the reason. By the way, they not only kept her photo out of the yearbook, but they also kept her name out. Food is not a luxury when a typical public school operates between the hours that it does. Food is a necessity, while yearbooks are not. Whatever is not a necessity is, in almost all cases, considered a private organization in which students could choose to either participate in or not. Also, if she refused to take a picture while wearing the proper attire, she doesn't have to be mentioned in the yearbook. I need to go to bed, so this will be the last thing I post tonight (if anyone cares :whistle). Food is not always a necessity.You're allowed to bring food from home. I don't see any basis for the bolded. Feel free to offer examples/proof, but I don't see any at this point. When kids go to school for something like seven hours a day, food must be provided so long as students are not allowed to leave campus, which is the case at most public schools. To explain the bolded part, for example, take high school football. It is not necessary for a student to play on such a team, therefore the team directors are allowed to set the rules. So, for example, if one player decides he wants to wear the team's black uniform while all of the other players are wearing the white uniforms for the game, that person would not be allowed to play due to the rules of the the team's coordinators. The player would not be able to sue the team for violating his first amendment right of freedom of expression.

How is the yearbook not a school-sponsored activity? They offer a yearbook class, which is taught by a school-employed teacher, and the students in that class create the yearbook. It is explicitly sponsored by the school. Yearbook sales in high school are basically a business. Schools pay a company in order to manufacture them, and then the school sells it for high prices (since everyone wants one) in order to increase their revenue. As far as I know, yearbook prices determined by the school's leadership itself. That isn't something people would refer to as "public." Just about all the same things can be said about school lunch, and any differences are immaterial. School lunches are school-sponsored, and so is the yearbook, and they are both still governed by the rules which govern public institutions. The same could be said of any school fundraising activity, also, and I think it's clear that those are governed by public rules, too. For the record, I, too, forgot for several posts that this was about the yearbook and not prom. I still stand by all my points, but if they seem off-topic, this may be the reason. By the way, they not only kept her photo out of the yearbook, but they also kept her name out. Food is not a luxury when a typical public school operates between the hours that it does. Food is a necessity, while yearbooks are not. Whatever is not a necessity is, in almost all cases, considered a private organization in which students could choose to either participate in or not. Also, if she refused to take a picture while wearing the proper attire, she doesn't have to be mentioned in the yearbook.

This is turning into a mess. The freedom of speech clause contained in the 1st amendment only goes so far. Just as you can't scream out "fire" and attempt to be protected by the 1st amendment, the rights of clothing are also restricted in certain situations. In this case, the rules of the school board trump this person's desire to get media attention (and not to actually prove a point, just as Dr. Beinfest said earlier.) Also, you have to consider the other possible consequences it would have if she were to be allowed to do this. Next thing you know you would have random heterosexual guys saying they want to be in a dress just for fun, and vice versa with the girls. What would the argument be then? That only homosexuals are allowed to wear "opposite" clothing? I also hate to bring this up, but if these instances keep on popping up, nothing is going to change in this country. Minorities (whether it be a minority race/religion/etc.) will never prevent discrimination (at least not in the near future) if they do not assimilate to American societal standards. In which situation are the rights of clothing restricted? I doubt think there's been anything like this where they have restricted clothing rights. That's a red herring. No one's disagreeing about the schoolboard's rules were; instead, there is disagreement about they ought to be. Another red herring. I personally don't see the big deal, and I think most men would still wear tuxedos and most women would still wear dresses. My initial feeling is that requests to wear anything outside of the "typical" formal attire should be considered on a case-by-case basis by the school. It's not wrong of blacks to dress or speak differently than "the norm"; of certain religious groups to conduct themselves differently than "the norm", etc. It's wrong of others to mistreat/look down up/belittle, etc. people on the basis of such things. Don't shift the blame. And to touch on an issue in multiple posts: what if she had not declared herself a lesbian and had simply made this request? The issue would be precisely the same, we would probably just understand less about her motivations. The important issue remains that she is a female attempting to wear traditionally male clothing to the prom. As an aside, how "formal" and "proper" is the kind of dancing that goes on at proms, the underage drinking which inevitably occurs afterward, and the inevitable promiscuity which typically follows? It's interesting where lines get drawn. In public, rights are not restricted. Not only could a public school in general still be considered provate property (as there are still rules and regulations as to when people can access the grounds, etc.), but high school yearbooks are not operated publicly. Therefore, the hierarchy (in this case being the school board) regulates institutions such as the standard dress code. As for your case about some blacks dressing/speaking differently and religious groups conducting themselves differently, the rights of such groups could be (or at least should be in certain cases) infringed upon on private property if the ones who rule the property have a problem with it, even if it might be unfair and biased. No one is telling this girl that she can't wear "typical" men's clothing on the sidewalk on public streets or on her own provate property, but when she is not the authority, she can't set their own rules. If she hadn't declared herself a lesbian, that would have given her even less of a chance at her winning the battle. The only reason why she would have a chance at winning this is because some judge may have sympathy for her and feel like her rights are being violated. A public school is not a private enterprise with regards to how it can treat admitted students. And high school yearsbooks are generally organized, run, and sponsored by the school. I agree that the standard dress code from the schoolboard regulates these institutions. I also agree that she can't set her own rules. But she absolutely, positively has a right to a appeal the fairness of the current construction of the rules. This isn't debatable; citizens of this country have a right to challenge established rules and considerations via the courts. To your last paragraph: I'm not sure whether you are right or wrong; however, it's still not the crux of the issue. I don't think she should win the case out of any "sympathy". She should either win it or lose it based on reason, but not emotion (just to clarify my classifications: fairness and justice are reasonable elements by the way; feeling bad for someone is merely emotional). A public school only gives students a right to education, nothing else. Some public schools have school uniforms, which they are perfectly allowed to have. If one wants to be able to receive a free education at the government's expense, they have to do so under the government's rules and regulations. Yearbooks are generally organized mainly by the school, but that doesn't make them public. I do not disagree nor was I debating anything you said in your second paragraph. She has the full right, as a citizen, to challenge the legality of the law. However, what I did say is that the only reason why people like her win cases like this is because of biased sympathy. Note: this case is nothing like Prop 8 being overturned in California. In that case, LGBT people had the right to do what they wanted in private and were not allowed to be directed by the moral police. This case is completely different.

How is the yearbook not a school-sponsored activity? They offer a yearbook class, which is taught by a school-employed teacher, and the students in that class create the yearbook. It is explicitly sponsored by the school. Yearbook sales in high school are basically a business. Schools pay a company in order to manufacture them, and then the school sells it for high prices (since everyone wants one) in order to increase their revenue. As far as I know, yearbook prices determined by the school's leadership itself. That isn't something people would refer to as "public."

This is turning into a mess. The freedom of speech clause contained in the 1st amendment only goes so far. Just as you can't scream out "fire" and attempt to be protected by the 1st amendment, the rights of clothing are also restricted in certain situations. In this case, the rules of the school board trump this person's desire to get media attention (and not to actually prove a point, just as Dr. Beinfest said earlier.) Also, you have to consider the other possible consequences it would have if she were to be allowed to do this. Next thing you know you would have random heterosexual guys saying they want to be in a dress just for fun, and vice versa with the girls. What would the argument be then? That only homosexuals are allowed to wear "opposite" clothing? I also hate to bring this up, but if these instances keep on popping up, nothing is going to change in this country. Minorities (whether it be a minority race/religion/etc.) will never prevent discrimination (at least not in the near future) if they do not assimilate to American societal standards. In which situation are the rights of clothing restricted? I doubt think there's been anything like this where they have restricted clothing rights. That's a red herring. No one's disagreeing about the schoolboard's rules were; instead, there is disagreement about they ought to be. Another red herring. I personally don't see the big deal, and I think most men would still wear tuxedos and most women would still wear dresses. My initial feeling is that requests to wear anything outside of the "typical" formal attire should be considered on a case-by-case basis by the school. It's not wrong of blacks to dress or speak differently than "the norm"; of certain religious groups to conduct themselves differently than "the norm", etc. It's wrong of others to mistreat/look down up/belittle, etc. people on the basis of such things. Don't shift the blame. And to touch on an issue in multiple posts: what if she had not declared herself a lesbian and had simply made this request? The issue would be precisely the same, we would probably just understand less about her motivations. The important issue remains that she is a female attempting to wear traditionally male clothing to the prom. As an aside, how "formal" and "proper" is the kind of dancing that goes on at proms, the underage drinking which inevitably occurs afterward, and the inevitable promiscuity which typically follows? It's interesting where lines get drawn. In public, rights are not restricted. Not only could a public school in general still be considered provate property (as there are still rules and regulations as to when people can access the grounds, etc.), but high school yearbooks are not operated publicly. Therefore, the hierarchy (in this case being the school board) regulates institutions such as the standard dress code. As for your case about some blacks dressing/speaking differently and religious groups conducting themselves differently, the rights of such groups could be (or at least should be in certain cases) infringed upon on private property if the ones who rule the property have a problem with it, even if it might be unfair and biased. No one is telling this girl that she can't wear "typical" men's clothing on the sidewalk on public streets or on her own provate property, but when she is not the authority, she can't set their own rules. If she hadn't declared herself a lesbian, that would have given her even less of a chance at her winning the battle. The only reason why she would have a chance at winning this is because some judge may have sympathy for her and feel like her rights are being violated.

I could just as easily say the same about your claims. At least my opinions on this seem to be prevalent among the political community. Your bogus assertions are rather unique, or as you say, not spoken about because people would be deemed racists. How convenient for you. The logistics don’t add up, either, which is the main reservation I have with you are saying. If there were some unwritten agenda emphasizing whites, they wouldn’t have opposed the bill in the beginning. It’s becoming increasingly apparent to me that you haven’t really thought out what you are saying and are now becoming desperately defensive. And it’s becoming more ridiculous each time you post a response here. What each party is targeting or not targeting is not the major concern here. The concern is that the policy enacted by Arizona and now receiving the support of most of the national GOP, will encourage Hispanics to become the new blacks. When legislation appears to be threatening a group’s very identity (which many Hispanics seem to accuse this law of doing), it transcends the petty pandering of any given election cycle. I’m pretty sure Cameron Lynch isn’t a liberal (the second link I posted), based upon his background. Or are you pretending I didn’t post that? It’s not just White House strategists expecting this to hurt the GOP down the road. You are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. In addition to the Lynch piece, here’s an op-ed from Michael Gerson (a Bush guy): http://www.washingto...0051303542.html But no, go ahead and keep pretending it’s hard to find a credible journalist who agrees with me. FYI, most of the Republicans who opposed the Arizona law to begin with only did so because they thought it was a radical bill that would be unpopular among Americans. No polling was conducted before guys like Rubio and McCollum denounced it. Other than that, you didn't exactly refute anything I said, but simply repeated what was in your last post and then made a personal attack and supposedly expected to be able to crown yourself. I applaud you for the Gerson article though, even if it only took you three attempts.

This is turning into a mess. The freedom of speech clause contained in the 1st amendment only goes so far. Just as you can't scream out "fire" and attempt to be protected by the 1st amendment, the rights of clothing are also restricted in certain situations. In this case, the rules of the school board trump this person's desire to get media attention (and not to actually prove a point, just as Dr. Beinfest said earlier.) Also, you have to consider the other possible consequences it would have if she were to be allowed to do this. Next thing you know you would have random heterosexual guys saying they want to be in a dress just for fun, and vice versa with the girls. What would the argument be then? That only homosexuals are allowed to wear "opposite" clothing? I also hate to bring this up, but if these instances keep on popping up, nothing is going to change in this country. Minorities (whether it be a minority race/religion/etc.) will never prevent discrimination (at least not in the near future) if they do not assimilate to American societal standards.

I know enough about the situation to confidently feel that what you are saying makes little sense. Your explanations regarding the specifics of the race have only reinforced my sentiments on this. It’s more than plausible to assume that initial opposition to the law was the result of a concern that the majority in Florida would oppose it due to the large Hispanic population (before credible polling numbers came out to clearly indicate otherwise). As soon as those numbers came out and indicated that despite the large Hispanic base in Florida that it was the better political move to support the law, some politicians reversed positions. This is the simple answer and all of this stuff you have been saying about some unwritten agenda of emphasizing white voters sounds like pure nonsense. If they were so focused on the white vote as some sort of unspoken agenda they probably would have supported the law from the very beginning unless they had real reason to believe that the majority of whites in Florida (which tend to be conservative) would oppose the law. The purpose of providing op-eds has nothing to do with providing “proof� of my position. You challenged my statement where I said that there are plenty of political analysts and commentators who agree with me that the GOP is following down a dangerous path. I’m not citing this as evidence of my position being accurate, but evidence that this is an opinion shared by many. It was an “opinionated blog� because that’s what you were requesting earlier in some indication that this was a popular sentiment held in the political community. The “evidence� I have has already been addressed through the numbers. As I said in my previous post, I can accept your previous numbers outside of the 65% white vote figure. If you adjust that number to something more realistic (55%), the GOP is in trouble. That’s the crux of my statistical argument. If you extrapolate the population changes of all races to 2050 and apply the current voting trends, the GOP is in trouble. That’s all the statistical proof I need to support what I’m saying. And I’m glad that you now finally admit that if the GOP doesn’t replicate the success of Regan/Mondale with regard to the white vote (and Reagan took 49 of 50 states), they could be in trouble in the future. I feel that you are only believing what you are typing because that is what you want to believe. In this country's political arena, it is impossible to be outspoken about the political tools white voters can play. Notice, though, that the reason why I am stating that the GOP is going after the white vote to begin with is the fact that it is as a result of their opposition goign after all other demographics. The situation can go one of two ways. Either the political parties split voters into certain demographical regions and tackle each one individually at the correct time, or race/ethnicity/religion/age/etc. have nothing to do with politics, and the parties are simply going after American voters, period. You can't say that the Democrats are going after the black/hispanic vote but then say that the GOP isn't going after the white vote, and I find my second scenario highly unlikely. Well of course people who have a bias against a certain political party will do anything to make them look bad, but does that mean I have to trust them? I've heard many liberal journalists say that the Republicans will barely gain any seats in the senate or the house, and I have seen many conservative journalists say that Obama is going to take a major hit in the polls because of his stance on the Ground Zero Mosque, but does that mean we should all believe those unlikely scenarios? I wouldn't think that finding a piece from a credible journalist who uses facts to support their position on a very popular subject would be so difficult. By the way, your last sentence is an arrogant load of crap. Since Reagan won 65% of the white vote, and I explicitly stated that the GOP needs to have the support of 65% of whites in 2050 (pending they don't gain anywhere else), don't you think it was already a given that I knew they needed to repeat their success in 1984?

I don’t need to know the specific details of the race to know that your premise is questionable. It takes a bit of common sense and observation of any generic race to take issue with your claim. Why does it specifically have to be about the white vote and not simply the majority voice, which indicates that it’s better politically to support the law? Your premise might make an ounce of sense if there were not an overall majority in Florida supporting the law. If it’s about getting the most votes (which it is), saying that there was a narrow focus on whites is loony. It’s about getting the most votes period. And who’s a credible analyst in your view? Only Republicans? And why does it need to be a statistical analysis now (which you did not specify earlier)? This is becoming a joke. Here’s a Cameron Lynch piece: http://politics.usne...ble-for-the-gop Note that Lynch addresses Rove and Bush feeling the importance of attracting Latino voters. That’s not exactly the same strategy of emphasizing white voters that you seem to be suggesting. I was right there with you on your numbers until you claimed that Republicans would be getting 65% of the white vote in 2050. I don’t see what other numbers you need to see. I’m suggesting to extrapolate based upon the current white voting trends, which is a pretty responsible way to be making a projection. I’m not asking you if your numbers are correct; I’m asking the legitimacy of you choosing an outlier (65% white vote in 1984) as a statistical basis for the future. That number is pie in the sky and if you extrapolate based upon current white voting trends GOP votes would be in the 44% range by then, meaning they are in trouble. I’m waiting for you to concede that the GOP will be in trouble (due to the Hispanic trend) unless they can somehow manage to replicate a complete landslide occurrence (Reagan/Mondale) consistently as the years approach 2050. If you are going to project that the Republicans will get increased white support (65%), you could also hypothetically consider the possibility that the Republicans could lose more of the Hispanics and get less than one third of them, if they continue to pursue policies that are perceived to violate their civil rights or ethnic identity. This hasn’t happened yet and will not say it will absolutely happen since we haven’t seen the share of Hispanic GOP votes fall off of a cliff yet. However, it’s just as plausible as the Republicans getting 65% of the whites. If the Hispanics become like the blacks and start voting 85-95 percent Democratic, then the GOP is really in trouble. In this thread I am not going to discuss the intent of the 2nd amendment. However, it has been argued by many that the intent was to permit citizens to not simply arm themselves against foreign invaders, but not protect individual liberty, particularly against the possibility of a tyrannical standing army. You shouldn't speak about something you have no idea about. If you lived in Florida and understood the demographics of the state, you would probably agree with me. You are correct in saying that it is mainly about getting the majority of voters as a whole, but inside that group you have to know where to plant your targets. White, conservative, older voters (and there are plenty of them down here) are a routine target for the GOP here. In this race though, demographics are stressed even more. You provided me with an article which contained the opinions of only liberals who didn't have an ounce of statistical evidence, and you just expect me to accept it as proof that the GOP will be hurt in the future? Now, you're giving me an opinionated blog post from someone who, yet again, doesn't use any evidence to back up his argument. C'mon, you're better than that. My previous posts were at least a 50/50 split between statistics and opinionated projections. The one thing I will concede is the fact that if the GOP doesn't manage to increase their popularity among white voters while still taking the same stance on issues such as immigration in a few decades, they could be in trouble. However, I do predict that white voters will turn to the GOP at a higher rate, and I also believe that the GOP will become more moderate on social issues. It isn't fair though to automatically assume something like the Arizona law is going to doom the GOP in the long-term simply because it won't attract hispanics now. Another thing to consider is that in the year 2050, a much larger portion of hispanics will have been born in the U.S., meaning that as a group, they could have a much different view of immigration.

I know very little about the Florida race so I can’t speak toward specifics. A scenario under which a position could be changed to be in accordance with poll numbers is certainly plausible, but does not mean this was some plot to specifically appease white voters. It simply represents the majority. Just because white voters happen to make up the majority, this does not mean that there is a GOP agenda with an emphasis on the white vote. You don’t even need to give the racial polling much attention when you look at the overall picture that shows support for the law to be in the 60% range. The GOP, like the Democrats try to appease all demographics (that’s why Bush was pandering to Hispanics with guest worker programs) when it doesn’t blatantly conflict with their ideology. The Democrats just made the wise move of not supporting a law that challenges the very identity of the fastest growing race of people in the US. It isn’t a strategy to attract white voters over the long haul, but is simply playing the overall polling numbers at the time. You are making it sound like this is a pre-meditated strategy to appease whites. It’s more of a case of them trying to appease a majority, and the white vote is integral to that, at least in the short term. This is an opinion not only held by myself. My concerns are absolutely shared within several strategists in the political community. Here is a recent article that quotes White House strategists (among others) and basically acknowledges that this AZ law could benefit the Republicans in the short term but hurt them over the long haul. http://www.cbsnews.c...e=related_story It doesn’t matter what the Rasmussen numbers say in 2010. It matters how the Hispanic community will respond over the following years to policies from one party that offend them. How is it realistic that the GOP will get 50% of the vote in 2050 if they haven’t gotten anything close to 65% of the white vote since the end of the Reagan era and hard party ID has dwindled in the last eight years? It’s not mathematically possible unless your numbers are realistic, and they’re not. Saying they “aren’t impossible� is not being realistic when making a projection. And I have already said repeatedly that there is a likely possibility that both parties will undergo major shake-ups in the coming decades. That’s why I have framed these projections under current circumstances. As long as I’ve made this clear (and I have several times), there is no logical dilemma here. I fail to see what the second amendment has to do with citizenship, so you’ll have to be more specific as to what you are asking. Asking what my “stance is� is as vague as you can be. So, you open your statement with the notion that you don't know much about the elections in Florida, but then you start describing to me why my argument was wrong? In my state, we have four people contending for the senate seat: Democrats Kendrick Meek and Jeff Greene, Republican Marco Rubio, and Republican-turned-Independent Charlie Crist (who is acting more like a Democrat these days.) At first (before the polls came out), all four of them came out against the Arizona law. When Crist decided to run as an independent, he attracted many of the moderate Republicans (down here, a good amount of them are Cubans) to his campaign. Usually, in order for a Republican to win here they need to have the support of the Cuban community, one of the only hispanic groups that consistently votes Republican by a good amount. However, most of the people who stuck with Rubio after Crist left the party were the white, conservative North Floridians. There were several articles in the paper about how Rubio was losing hispanic Republican support. As you can see, this is one situation where there is a good chance racial demographics came into play when Rubio announced he supported the amended law. There's no doubt the law conflicted with Rubio's ideology. The article you linked to contained a story about how liberal White House strategists and liberal media members think support for the law will hurt the GOP. It didn't even provide one statistic, only a bunch of liberals saying "this will hurt them." If you can find an unbiased report on how credible political analysts think the GOP will suffer, that would be much better. You have not backed up any of your claims with any evidence. I gave you future demographic equations and numerous examples of how polls show support for measures that the hispanic community might not like is still widespread (and yes, even some hispanics support it.) The only thing you have done is asked me the same damn question about how it is possible that my numbers are correct, which makes you seem to lazy to figure anything out yourself. I gave you proof of how it is possible, numerical logic to back my claims up, and I even gave you similar historic examples, yet all you do is tell me that "far from impossible" is different than "likely", as if I didn't know that already. Not to mention that I actually have been saying that I think there is better than a 50% chance that the GOP will be able to capture around 65% of the white vote by 2050. As for the second amendment question, I assume you know the history of it, and how it was originally created so the citizens can form a militia against a foreign power. Well, the 14th amendment also was created for an entirely different purpose (freed slaves) than how it is being used today. So, I am curious to see that since you would like to change the 14th amendment because the way it is being used today isn't how it was originally intended to be used, would you also be in favor of doing the same with the second amendment (and knowing you are a Ron Paul guy, I would assume you are a strong second amendment supporter?)

I don’t think that the Democrats are opposing this policy just to attract minority voters. In fact, I doubt that has much of an effect at all on their decision, since their opposition is fairly consistent with their platform. Some policies are proposed and opposed simply on an ideological basis. This is one such policy. Obamacare was as well. The fact that much of the political community and GOP members seem to acknowledge (as I am) that the GOP will face political blowback down the road in response to support this law, is some affirmation of this. Again, you are trying to pin this whole thing on racial politics being a major motivating force behind this and I see nothing to support that. And I could easily equate this misinterpretation to your misinterpretation of European history. You are essentially saying that attracting more white voters at the expense of the growing demographic of Hispanic voters was a key motivating force behind this initiative. That’s pretty absurd. And saying that people like Rubio switched their positions on the law to appease whites is a colossal stretch. There could be a multitude of other political (even practical or ideological) reasons to reverse on this position, especially those affecting his electability in his race. I still don’t understand your position on 2050. FutureGm and I said that the GOP will run into trouble by then do to the growing Hispanic electorate. You dismissed this and said that they will be thriving by 2050 (at 50% of the vote) by taking 65% of the white vote. What evidence do you have that the GOP can replicate the results of 1984 where Reagan took 49 states? You have to admit how silly this sounds. You are saying that the GOP will be thriving in 40 years by way of a substantial increase in the white demographic and have virtually no real rationale for it. Any responsible statistician who wants to be intellectually honest would simply extrapolate from the mean of the last couple elections will observing the considerable drop in GOP hard ID over the last eight years (I linked to this in a previous post). Obviously the GOP is primarily looking toward 2010/2012. That’s precisely what my point is. There will be huge shifts on all fronts; the Republican party of 2010 is different from the party of 1982, which is different from the party of 1964, which is different from the party of 1940, and so on. Having no ability to forecast these future changes, I can only speak toward the political liability that outcasting the Hispanic demographic appears to represent. Why do you think guys like McCollum and Rubio originally opposed the law? They thought that with the large hispanic population in Florida, it would have killed their chances with the election coming up in a few months. When they saw that over 60% of Floridians supported the measure though, they suddenly liked it and tried to come up with the excuse that the only reason why they originally didn't like the law at first was because it "wasn't amended yet to eliminate racial profiling." Rubio would have lost a good amount of his white supporters if he didn't change his position. I would bet you anything that Rick Perry would have supported the law if hispanics didn't make up nearly 40% of the state. Nearly every policy is the modern era is racialized to a point where each politician has to play a puzzle game with demographics. You're very misguided if you think demographic shifts weren't a factor in Obamacare, even if people might not have supported such a policy purely on minority attraction. Also, I'd like to see an intelligent/informed political analyst who thinks that it is a bad idea for GOP members to come out in support of the Arizona law. The latest poll from Rasmussen shows that 59% of Americans support the law, while only 32% oppose it . It would probably take more than just a couple decades of demographic changes until more people oppose the law than support it. As for 2050, I listed the mathematics supporting a very realistic possibility in which demographics would prove that the GOP could still have the support of 50% of Americans with the same stances as they do today. You haven't even considered the fact that a majority of Republicans could change their positions as we will have a whole new bunch of politicians in Washington fourty years from now. Using your logic, I guess you would have taken the mean of the election demographics of the 1960's and used that to support your claim as to what the elections would look like in the early 21st century. That would have turned out well. Out of curiosity, I'd also like to hear your response on my question about your thoughts on the second amendment.

First of all, there is no real indication that this was a stunt motivated by attracting white voters. Could the law have the consequence of motivating new white voters (probably independent) in the fall? Perhaps, but this is not appear to be a dealbreaker issue for whites as it is for Hispanics. As I said earlier, for whites it’s like most every issue that one can hold an opinion on. A bill that has the potential to racially profile a group of people has more political impact on the directly affected group (Hispanics) than on the group than on the indirectly affected group (whites). The problem with your logic is that you are insinuating that the opposition to things like affirmative action are mainly political (getting the white vote) and not ideological. You are overemphasizing the role that racial politics played in motivating these policies (including Obamacare). By your logic, a virtue of the AZ law was that the GOP could gain more support of white voters at the expense of the booming demographic of Hispanics. The absurdity of such a strategy makes it unlikely that the benefit of getting a healthy majority of the white vote was a major factor behind this. The same goes for Obamacare. “Boost in support from the black community� (a demographic they have firmly locked in already) is not wise political strategy when more than off of the whites oppose the bill. You are simply misplacing the intent here. And again, on what planet do you figure that the GOP will be getting 65% of the white vote by 2050? They essentially need a repeat of Reagan in 1984 in order to be evenly matched in 2050. That is incredibly optimistic. So the GOP will be a “thriving party� but as long as they can replicate that white vote landslide (all time high) of Regan/Mondale? If that is the white vote turnout they need to be at 50%, I would say they are in big trouble. Obviously a bunch of things can change until then, but on this current course, they are in trouble. And that’s merely what I’ve been suggesting. You don’t have to take my word on the revised projections of the Census Bureau: “ White people will no longer make up a majority of Americans by 2042 - eight years sooner than government estimates made in 2004.� http://www.dailymail...ority-2042.html It’s not that I thought of something that they didn’t. They were making a scientific projection but had no real solid indication of the number of illegal immigrants in this country, so they have to project based on what they know. I expect that the 2042 figure will also be moved up too and could possibly come much sooner unless the US ends birthright citizenship for children of illegals (something I support), starts deporting people in droves, or heightens border security to an unprecedented level. You do the same exact thing in every single argument. This is just like the time where you couldn't use common sense to see that the British-French rivalry was even more intense because one side was Protestant while the other side was Catholic. If a member of the Democratic Party came out and said that the Democrats were opposing the Arizona law in order to attract more hispanics to the party, most would write it off as a statement that was already a given. However, if a member of the Republican Party stated that the reason why his party was so strongly defending the law was in order to attract more white voters to the party, the media would go nuts. If political correctness didn't stop people from stating blatant facts these days, this would be obvious to all. Why do you think so many politicians (for example, Florida's very own leading governor and senate candidates Bill McCollum and Marco Rubio) switched their positions on the issue? Whites dominate the Republican Party, so if they opposed something that the overwhelming majority of whites supported, they would be in big trouble. Just about the same amount of opposition to institutions such as affirmative action as support for it is political. Nearly EVERY issue is in some way politicized. If most Republicans opposed the AZ law, they would have taken a big drop in the polls. While it may be true that they were taking a big risk with the growing hispanic demographic, siding with the hispanics on this issue would have hurt them much more. For the GOP to steadily increase their support among whites to 65% by 2050, they will need to approximately gain (assuming they have around 55-60% support now) a little less than 1% more whites each election. Again, that is very possible, and might even be likely. Whether the year is 2050 or 2042 (or even earlier), the mainstream GOP is still focused on 2012 and the short-term future. Even in 2080, we will still most likely have the same two-party system, but the GOP would have to shift over to the center more. I have a feeling that once we start to look like Europe by losing our religion, etc., we will see something along the lines of the current GOP acting more like the Conservative Party of the UK, and the Democratic Party being more like the Labor Party. By the way, since you say that you support taking away birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, I'm curious about your stance on the second ammendment.

How are the Republicans specifically targeting white voters? What policies are they implementing or proposing that explicitly address the needs of whites? There really isn’t a common ground between the two scenarios whatsoever. Isolated cases of Republican candidates in the past (Regan in 1984) does not substantiate whatsoever that the GOP will take 65% of the white vote for most of the years between 2012 and 2050. Reagan faced a weak candidate and faced an unprecedented political climate where conservative ideology increased in popularity and liberalism declined. You are making the same logical mistake you made earlier in claiming that radically different events will set precedents for the future will ignoring the present and forthcoming circumstances. What is your rationale for the GOP taking 65% of the white vote consistently for 40 years other than simply saying “well, Reagan did it in 1984…?� You yourself say it’s “not out of the question� to get 65% of the white vote. Well, that could simply be blind optimism. Nothing is out of the question, so we must consider what is realistic. In reality, based on recent white voting trends, a number closer to 55% is much more realistic. What is the expected GOP vote total under that scenario? The Census Bureau does at least attempt to record the illegal population, while this does in fact prove to be difficult. The point I was making earlier is that while there might be a lot of non-citizens off of the books, their citizen children will be on them. This is probably why the Census Bureau retracted 2050 as the year that minorities overtake whites and replaced it with 2042; their projections are far more likely to underestimate the Hispanic population than overestimate it. Obviously any changes in policy in the future could drastically alter the Hispanic population in either direction. That isn’t important when we are discussing how the current policy decisions could unfold in the future under the current circumstances. You and I both know that it's not politically correct in the modern era to say that the GOP is going after the "white vote." For example though, just as opposition to the Arizona law and support for Obamacare will help attract hispanics and blacks to the Democratic Party, support for the Arizona law and opposition to Obamacare will help the GOP with the white vote. Also, I said that by the year 2050, the GOP will probably be able to capture 65% of the white vote. My examples were provided simply to portray that the situation is far from impossible, as you tried to describe it earlier. Just to satisfy you though, the GOP would have the support of 44% of Americans if they only received 55% of the white vote. You accuse me of making blind assumption while you are doing the exact same thing. Do you even know the age demographics of hispanics? And even if you do, I would guarantee you that the Census Bureau already took that into account. What you are saying isn’t logically consistent. The Democrats receive the minority vote (support of minorities) because they have specific initiatives that appeal to this demographic. This is facilitated by the GOP opposing most of those initiatives. However, the GOP is not targeting the white vote either explicitly or implicitly. It has nothing to do with political correctness. They are merely adhering to a platform that does not appeal to minority voters, but they aren’t attempting to reel in white voters specifically. It sounds like to me that you are insinuating that the GOP does what it can to get specifically white support, although it doesn’t openly admit it. I find this to be questionable logic. The AZ law attracts Hispanics to the Democrats because many of them might potentially feel oppressed like second class people. The law does not directly pertain to whites, so you can’t openly say it has an equal effect in attracting whites. Ultimately for the white vote, the AZ law is just like every other issue. And again, saying that something is “far from impossible� doesn’t mean that it is intellectually honest to use that figure as a hard number in projecting the white vote consistently over the next four decades. Yes, 65% was a one-time occurrence under different circumstances (detached from the present time). It’s absurd to use that as the estimate of white vote breakdown over the forthcoming years. I’m not making blind assumptions on anything. It’s always necessary to take into account certain possibilities with census studies. I’m merely saying that it’s something to be aware of down the road since they’ve already adjusted the figure once already. It should be outright frightening to Republicans when they consider how many illegals off of the books are in this country having children. If the GOP is only projected to be getting 44% of the vote they are already in trouble, but this variable could potentially make things much worse. The GOP is definitely targeting the white vote. The only reason that most (like you) do not think so is because they can't come out and directly say they are doing so. You aren't using the cause-and-effect method at all here. For example, the fact that the GOP doesn't go out of its way just to cater to minorities by supporting policies such as affirmative action is a method in which the Republican Party can attract more white supporters. A policy doesn't have to directly target a specific group in order for it to have that purpose. Obamacare doesn't specifically target black voters, but the Democrats know that they received a major boost in support from the black community by passing it. The same thing can be said for the Arizona law. Most Republicans knew that a strong majority of whites wanted a halt on illegal immigration, which prompted the creation of the Arizona law. For the second time, I never said that the GOP will receive approximately 65% of the white vote "over the next four decades." If you would look back to my post, you would see that I said that by the year 2050 the GOP has a very good chance at receiving 65% of the white vote. I don't even recall when it was originally projected that whites would be a minority in 2050, but I guess I'll have to take your word for it. I highly doubt though, that the Census Bureau didn't think of something that you easily could have thought of.

How are the Republicans specifically targeting white voters? What policies are they implementing or proposing that explicitly address the needs of whites? There really isn’t a common ground between the two scenarios whatsoever. Isolated cases of Republican candidates in the past (Regan in 1984) does not substantiate whatsoever that the GOP will take 65% of the white vote for most of the years between 2012 and 2050. Reagan faced a weak candidate and faced an unprecedented political climate where conservative ideology increased in popularity and liberalism declined. You are making the same logical mistake you made earlier in claiming that radically different events will set precedents for the future will ignoring the present and forthcoming circumstances. What is your rationale for the GOP taking 65% of the white vote consistently for 40 years other than simply saying “well, Reagan did it in 1984…?� You yourself say it’s “not out of the question� to get 65% of the white vote. Well, that could simply be blind optimism. Nothing is out of the question, so we must consider what is realistic. In reality, based on recent white voting trends, a number closer to 55% is much more realistic. What is the expected GOP vote total under that scenario? The Census Bureau does at least attempt to record the illegal population, while this does in fact prove to be difficult. The point I was making earlier is that while there might be a lot of non-citizens off of the books, their citizen children will be on them. This is probably why the Census Bureau retracted 2050 as the year that minorities overtake whites and replaced it with 2042; their projections are far more likely to underestimate the Hispanic population than overestimate it. Obviously any changes in policy in the future could drastically alter the Hispanic population in either direction. That isn’t important when we are discussing how the current policy decisions could unfold in the future under the current circumstances. You and I both know that it's not politically correct in the modern era to say that the GOP is going after the "white vote." For example though, just as opposition to the Arizona law and support for Obamacare will help attract hispanics and blacks to the Democratic Party, support for the Arizona law and opposition to Obamacare will help the GOP with the white vote. Also, I said that by the year 2050, the GOP will probably be able to capture 65% of the white vote. My examples were provided simply to portray that the situation is far from impossible, as you tried to describe it earlier. Just to satisfy you though, the GOP would have the support of 44% of Americans if they only received 55% of the white vote. You accuse me of making blind assumption while you are doing the exact same thing. Do you even know the age demographics of hispanics? And even if you do, I would guarantee you that the Census Bureau already took that into account.

It's pure fallacy to say that the GOP will "always find a way to survive" under that historical context and ignore the present circumstances. It's an illogical generalization. In history, there have been other circumstances that have caused shifts in party identification. We must assume that there will be no immediate shifts in party allegience among minority voters, since the GOP is not pursuing policy to attract them while the Democrats are doing little to expel them. On what planet can you assume that the GOP is going to be getting 65% of the white vote by 2050? This alone makes your numbers preposterous. What will the GOP percentage be in 2050 if you use a number closer to earth (say 55%)? I also question your extrapolation for the Hispanic voter turnout by 2050. By that time, the Hispanic population will have increased dramtically from the domestic birth rate (these are citizens who will be able to vote), and not necessarily due to a proportion of illegals living in the US equal to 2010. Well, all I have to do in order to argue my theory is twist your statement around. The Democrats are not pursuing a policy to attract white voters at all, while the Republicans are doing everything they can to get more of them. Attracting 65% of the white vote is definitely not out of the question for the GOP. According to this- http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/13/892857/-Comparing-the-White-Vote-and-the-General-Vote, Reagan won over 65% of the white vote in 1984. Also, Bush won 58% of the white vote in 2004, so it is far from a stretch to say that the GOP can manage to increase their popularity with white voters by just a few points in the next four decades. The U.S. Census Bureau has had very little success in counting illegal immigrants, so my numbers from the census (the fact that hispanics currently make up 15% of the U.S. population) doesn't even include illegals (or barely any.) Plus, predictions of future demographics also do not take into consideration certain actions that could stop the flow of hispanics coming into America. For example, if the border is completely secure within the nexy few years and the U.S. decides to hand out less Visas due to overpopulation (both of which are at least somewhat likely to occur), the projection that in 2050 30% of America's population will be hispanic could obviously be misconstrued.

Having Hanley move positions would automatically drop his value in terms of his hitting ability for his position. Plus, I think you are also assuming that Hanley would be a better defensive player wherever he moves to. The last thing we would want is to have Hanley change into something like an outfielder where his hitting ability wouldn't be great for his position, and his defense wouldn't improve at all because of his unfamiliarity with the position (like Coghlan.)

According to your logic, I would also assume that the 21% of hispanics (using the latest poll) that support the bill are also self-haters and bigots against themselves, right? I don't know who the person you're referring to is, so I'm not directing this at them... but it's so common these days for people to have that kind of logic. If you're hispanic and support something that other hispanics are against, you either hate yourself, your people, or are a hypocrit. Regardless if you have a logical reason for your views, you're going to run into a lot of angry people - many who have no idea what they're talking about. I see it as this collective victim mentality that people exhibit when they believe they are underrepresented or being oppressed. Of course, a few will see this and say I'm being racist towards minorities but I really don't care, I would think the same way if this was a predominantly hispanic/black/asian country and whites would protest everything with racism as a reason. This doesn't neccessarily pertain to the law you're discussing on here, but there's so much bickering in this country due to people believing they're entitled to more simply because they believe they're being mistreated by the majority. The ironic part is that it leads to more racism and intolerance and the moment that people realize that they aren't the victims they believe they are is the moment this country will move forward in race relation issues. It was directed towards FutureGM (the person I quoted.) The point you made is absolutely correct though. I didn't find it surprising at all that the only station that frequently reported on Harry Reid saying that he couldn't believe how any hispanic could possibly be a Republican was Fox News. Imagine if Mitch McConnell came out and said that he couldn't believe how any white person could possibly be a Democrat. Most would have probably called for his called for his resignation in seconds. Going back to your point though, racism in this country will never end as long as people are classified as a group. Every election you hear news reports on how a certain politician will be able to win the "hispanic vote" or the "black vote". Rarely do you simply see a discussion about campaigning strategy where race/ethnicity isn't involved. I also look at how much hate someone like Clarence Thomas receives for not "backing his people" by supporting affirmative action. It's really disgusting to be honest, because it's as if minorities in this country aren't allowed to think for themselves.

Well, you did say this: “Knowing history, it isn't a big deal for the GOP. In the 1960's, this country was about 85% white (non-hispanic.) Today, that number has decreased to about 65%, yet the GOP hasn't lost any popularity. As long as a higher percentage of non-hispanics keep on voting for the GOP, they don't need an increase in support from hispanics.� Saying that they don’t need increasing support from Hispanics explicitly means that the party can remain viable through the support of white voters. Perhaps you should clarify. Secondly, your examples aren’t valid because as I stated above, party politics have shifted dramatically since the 1960s. During the Civil Rights era, it was many prominent Democrats lobbying for Southern segregation against the Kennedy wing. Most importantly, the Republicans didn’t start heavily polarizing minorities until much later (perhaps peaking around the 1990s with regard to Hispanics). And of course, GOP support has been extremely volatile since the 1960s, despite what you said earlier. Simply put, the arising situation with the minority voter demographic is rather unprecedented for the GOP. A 2008 Census Bureau estimate indicates that by 2042, minorities will be the majority and by 2050 they will reach 54%. http://www.cnn.com/2...ties/index.html Your math just doesn’t really add up. Over those coming decades, getting 60% of the white vote isn’t going to cut it for the GOP. As I said already, McCain got the white vote by a 7-12 point margin. According to Gallup, McCain got 56% to Obama’s 44%. That resulted in a 7% total popular vote victory for Obama. http://www.gallup.co...roups-2008.aspx You keep saying that as long as white non-Hispanics keep voting for GOP, the party will be fine. In 2008, they got the white majority handily and still lost. You can try to pass this off on high black turnout, but if the GOP starts establishing a record of anti-Hispanic policies, the Hispanics will be incentivized to come out and vote. My historic examples actually fit perfectly, as during those time periods the Irish/Italians/Jews/other Catholics all were an increasing demographic that tended to vote for the Democratic Party, yet the GOP always found a way to survive. But if you really are going to just deny history, I'll move on. If you would have taken what I said literally, you would have understood my argument. Here is my quote from my earlier post: "As long as a higher percentage of non-hispanics keep on voting for the GOP, they don't need an increase in support from hispanics." The point I made was that it doesn't matter if the GOP only receives roughly 1/3 of the hispanic vote in the future, because they will remain in good shape if the amount of non-hispanics voting for them continues to rise. You're also confusing the percentage of minorities as a whole in the United States with the percentage of voters that are actually minorities. In 2008, the demographics of the U.S. looked like this: 66% white, 15% hispanic, 14% black, 5% asian. However, the voting demographics looked like this: 74% white, 13% black, 9% hispanic, 2% asian, and 2% other according to this- http://www.projectvote.org/images/publications/Reports%20on%20the%20Electorate/Demographics_of_Voters_in_the_2008_Election.pdf So let's use this similar voting trend for the year 2050, when whites will make up 46%, hispanics 30%, blacks 15%, and asians 9%. Comparing this to the 2008 voter demographics, in 2050 whites will make up (roughly, trying to include the 2% "other" in the previous poll) 62% of voters, hispanics 20%, blacks 14%, and asians 4%. Now, let's say that between 2010 and 2050 the percentage of whites voting for the GOP keeps on increasing, so the GOP in 2050 receive 65% of the white vote. That would give them 40% of all voters already. Let's also say that they take 1/3 of the hispanic vote which is 7% of all voters, increasing their total to 47%. We'll assume the GOP takes around 10-15% of the black vote, and about 1/4 of the asian vote. 10-15% of the black vote equals 2% of all voters, and 1/4 of the asian vote is 1% of all voters. 47% + 2% + 1% = 50% popularity among all voters. And there you have it, a perfectly logical scenario where the GOP would still have a thriving party.

That's because there have been a ton of various other political, social, ethnic, and economic factors that have shifted party identification since the 1960s. Pew Research has a great graph here: http://people-press....fication-trend/ Notice the huge revival during the Reagan years that has completed evaporated over the last eight or nine years. Obviously this is not entirely due to minority voters, but it's still significant. The party won't be able to survive on white votes alone. McCain beat Obama by seven points (I've seen some numbers indicate the margin was even wider) in the white vote and still lost the election. The GOP can try to get back some of the white voters they lost in the Bush years (and try to win over the new voters), but they will need to face the ever growing minority demographic in this country. I never said that the GOP would be able to survive solely on the white vote. I simply provided examples on how many times what you are saying now has been said in the past. Whites will still make up a majority of voters for the next several decades, and assuming the GOP can attract at least 60% of whites, they wouldn't need to get that high of a percentage of minority votes (I would guess around 30% of minority voters at most.) Also, if I'm not mistaken, Bush got around 40% of the hispanic vote, so it is definitely doable.

You are missing the point. It doesn't matter if the opinions of Hispanics toward the GOP don't decline percent-wise. It matters that the percentage remains constant while the number of potential Hispanic voters is increasing rapidly. The GOP needs to be pushing policy that attracts minority voters (all minorities) and not simply be satisfied with not pissing them off anymore. 10 years ago the minority percentage in this country was something like 20%. Now it's somewhere like 30-40%. Will it hurt them in 2010 and 2012? Probably not substantially, but it will have a negative effect over the long term. Knowing history, it isn't a big deal for the GOP. In the 1960's, this country was about 85% white (non-hispanic.) Today, that number has decreased to about 65%, yet the GOP hasn't lost any popularity. As long as a higher percentage of non-hispanics keep on voting for the GOP, they don't need an increase in support from hispanics. People said the same thing when conservatives tried to stop the Irish from immigrating in the mid-19th century, and again when the Italians started immigrating at a rapid rate in the late 19th century, and once again when Jews and other Catholics immigrated in the early 20th century.

Polls I've seen indicate something like 50/50 public support in Florida for the AZ law. That isn't exactly unanimous support, but nevertheless a much healthier showing than one would expect due to the bitter criticisms made by the bill's opponents. The latest poll says 61% support it while only 35% oppose it: http://www.baynews9....immigration-law Not saying it's wrong because I expect public sentiment to move toward being more favorable to the law in this economy, but that doesn't sound like the most reputable polling source. Knowing you, I always need a backup poll. Rasmussen says that 62% of Floridians favor an Arizona-like law in the state, while only 24% oppose it: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/florida/60_in_florida_oppose_justice_department_challenge_of_arizona_immigration_law

I hope the GOP keeps trying this, because it's going to continue to piss off the fastest growing demographic in the country more and more. I was just reading in the Herald today about how even conservative hispanics are backing away from supporting McCollum now because of this new proposal. But honestly, what is the benefit to this legislation? It's pointless and based on bigoted and racist views of immigrants. The GOP has always pissed off the fastest growing demographic, although historically it has been with European immigrants. In the end, the numbers always seem to balance out. In fact, this poll says that Hispanic's opinions towards the Republican Party haven't shifted one bit: http://www.gallup.com/poll/139751/Hispanic-Voters-Preferences-Unchanged-Post-Arizona-Law.aspx The only reason why people think this will actually hurt the GOP is because the media keeps on displaying all of the Hispanic protesters at every event in Arizona. They try to portray the situation as if hispanics can't think individually and instead have to think as a group (similar to what Democrats are doing with African-Americans.) The benefit of the legislation is that a large majority of citizens in Arizona favor the law, a solid majority of Americans as a whole support the law, and from all of the polls I have seen, I haven't seen one state (even the most liberal ones) in which the majority of residents oppose the law rather than support it. According to your logic, I would also assume that the 21% of hispanics (using the latest poll) that support the bill are also self-haters and bigots against themselves, right?

Polls I've seen indicate something like 50/50 public support in Florida for the AZ law. That isn't exactly unanimous support, but nevertheless a much healthier showing than one would expect due to the bitter criticisms made by the bill's opponents. The latest poll says 61% support it while only 35% oppose it: http://www.baynews9.com/article/news/2010/august/136876/Exclusive-poll:-Floridians-favor-Arizona-type-immigration-law

Apparently Florida wants to pass this law now: http://www.huffingto...i_n_679173.html The only way that would happen is if McCollum or Scott become governor, which won't be for a while.

Yeah, I just got back from training camp and he was out there throwing. He didn't seem to be in any type of pain. By the way, (for anyone else who has seen him) is it me, or does Jake Long look like he lost 50 pounds?