NationStates Jolt Archive

*Coulter smears Thomas for having the "gall" to do her job and ask Bush REAL questions while she defends a fake journalist who was hired by his male lover Karl Rove to ask Bush softball questions to make him look good. Is Coulter not the most disgusting woman in America today?

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and other civil rights groups are expressing outrage over one of syndicated right-wing columnist Anne Coulter's latest columns in which she refers to veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas as "that old Arab." Coulter's February 23 column for Universal Press Syndicate focused on the controversy surrounding ex-White House reporter James Guckert, better known as Jeff Gannon. Coulter wrote, "Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president." The American Arab Discrimination Committee called the story outright racist. Helen Thomas is known as "The Dean" of the White House press corp. and has covered every president since John F. Kennedy.
democracynow.org

*Coulter smears Thomas for having the "gall" to do her job and ask Bush REAL questions while she defends a fake journalist who was hired by his male lover Karl Rove to ask Bush softball questions to make him look good. Is Coulter not the most disgusting woman in America today?


In an op-Ed published in The British Guardian newspaper, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, called Israeli Prime Minister General Ariel Sharon a "war criminal" and accused Israel of "ethnic cleansing," saying Sharon should be imprisoned for the Sabra and Shatila massacres in Beirut. He also accused Israel of demonizing Muslims. In the Guardian piece, Livingstone rejected accusations of anti-Semitism arising from his confrontation two weeks ago with a Jewish newspaper reporter he likened to a German concentration camp guard. He accused Israel of spreading misinformation about the scale of anti-Semitism in Europe, and seeking to silence critics by calling them anti-Semitic. Livingstone wrote, "The reality is that the great bulk of racist attacks in Europe today are on black people, Asians and Muslims. They are the primary targets of the extreme right."
democracynow.org and the British Guardian


Dont you ever get tired of quoting democracynow? you have been doing it for months/years I would get tired of it personaly

Dont you ever get tired of quoting democracynow? you have been doing it for months/years I would get tired of it personaly
democracynow isnt the topic--the odious hatefilled Ann Coulter is so if it makes you feel any better just pretend that it came from another source and that will magically somehow make the story more "real" for you

democracynow isnt the topic--the odious hatefilled Ann Coulter is

The source of the information you put forth in an arguement deffinatly is in question . Always

But I was just curious ... you really seem to spout more hate then thoes you try to condem. I feel sorry for you.

*Coulter smears Thomas for having the "gall" to do her job and ask Bush REAL questions while she defends a fake journalist who was hired by his male lover Karl Rove to ask Bush softball questions to make him look good. Is Coulter not the most disgusting woman in America today?

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and other civil rights groups are expressing outrage over one of syndicated right-wing columnist Anne Coulter's latest columns in which she refers to veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas as "that old Arab." Coulter's February 23 column for Universal Press Syndicate focused on the controversy surrounding ex-White House reporter James Guckert, better known as Jeff Gannon. Coulter wrote, "Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president." The American Arab Discrimination Committee called the story outright racist. Helen Thomas is known as "The Dean" of the White House press corp. and has covered every president since John F. Kennedy.
democracynow.org
Where have you been? And dammit, we talked about this-this would have been a great opportunity to expand, you could have linked to Coulter actually making her comments and pointed out the connection and disparity with her treating a lap dog and an actual reporter. You could have linked outside of democracynow.org to the SEVERAL instances of the Bush administration bluring the line of the press, like paying columnists to say nice things about his policies and outlined how that somehow isn't as big a scandal as one piece of evidence being not confirmed on a story against the president. You wouldn't have even needed democracynow.org and then all the gainsayers would have to actually think about what you gave them instead of just rephrasing thier disdain for your source. C'mon man, I know you can do this.

*Coulter smears Thomas for having the "gall" to do her job and ask Bush REAL questions while she defends a fake journalist who was hired by his male lover Karl Rove to ask Bush softball questions to make him look good. Is Coulter not the most disgusting woman in America today?

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and other civil rights groups are expressing outrage over one of syndicated right-wing columnist Anne Coulter's latest columns in which she refers to veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas as "that old Arab." Coulter's February 23 column for Universal Press Syndicate focused on the controversy surrounding ex-White House reporter James Guckert, better known as Jeff Gannon. Coulter wrote, "Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president." The American Arab Discrimination Committee called the story outright racist. Helen Thomas is known as "The Dean" of the White House press corp. and has covered every president since John F. Kennedy.
democracynow.org

Ann Coulter is a parody of conservatives whether she thinks she is or not. What she writes is tongue in cheek and meant to be laughed at. I can't imagine it being intended any other way. It's just too abrasive and inflammatory to be serious.

They shouldn't take her any more seriously then they would any comedian. Comedians are allowed to call someone 'and old arab' as long as it's funny. I haven't seen the context that the insult was used in, but such an absurd statement could potentially amusing if used correctly.

The source of the information you put forth in an arguement deffinatly is in question . Always

But I was just curious ... you really seem to spout more hate then thoes you try to condem. I feel sorry for you.
the source for my stories is ALWAYS questioned and ALWAYS the legitimacy of them gets confirmed in the end. You just refuse to learn from history because it talks about things that makes you squirm. I dont need your sorrow I just need you to open your eyes to the evil your supporting

the source for my stories is ALWAYS questioned and ALWAYS the legitimacy of them gets confirmed in the end. You just refuse to learn from history because it talks about things that makes you squirm. I dont need your sorrow I just need you to open your eyes to the evil your supporting
Im not supporting ANYTHING nor have I ever run across a case where the legitimacy gets held up at the end ... but usualy I get tired if irrational hate speach from both sides of the table and give up on you

You preach against hate by spreading more hatefull sayings/attitudes, tis silly

Where have you been? And dammit, we talked about this-this would have been a great opportunity to expand, you could have linked to Coulter actually making her comments and pointed out the connection and disparity with her treating a lap dog and an actual reporter. You could have linked outside of democracynow.org to the SEVERAL instances of the Bush administration bluring the line of the press, like paying columnists to say nice things about his policies and outlined how that somehow isn't as big a scandal as one piece of evidence being not confirmed on a story against the president. You wouldn't have even needed democracynow.org and then all the gainsayers would have to actually think about what you gave them instead of just rephrasing thier disdain for your source. C'mon man, I know you can do this.
your right I could but I refuse to treat democracynow as some kind of illegitimate source when its the preeminent news show in America today-I wont concede that ground to the truth deniers--democracynow is far more reliable then anything in the mainstream corporate media today in America

your right I could but I refuse to treat democracynow as some kind of illegitimate source when its the preeminent news show in America today-I wont concede that ground to the truth deniers
Refuse to concede ground to reality :p

(or in the python quote “it is symbolic of his struggle against reality”)

I'm sorry. I was unaware that liberals never did anything wrong. Woah, maybe next time I should examine a little closer. We conservatives are always the ones that are wrong and always do bad things. Liberals are the almighty ones, and I guess that changes my view about the whole world. Wow, you have to love the unfounded, spoken word.















God bless the liberals....or not.

your right I could but I refuse to treat democracynow as some kind of illegitimate source when its the preeminent news show in America today-I wont concede that ground to the truth deniers
Fine, though I think you're tilting at a windmill, but you could have actually underlined democracynow.org with other sources so that your first three pages weren't the same old argument about the cite. Because you trust it isn't going to make it fly here, so you have to do some of the work. With people like Zeppistan and Incertonia gone you have to work harder and use more sources so you're not countering rhetoric with rhetoric, you're countering it with a wall of facts that they can't dismiss out of hand as coming from one source.

Fine, though I think you're tilting at a windmill, but you could have actually underlined democracynow.org with other sources so that your first three pages weren't the same old argument about the cite. Because you trust it isn't going to make it fly here, so you have to do some of the work. With people like Zeppistan and Incertonia gone you have to work harder and use more sources so you're not countering rhetoric with rhetoric, you're countering it with a wall of facts that they can't dismiss out of hand as coming from one source.
Deffinatly ... I would LOVE to hear some hard information that dosent boil down to one side quoting fox and the other democracynow

It is such a mastabatory arguement when you start out with one biased source and refuse to support it

I'm sorry. I was unaware that liberals never did anything wrong. Woah, maybe next time I should examine a little closer. We conservatives are always the ones that are wrong and always do bad things. Liberals are the almighty ones, and I guess that changes my view about the whole world. Wow, you have to love the unfounded, spoken word.















God bless the liberals....or not.
What's the argument here? How does it refute the claim? Should he have added a footnote somehow acknowedging that the liberals can do wrong? Actually, Skap has aimed his hose at liberals he has felt have dropped the ball, so this is even more of an empty comment. There are plenty of conservatives that spend their time hosing liberals, do you demand the same double duty?

Really, make an argument even if it's democracynow.org sucks it's still more relevant than this aimless criticism.

Im not supporting ANYTHING nor have I ever run across a case where the legitimacy gets held up at the end ... but usualy I get tired if irrational hate speach from both sides of the table and give up on you

You preach against hate by spreading more hatefull sayings/attitudes, tis silly
every single story I posted from democracynow is a real life news story that you can find links to from other sources so thats what I was talking about when I talked about the legitimacy of democracynow and Im not spreading hate Im exposing it

every single story I posted from democracynow is a real life news story that you can find links to from other sources so thats what I was talking about when I talked about the legitimacy of democracynow and Im not spreading hate Im exposing it
You just say that cause you feel like you wish to take the moral high ground …

We see the hate you spew with you are talking about someone that does not share your view (ie. Asking you what you think of bush or ann)

Hell I dislike her myself and am a hardcore dem/libertarian
But I call them as I see them …

I am not saying you shouldn’t be able to talk but I would get so tired of quoting some damn cumrag that is democracy now
Hell its even worse then the people quoting FOX news

Anyways I am on my way to bed … have fun with it

Refuse to concede ground to reality :p

(or in the python quote “it is symbolic of his struggle against reality”)
the reality is the mainstream media in America today is cowed and intimidated and doesnt do any investigative journalism.Helen Thomas being ostracized for asking der furher real questions is a perfect example of this. Democracynow isnt intimidated by the powers that be and is like a voice of truth in a wilderness of rightwing lies from the corporate media. Its even more valuable today when so much of our media has been subverted

every single story I posted from democracynow is a real life news story that you can find links to from other sources so thats what I was talking about when I talked about the legitimacy of democracynow and Im not spreading hate Im exposing it
Alright, again-nothing but love, but you did call Karl Rove Bush's male lover. If it's your style, it's your style-but you got to own it a little.

Granted, I don't know how to talk about Coulter without spitting a little, but I'm not going to call it something else. (though I think it would be fantastic if we didn't call her a bitch or make other jokes about her sex, it undermines us if we want to call those kind of attacks against people like Barbara Boxer. She'd be just as horrable a person if she was a dude, or an unisex lizard beast)

I'm sorry. I was unaware that liberals never did anything wrong. Woah, maybe next time I should examine a little closer. We conservatives are always the ones that are wrong and always do bad things. Liberals are the almighty ones, and I guess that changes my view about the whole world. Wow, you have to love the unfounded, spoken word.















God bless the liberals....or not.
Im glad I could help and God must agree since his only begotten son was one of the first recorded liberals in history

Fine, though I think you're tilting at a windmill, but you could have actually underlined democracynow.org with other sources so that your first three pages weren't the same old argument about the cite. Because you trust it isn't going to make it fly here, so you have to do some of the work. With people like Zeppistan and Incertonia gone you have to work harder and use more sources so you're not countering rhetoric with rhetoric, you're countering it with a wall of facts that they can't dismiss out of hand as coming from one source.
well thats why I have you :D

well thats why I have you :D
You're in worse trouble than I thought......;)

Deffinatly ... I would LOVE to hear some hard information that dosent boil down to one side quoting fox and the other democracynow

It is such a mastabatory arguement when you start out with one biased source and refuse to support it
for the trillionth time there is no such thing as an unbiased source--the corporate media in america is rightwing and foxnews is outright propaganda--that doesnt leave alot of alternatives for real news

What's the argument here? How does it refute the claim? Should he have added a footnote somehow acknowedging that the liberals can do wrong? Actually, Skap has aimed his hose at liberals he has felt have dropped the ball, so this is even more of an empty comment. There are plenty of conservatives that spend their time hosing liberals, do you demand the same double duty?

Really, make an argument even if it's democracynow.org sucks it's still more relevant than this aimless criticism.
It WOULD be nice to see some conservatives question there own side alot more but they seem to have a much more facist lockstep mentality then liberals do

What's the deal? The issue here isn't whether Democracynow is or isn't a reliable source of information. The issue isn't whether you like or hate Ann Coulter. The issue is that Ann Coulter called a respected journalist 'an old arab'. The connotations of that statement could be considered fairly offensive and even more unprofessional. Don't you think it'd be kind of hard for Democracynow to make up a story about Ann Coulter calling someone that in one of her articles? There's nothing to BE biased about. The article was based purely in fact.

It WOULD be nice to see some conservatives question there own side alot more but they seem to have a much more facist lockstep mentality then liberals do

Your sweeping generalization is laughable at best.

You just say that cause you feel like you wish to take the moral high ground …

We see the hate you spew with you are talking about someone that does not share your view (ie. Asking you what you think of bush or ann)

Hell I dislike her myself and am a hardcore dem/libertarian
But I call them as I see them …

I am not saying you shouldn’t be able to talk but I would get so tired of quoting some damn cumrag that is democracy now
Hell its even worse then the people quoting FOX news

Anyways I am on my way to bed … have fun with it
Democracynow is one of the most relevant sources of news in America today and I reserve the right to hate the enemies of my country and the worlds people much like people hated the nazis in earlier times and theres NO comparison between Democracynow and Foxnews--one is REAL journalism the way its supposed to be and the other is like a 24 hour campaign ad for the GOP.
And Good Night--Im about to go to bed too :cool:

*Coulter smears Thomas for having the "gall" to do her job and ask Bush REAL questions while she defends a fake journalist who was hired by his male lover Karl Rove to ask Bush softball questions to make him look good. Is Coulter not the most disgusting woman in America today?


No, Condelezza Rice is. You can tell she's possessed just by looking at her.

Also, there tends to be biases in all news reports. It's hard to get someone truly objective.

Alright, again-nothing but love, but you did call Karl Rove Bush's male lover. If it's your style, it's your style-but you got to own it a little.

Granted, I don't know how to talk about Coulter without spitting a little, but I'm not going to call it something else. (though I think it would be fantastic if we didn't call her a bitch or make other jokes about her sex, it undermines us if we want to call those kind of attacks against people like Barbara Boxer. She'd be just as horrable a person if she was a dude, or an unisex lizard beast)
I meant Karl Rove is the fake journalists male lover--not Bushs LOL

You're in worse trouble than I thought......;)
:D
nah--your a powerhouse :cool:

Wow, Skapedroe. I actually agree with you on something. Coulter is indeed a hate filled b****. Even if she does agree with some of my views, she's still a jackass and takes things way too far.

No, Condelezza Rice is. You can tell she's possessed just by looking at her.

Also, there tends to be biases in all news reports. It's hard to get someone truly objective.
true--she does have the look of a she-demon much like Cheney looks like Satan incarnate.Part of the insulting arrogance of the Bush Administration is that they dont even have the decency to mask their evil :mad:

What's the deal? The issue here isn't whether Democracynow is or isn't a reliable source of information. The issue isn't whether you like or hate Ann Coulter. The issue is that Ann Coulter called a respected journalist 'an old arab'. The connotations statement could be considered fairly offensive and even more unprofessional. Don't you think it'd be kind of hard for Democracynow to make up a story about Ann Coulter calling someone that in one of her articles? There's nothing to BE biased about. The article was based purely in fact.



Your sweeping generalization is laughable at best.
Dammit, and I contributed to it. You caught me. Though in my defence, I'm really tryin' to help the guy out.

So, if it isn't 'believable' here it is from the horses mouth-
Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president. Still, it would be suspicious if Dowd were denied a press pass while someone from "Talon News" got one, even if he is a better reporter.

From here (http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=43)

Now we can be on topic without the source being the problem.

Wow, Skapedroe. I actually agree with you on something. Coulter is indeed a hate filled b****. Even if she does agree with some of my views, she's still a jackass and takes things way too far.
Hail--your the kind of conservative I can respect :)

Dammit, and I contributed to it. You caught me. Though in my defence, I'm really tryin' to help the guy out.

So, if it isn't 'believable' here it is from the horses mouth-


From here (http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=43)

Now we can be on topic without the source being the problem.
democracynow credentials are confirmed for the billionth time--for all the democracynow critics out there since the mainstream media doesnt do investigative journalism anymore there have been times in the past when democracynow breaks a story weeks if not months before them and the mainstream media catches up to it later--more proof that democracynow is much more relevant then the subverted media

Hail--your the kind of conservative I can respect :)
Kewl, man. Knowing you, that is indeed high praise.

Kewl, man. Knowing you, that is indeed high praise.
I dont hate TRUE conservatives I mostly rail against the neocon ones but whatever type you are I can tell you arent heartless. I gotta go to bed now tho-Ill try and find this thread again tomorow if its still active or try and post a story that wasnt posted before-night bro

"The heretofore-unknown Jeff Gannon of the heretofore-unknown 'Talon News' service was caught red-handed asking friendly questions at a White House press briefing."

"Now the media is hot on the trail of a gay escort service that Gannon may have run some years ago. Are we supposed to like gay people now, or hate them? Is there a Web site where I can go to and find out how the Democrats want me to feel about gay people on a moment-to-moment basis?"

And in the same paragraph. How can she be so underhanded and expose such hypocrisy at the same time? Unless she sets out with the intent of being an unbiased thinker when it comes to Democrats (she really does point out some flaws in their rhetoric) while at the same time finding crafty ways to support what would otherwise be equally flimsy Republican rhetoric in other cases. Now that's hypocrisy. If we assume that she's arguing with her readers, then I guess it's true that the person with the best information does not necessarily always win the argument. Sometimes it's the person most skilled at arguing.

I dont hate TRUE conservatives I mostly rail against the neocon ones but whatever type you are I can tell you arent heartless. I gotta go to bed now tho-Ill try and find this thread again tomorow if its still active or try and post a story that wasnt posted before-night bro

Night, bro.

every single story I posted from democracynow is a real life news story that you can find links to from other sources so thats what I was talking about when I talked about the legitimacy of democracynow and Im not spreading hate Im exposing it

Well, if you're going to quote Helen Thomas, she is on record as admitting that she "hates" Bush. So that's hate. She's not an unbiased reporter anymore - she's a partisan hack.

Here's Helen Thomas spewing "hate"

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/thomas-1106.html

She's not a journalist anymore. I see no reason why she should still have a press pass to the White House.

Democracynow is one of the most relevant sources of news in America today and I reserve the right to hate the enemies of my country and the worlds people much like people hated the nazis in earlier times and theres NO comparison between Democracynow and Foxnews--one is REAL journalism the way its supposed to be and the other is like a 24 hour campaign ad for the GOP.
And Good Night--Im about to go to bed too :cool:
And the other side claims the exact opposite … you are so much alike its scary … all claming your side is the one true side and anything you do is somehow better then if they do the same thing.

You dislike ann while you act just like her … sad

She'd be just as horrable a person if she was a dude, or an unisex lizard beast that made me laugh. a lot. but that got me thinking, would she be as fun as a unisex lizard beast? i mean, you kind of expect some sort of bile to exude from whatever the vocal orafice is on such a creature, but ann coulter actually resembles an intelligent human being, which is, i think, what makes it such a treat to watch her try, in vain, to wrap her tiny little mind around the simplest of subjects, such as, for instance, the most basic human decency.
now this is not a blow to conservatives, as, though i rarely agree with them at all, their morals and steadfastness are a neccesity in this nation, IMO, just as the liberals' reason and willingness to change are. but i digress. oh wait, no i don't. i was finished.

Dont you ever get tired of quoting democracynow? you have been doing it for months/years I would get tired of it personaly
Great way to totally avoid the issue. Well done.

Great way to totally avoid the issue. Well done.
Was not trying to avoid the issue ... I had an honest question... seriously I would be incredibly tired of just copying and pasting by now

*Coulter smears Thomas for having the "gall" to do her job and ask Bush REAL questions while she defends a fake journalist who was hired by his male lover Karl Rove to ask Bush softball questions to make him look good. Is Coulter not the most disgusting woman in America today?

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and other civil rights groups are expressing outrage over one of syndicated right-wing columnist Anne Coulter's latest columns in which she refers to veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas as "that old Arab." Coulter's February 23 column for Universal Press Syndicate focused on the controversy surrounding ex-White House reporter James Guckert, better known as Jeff Gannon. Coulter wrote, "Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president." The American Arab Discrimination Committee called the story outright racist. Helen Thomas is known as "The Dean" of the White House press corp. and has covered every president since John F. Kennedy.
democracynow.org

From my point of view, uber-conservatism is what happens when Fundamentalist Christians take the warped and outdated version of their religion too seriously. I mean really, what can you say about the sanity of a person who makes a public remark like the following:

"Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

There is no story here, we all know Ann Coulter is a hateful bitch with sand in her vagina

Here's Helen Thomas spewing "hate"

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/thomas-1106.html

She's not a journalist anymore. I see no reason why she should still have a press pass to the White House.

you dont see the difference between what ann coulter said and what helen thomas says in that article?

you REALLY dont?

why are y'all calling democracy now into question on this issue? all you have to do is put "ann coulter, old arab" into google and youll see dozens of sites talking about it and against it.

oh and helen thomas has a press pass because she is a columnist for the hearst news service who took her on after her last employer let her go. they thought it would be cool to have the senior whitehouse reporter on their staff. who can blame them for it?

Ann Coulter is a parody of conservatives whether she thinks she is or not. What she writes is tongue in cheek and meant to be laughed at. I can't imagine it being intended any other way. It's just too abrasive and inflammatory to be serious.

They shouldn't take her any more seriously then they would any comedian. Comedians are allowed to call someone 'and old arab' as long as it's funny. I haven't seen the context that the insult was used in, but such an absurd statement could potentially amusing if used correctly.

I suppose I should have seen it that way. I mean... being pro-McCarthy... Pro George Bush... Pro Greatful Dead, but anti-marijuana?

And she's so out of it half the time, if you asked her why she's pro McCarthy she'd probably say that the Beatles were good up until their psychadelic phase and then he was the only one who got really good again afterwards.

you dont see the difference between what ann coulter said and what helen thomas says in that article?


No, I don't. Helen Thomas has unconditional hate, as does Ann Coulter. Namecalling doesn't make it any worse for me.
oh and helen thomas has a press pass because she is a columnist for the hearst news service who took her on after her last employer let her go. they thought it would be cool to have the senior whitehouse reporter on their staff. who can blame them for it?

Helen Thomas is far, far beyond any semblance of journalistic evenhandedness. If you're going to criticize Ann Coulter for being biased and say she shouldn't be listened to as a credible reporter or editorialist on that basis, then you can go ahead and flush Helen Thomas' press pass down the toilet while you're at it.

No, I don't. Helen Thomas has unconditional hate, as does Ann Coulter. Namecalling doesn't make it any worse for me.
i dont believe you
you are too smart to not see the difference between racist name calling (of the oddest kind, after all, presumably helen thomas IS an old arab so to call her that as a kind of insult is really annoying) and being upfront about ones opinion of a public official whose policies one despises.


Helen Thomas is far, far beyond any semblance of journalistic evenhandedness. If you're going to criticize Ann Coulter for being biased and say she shouldn't be listened to as a credible reporter or editorialist on that basis, then you can go ahead and flush Helen Thomas' press pass down the toilet while you're at it.
which is why helen thomas ISNT a reporter anymore. she is a columnist just like ann coulter is. neither pretends to be unbiased. (im only assuming that about ann coulter) she has a press pass because of her employer, if you think she shouldnt be employed by them, then talk to THEM about it. in the US we dont just give credentials to those who agree with the current administration, as you well know.

*Coulter smears Thomas for having the "gall" to do her job and ask Bush REAL questions while she defends a fake journalist who was hired by his male lover Karl Rove to ask Bush softball questions to make him look good. Is Coulter not the most disgusting woman in America today?

The unbiased Skapedroe once more posts using the most neutral language possible.

The unbiased Skapedroe once more posts using the most neutral language possible.
your sarcasm is subtle to the point of imperceptability. :D

The unbiased Skapedroe once more posts using the most neutral language possible.
Ow the sarcasm burnzes :p

Seriously speaking, it would go quite a long way toward getting his message across if he did not smear people (the way he complains Bushites do), wrote his own posts rather than C&P from a single site, and used concise language that was not emotionally charged.

As I see it, his style of posting is no less over-the-top and offensive than Ann Coulter's, and thus gets in the way of what he's trying to convey. The same way I change channels when Laura Ingram comes on, my mind shuts down when I see a Skapedro thread. Does he have a point? Yes, and often a good one. Unfortunately, it gets completely buried under the vitriol.

The problem I have with Ann Coulter is her inconsistency of tone.

I liked the book Slander - it was put together well.

I don't like her columns - unlike her book, she shoots from the hip.

Of course, Skapedroe shoots from the hip as well, but doesn't make as much money.

No, I don't. Helen Thomas has unconditional hate, as does Ann Coulter. Namecalling doesn't make it any worse for me.


Helen Thomas is far, far beyond any semblance of journalistic evenhandedness. If you're going to criticize Ann Coulter for being biased and say she shouldn't be listened to as a credible reporter or editorialist on that basis, then you can go ahead and flush Helen Thomas' press pass down the toilet while you're at it.

Err, Helen Thomas no longer requires journalistic evenhandedness, nor even a semblence of it. She is no longer a reporter, she is a columist, and columists are expected to be biased. It's almost part of the job description, and one thing that should differ between reporters and columnists. (Cursed lack of spell check.) Or, to say it better:
"I censored myself for 50 years when I was a reporter," said Thomas (from the same article)
At the same time, there is a HUGE difference between saying, for example, that "I hate depeche mode" and saying "depeche mode is a bunch of untalented monkeys." Or, for another (tamer) example, the difference between "I am really bored by history" and "history is really boring."
I actually don't mind depeche mode, by the way, just the first band name that popped into my head. And while I think Helen Thomas was a great reporter, I find her to be less than sublime as a columist, though still better than anne coulter.

Seriously speaking, it would go quite a long way toward getting his message across if he did not smear people (the way he complains Bushites do), wrote his own posts rather than C&P from a single site, and used concise language that was not emotionally charged.

As I see it, his style of posting is no less over-the-top and offensive than Ann Coulter's, and thus gets in the way of what he's trying to convey. The same way I change channels when Laura Ingram comes on, my mind shuts down when I see a Skapedro thread. Does he have a point? Yes, and often a good one. Unfortunately, it gets completely buried under the vitriol.
I was trying to say the same thing (but much less eloquently) how you say something effects how your message is perceived

Well, if you're going to quote Helen Thomas, she is on record as admitting that she "hates" Bush. So that's hate. She's not an unbiased reporter anymore - she's a partisan hack.
You cant be a Patriotic American and support Bush at the same time--you just cant. Everything Bush promotes just rips the heart out of everything our country is supposed to be based on--it just does

Here's Helen Thomas spewing "hate"

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/thomas-1106.html

She's not a journalist anymore. I see no reason why she should still have a press pass to the White House.
thats not hate at all--shes speaking out against the Hitler of our times. I can think of no higher form of patriotism then for someone in Thomases position to take a strong stand against fascism this way-she has more balls then any male white house correspondent and she makes all the female white house correspondents look like the airheads they are

And the other side claims the exact opposite … you are so much alike its scary … all claming your side is the one true side and anything you do is somehow better then if they do the same thing.

You dislike ann while you act just like her … sad
no we're not alike at all--regardless of similar tactics used we're both fighting for very different things

Was not trying to avoid the issue ... I had an honest question... seriously I would be incredibly tired of just copying and pasting by now
I just copy and paste the topic starter post and I follow it up with ten billion of my own written posts

There is no story here, we all know Ann Coulter is a hateful bitch with sand in her vagina
true

No, I don't. Helen Thomas has unconditional hate, as does Ann Coulter. Namecalling doesn't make it any worse for me.


Helen Thomas is far, far beyond any semblance of journalistic evenhandedness. If you're going to criticize Ann Coulter for being biased and say she shouldn't be listened to as a credible reporter or editorialist on that basis, then you can go ahead and flush Helen Thomas' press pass down the toilet while you're at it.
Helen Thomas has standards and speaks truth to power--you think the presses role is to grovel before those in power. Thomas doesnt.

*Coulter smears Thomas for having the "gall" to do her job and ask Bush REAL questions while she defends a fake journalist who was hired by his male lover Karl Rove to ask Bush softball questions to make him look good. Is Coulter not the most disgusting woman in America today?

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and other civil rights groups are expressing outrage over one of syndicated right-wing columnist Anne Coulter's latest columns in which she refers to veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas as "that old Arab." Coulter's February 23 column for Universal Press Syndicate focused on the controversy surrounding ex-White House reporter James Guckert, better known as Jeff Gannon. Coulter wrote, "Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president." The American Arab Discrimination Committee called the story outright racist. Helen Thomas is known as "The Dean" of the White House press corp. and has covered every president since John F. Kennedy.
democracynow.org
Good point, I guess. Ann Coulter shouldn't refer to Helen Thomas as an "old Arab". After all, millions of Arabs would be offended to be compared to Helen Thomas (as proven by the American Arab Whining Committee.)

No, Helen Thomas is best described as the Crazy Old Aunt in the Attic.

Helen Thomas has standards and speaks truth to power--you think the presses role is to grovel before those in power. Thomas doesnt.
Helen Thomas is to journalism as Al Franken is to talk radio...a joke that has gone on too long.

how is she any different than the hate filled Michael Moore, or the hate filled Jesse Jackson, or the hate filled CBS, ABC or NBC?

What, is she hate filled because she's a woman, giving it to people straight? Is she hate filled because she demands the same tolerance that liberals preach but fail to practice?

I see you up in arms over this, I don't see you up in arms over Hillary Clinton calling Jewish reporters, "kikes". I don't see you up in arms over Michael Moore calling everyone who voted for Bush, "rednecks". Of course not, that would imply that the far left weren't hypocrites. As we can all infer, that simply isn't true.

Seriously speaking, it would go quite a long way toward getting his message across if he did not smear people (the way he complains Bushites do), wrote his own posts rather than C&P from a single site, and used concise language that was not emotionally charged.

As I see it, his style of posting is no less over-the-top and offensive than Ann Coulter's, and thus gets in the way of what he's trying to convey. The same way I change channels when Laura Ingram comes on, my mind shuts down when I see a Skapedro thread. Does he have a point? Yes, and often a good one. Unfortunately, it gets completely buried under the vitriol.
the problem is I cant disguize the utter contempt I have for the repellant and evil tactics of neocon fascists anymore then a survivor of Auschwitz can speak neutrally of the neocon nazis they had to confront. They are literally ripping the heart out of America gutting our constitution subverting our entire democracy at every level imaginable and destabilizing the entire world with their greed. If they are not the face of pure evil then I dont know what is.

I think everyone knows Ann Coulter is a 20,000 year old vampire who bathes in the blood of virgins on a daily basis by now.

how is she any different than the hate filled Michael Moore, or the hate filled Jesse Jackson, or the hate filled CBS, ABC or NBC?

What, is she hate filled because she's a woman, giving it to people straight? Is she hate filled because she demands the same tolerance that liberals preach but fail to practice?

I see you up in arms over this, I don't see you up in arms over Hillary Clinton calling Jewish reporters, "kikes". I don't see you up in arms over Michael Moore calling everyone who voted for Bush, "rednecks". Of course not, that would imply that the far left weren't hypocrites. As we can all infer, that simply isn't true.
The difference is, Ann Coulter isn't a liberal. You see when a liberal spews all sorts of hate, it's called "diversity" and "freedom of expression." But since Ann isn't a liberal, when she tells the truth about Old Coot Thomas, Jabba the Moore or Jesse the Race Pimp, it's called "hate."

The difference is, Ann Coulter isn't a liberal. You see when a liberal spews all sorts of hate, it's called "diversity" and "freedom of expression." But since Ann isn't a liberal, when she tells the truth about Old Coot Thomas, Jabba the Moore or Jesse the Race Pimp, it's called "hate."

On the other hand, she does do threesomes, so she's not all bad.

the problem is I cant disguize the utter contempt I have for the repellant and evil tactics of neocon fascists anymore then a survivor of Auschwitz can speak neutrally of the neocon nazis they had to confront. They are literally ripping the heart out of America gutting our constitution subverting our entire democracy at every level imaginable and destabilizing the entire world with their greed. If they are not the face of pure evil then I dont know what is.
All the Kool-Aid from Al Franken is making you delusional...open your eyes and you will see who is really destroying America.

Good point, I guess. Ann Coulter shouldn't refer to Helen Thomas as an "old Arab". After all, millions of Arabs would be offended to be compared to Helen Thomas (as proven by the American Arab Whining Committee.)

No, Helen Thomas is best described as the Crazy Old Aunt in the Attic.
(Panhandlia thinks its treason for anyone to question der fuhrer too)

Helen Thomas is to journalism as Al Franken is to talk radio...a joke that has gone on too long.
meanwhile Al Franken is breaking into new markets everyday-must be a pretty funny joke

the problem is I cant disguize the utter contempt I have for the repellant and evil tactics of neocon fascists anymore then a survivor of Auschwitz can speak neutrally of the neocon nazis they had to confront. They are literally ripping the heart out of America gutting our constitution subverting our entire democracy at every level imaginable and destabilizing the entire world with their greed. If they are not the face of pure evil then I dont know what is.


I would disagree, and submit to you that it is the liberal left "ripping the heart out of America". Is it unifying to parade bumper stickers proclaiming "he's not MY president"? Is it unifying to call all of those who differ with your views neocon fascists? Is it unifying to throw out charges without proper back up?
Would you be so tolerant if Kerry had been elected and there was the same disrespect shown to him? What an amazing hypocrite

(Panhandlia thinks its treason for anyone to question der fuhrer too)
The only experts on Nazi tactics lately come from the Left...just ask the Grand Kleagle of the KKK, Robert Byrd.

how is she any different than the hate filled Michael Moore, or the hate filled Jesse Jackson, or the hate filled CBS, ABC or NBC?

What, is she hate filled because she's a woman, giving it to people straight? Is she hate filled because she demands the same tolerance that liberals preach but fail to practice?

I see you up in arms over this, I don't see you up in arms over Hillary Clinton calling Jewish reporters, "kikes". I don't see you up in arms over Michael Moore calling everyone who voted for Bush, "rednecks". Of course not, that would imply that the far left weren't hypocrites. As we can all infer, that simply isn't true.
your ilk started the hate and your ilk profits from it politically so stop whining when you get a small taste of your own medicine

I think everyone knows Ann Coulter is a 20,000 year old vampire who bathes in the blood of virgins on a daily basis by now.
that's precious.

The difference is, Ann Coulter isn't a liberal. You see when a liberal spews all sorts of hate, it's called "diversity" and "freedom of expression." But since Ann isn't a liberal, when she tells the truth about Old Coot Thomas, Jabba the Moore or Jesse the Race Pimp, it's called "hate."
its hate because shes a pathological liar like everyone else on the right--at least when the left hates they do it ethically

meanwhile Al Franken is breaking into new markets everyday-must be a pretty funny joke
Really...when he gets to, say, 100 stations, maybe we can talk about Hot Air America making it big...then again, Hot Air America is a great example of "Spot the Idiot," with Franken and all the others, who combine for a 100 IQ.

Really...when he gets to, say, 100 stations, maybe we can talk about Hot Air America making it big...then again, Hot Air America is a great example of "Spot the Idiot," with Franken and all the others, who combine for a 100 IQ.
Yeah lots of idiots go to harvard.

For those who hate democracynow

http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=Ann%20coulter%20arab

http://www.therationalradical.com/diatribes/ann_coulter.htm

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000818305

your ilk started the hate and your ilk profits from it politically so stop whining when you get a small taste of your own medicine


you have no idea what my "ilk" is. Where did I whine? You did a fine job of avoiding my points and then spreading hate, in typical liberal fashion. Look at your actions and attitude, then talk to me about who is ripping the heart out of America.
Who's "ilk" is John Kerry and Thereza Heinz? Seems to me their "ilk" benefits quite beautifully from current politics......are they not of YOUR "ilk"? Try debating facts, not emotion.

its hate because shes a pathological liar like everyone else on the right--at least when the left hates they do it ethically
That has to be the dumbest statement from you yet...no wait...

Yeah lots of idiots go to harvard.


Liberals would agree, since Bush went to Harvard School of Business.

I would disagree, and submit to you that it is the liberal left "ripping the heart out of America". Is it unifying to parade bumper stickers proclaiming "he's not MY president"? Is it unifying to call all of those who differ with your views neocon fascists? Is it unifying to throw out charges without proper back up?
Would you be so tolerant if Kerry had been elected and there was the same disrespect shown to him? What an amazing hypocrite
Bush is the amazing hypocrite who promised to be a uniter then set out to act like the most divisive President in American history. And it was your scandal-mongering ilk that invented the politics of personal destruction in the 90s under Clinton. The sins began with you. Now your own tactics will come back to bite you in the ass

For those who hate democracynow

http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=Ann%20coulter%20arab

http://www.therationalradical.com/diatribes/ann_coulter.htm

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000818305
THANK YOU ... its not that I specificaly hate them anymore then a lot of the other crazy sites out there but no matter WHAT origional site you use it is nice to see seperate accounts of a situation

More information cant hurt

its hate because shes a pathological liar like everyone else on the right--at least when the left hates they do it ethically


really now? can you show me some proof of your allegations?

The only experts on Nazi tactics lately come from the Left...just ask the Grand Kleagle of the KKK, Robert Byrd.
since Byrd retired from the KKK decades ago we might want to try some more recent members of racist organizations like the grand dragons of the CCC Trent lott and Tom Delay

Bush is the amazing hypocrite who promised to be a uniter then set out to act like the most divisive President in American history. And it was your scandal-mongering ilk that invented the politics of personal destruction in the 90s under Clinton. The sins began with you. Now your own tactics will come back to bite you in the ass


Really, the most devisive? Is that why well over half the country re-elected him? Again, you have no idea what my "ilk" is. You can just see the unjustified hate and intolerance oozing out of every post you make. Slinging words like you are God. Clinton lied in front of a grand jury......perjury is not divisive? I beg to differ.

really now? can you show me some proof of your allegations?
of course not! it wouldn't be Skapedroe if he could back up his claims.

Really...when he gets to, say, 100 stations, maybe we can talk about Hot Air America making it big...then again, Hot Air America is a great example of "Spot the Idiot," with Franken and all the others, who combine for a 100 IQ.
for a station as new as airamerica is its astounding everyone in the industry in its rapid rise to power-you should be scared

since Byrd retired from the KKK decades ago we might want to try some more recent members of racist organizations like the grand dragons of the CCC Trent lott and Tom Delay


really?How about Ted Kennedy attending AA meetings at the home of a convicted spouse abuser? Couldn't we say that he would be sexist?

since Byrd retired from the KKK decades ago we might want to try some more recent members of racist organizations like the grand dragons of the CCC Trent lott and Tom Delay
Hmmm...what is the CCC?

And, Robert KKK Byrd has yet to disown his comments, calling people "N_____rs" on National TV...

for a station as new as airamerica is its astounding everyone in the industry in its rapid rise to power-you should be scared


it's also astounding it's sponsors with its utter lack of paying its bills. your "ilk" already owns the network media.....and gee I am still not scared.

you have no idea what my "ilk" is. Where did I whine? You did a fine job of avoiding my points and then spreading hate, in typical liberal fashion. Look at your actions and attitude, then talk to me about who is ripping the heart out of America.
Who's "ilk" is John Kerry and Thereza Heinz? Seems to me their "ilk" benefits quite beautifully from current politics......are they not of YOUR "ilk"? Try debating facts, not emotion.
your talking about my hate while bashing your moral superiors at the same time--is it possible for anyone on the right to do ANYTHING at all without being a hypocrite?

really?How about Ted Kennedy attending AA meetings at the home of a convicted spouse abuser? Couldn't we say that he would be sexist?
That would require Chappaquiddick Ted to renounce his drinking ways...and to own up to Mary Jo Kopechne's death by drowning while he paced in front of the water...and to own up to the rapes in his Florida mansion...

your talking about my hate while bashing your moral superiors at the same time--is it possible for anyone on the right to do ANYTHING at all without being a hypocrite?


where did I bash my moral superiors? Do you live on another planet? Back up your assertions with fact.

Liberals would agree, since Bush went to Harvard School of Business.
and bankrupted every business he ever ran...

your talking about my hate while bashing your moral superiors at the same time--is it possible for anyone on the right to do ANYTHING at all without being a hypocrite?
Why does this remind me of a pot and a kettle???

I would disagree, and submit to you that it is the liberal left "ripping the heart out of America". Is it unifying to parade bumper stickers proclaiming "he's not MY president"? Is it unifying to call all of those who differ with your views neocon fascists? Is it unifying to throw out charges without proper back up?
Would you be so tolerant if Kerry had been elected and there was the same disrespect shown to him? What an amazing hypocrite

Fuck your version of unifying. I'm not going to kiss ass for the sake of "unifying." Only a fascist would insist on stifling dissent for the sake of unity-or a totalitarian communist.

the reality is the mainstream media in America today is cowed and intimidated and doesnt do any investigative journalism.Helen Thomas being ostracized for asking der furher real questions is a perfect example of this. Democracynow isnt intimidated by the powers that be and is like a voice of truth in a wilderness of rightwing lies from the corporate media. Its even more valuable today when so much of our media has been subverted

I think it's HILARIOUS that when Bill Clinton was in the White House, the Republicans called it the "liberal media" and now when George Bush is in the White House it's the Democrats calling it the "rightwing corporate media".

All media is biased. Right or left leaning is irrelevant. Democracynow is just as left leaning as Fox news is right leaning. The major "news" networks are all catering to America's ignorance-induced short attention span by running crap stories about {insert your favorite hyped perscription-drug-school-violence-celebrity-trial-of-the-month-scam-artist-irish-travellers}. Anyone can find a "news" site running a story about just about anything they love/hate with the spin on it they like to see. Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Jerry Springer - they all speak in hyperbole to gain attention and make money. Listening to these people for anything other than entertainment or to reinforce your own beliefs is like masterbating in the bathroom - it makes you feel good for a while, but its not exactly fulfillment.

really now? can you show me some proof of your allegations?
in time

Fuck your version of unifying. I'm not going to kiss ass for the sake of "unifying." Only a fascist would insist on stifling dissent for the sake of unity-or a totalitarian communist.


where the fuck did I say you couldn't say it? Lay off the name calling and get your facts straight.

That assertion is ridiculous, I asked if it was unifying, I never said not to voice your dissent. stop jumping to conclusions

where did I bash my moral superiors? Do you live on another planet? Back up your assertions with fact.
He DOES live on a different planet...one where mysteriously, the media has a conservative bias, Dan Rather is a victim, and Err America is dominating the talk radio market.

in time
Translation: "don't hold your breath waiting."

where the fuck did I say you coulsn't say it? Lay off the name calling and get your facts straight.
Name-calling is all the Lefties have...

That would require Chappaquiddick Ted to renounce his drinking ways...and to own up to Mary Jo Kopechne's death by drowning while he paced in front of the water...and to own up to the rapes in his Florida mansion...
He can't very well own up to rapes he didn't commit. And how about Mr Family Values Newt Gingrich? He's on number 3 or 4 for wives. And thinks nothing of presenting a divorce petition to a woman still hospitalized after cancer surgery. Take your own advice and don't throw stones, inhabiter of a glass house.

Really, the most devisive? Is that why well over half the country re-elected him? Again, you have no idea what my "ilk" is. You can just see the unjustified hate and intolerance oozing out of every post you make. Slinging words like you are God. Clinton lied in front of a grand jury......perjury is not divisive? I beg to differ.
if Bush can win elections so easily then why does he have to cheat so hard disenfranchising votes with computer hacking and using every dirty trick in the book to suppress voter turnout since the more people who vote the more votes Bush loses...Clinton lied about things people are supposed to lie about. Bush lies about things that causes the deaths of tens of thousands, the only reason Bush refuses to go under oath is cause he doesnt want to commit purgury

All the Kool-Aid from Al Franken is making you delusional...open your eyes and you will see who is really destroying America.


Oooh really? Enlighten me, oh conservative guru! Explain to me how Lib'rals are destryong your country with our compassion, and our unwillingness to simply leave other human beings behind to die in poverty because they "aren't getting a handout from me". Explain to me how liberalism is ruining your life on a personal level. Tell me how Democrats are putting upon you. Your side has had the government by the short and curlies for more than 4 years now. Tell me how they've made your life better.

We STILL haven't found Osama, our government now is making ugly learing motions at Syria and Iran. And, worst of all, there are a huge number of shrub groupies who don't care what the rest of the world thinks at all because, "A'merka kicks ass!!".

Even Allen Greenspan is being called dirty names now for speaking out against the gigantic, and thoroughly unacceptable budget problems.

Will none of you be happy until all americans are crew-cut wearing gun nuts, with mirror shades so dark that it blinds you to the fact that the rich fat cats that the shrub REALLY works for are the only ones that truly benefit from the asinine policies they've convinced you to support?

Bush is the amazing hypocrite who promised to be a uniter then set out to act like the most divisive President in American history. And it was your scandal-mongering ilk that invented the politics of personal destruction in the 90s under Clinton. The sins began with you. Now your own tactics will come back to bite you in the ass

The politics of personal destruction have been going on a damn sight longer than the last 15 years. Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, etc... all experienced these types of attacks. It's not exactly the invention of Republicans. You should read what the Founders were saying about each other oh so long ago. Read your own posts and tell me theres no personal destruction going on. (re: "hired by his male lover Karl Rove")

really?How about Ted Kennedy attending AA meetings at the home of a convicted spouse abuser? Couldn't we say that he would be sexist?
not if he didnt know about it and Kennedy should be congratulated for trying treating his addiction

if Bush can win elections so easily then why does he have to cheat so hard disenfranchising votes with computer hacking and using every dirty trick in the book to suppress voter turnout since the more people who vote the more votes Bush loses...Clinton lied about things people are supposed to lie about. Bush lies about things that causes the deaths of tens of thousands, the only reason Bush refuses to go under oath is cause he doesnt want to commit purgury


and again I say, prove it. If dems can win elections so easily why do they register convicted felons, illegal immigrants, and dead people to vote?

Hmmm...what is the CCC?

And, Robert KKK Byrd has yet to disown his comments, calling people "N_____rs" on National TV...
Byrd was using that word in a non racist multicultural fashion--its not like he was praising segregation like Trent Lott and strom Thurmond did

Oooh really? Enlighten me, oh conservative guru! Explain to me how Lib'rals are destryong your country with our compassion, and our unwillingness to simply leave other human beings behind to die in poverty



Will none of you be happy until all americans are crew-cut wearing gun nuts, with mirror shades so dark that it blinds you to the fact that the rich fat cats that the shrub REALLY works for are the only ones that truly benefit from the asinine policies they've convinced you to support?


how compassionate!!!

it's also astounding it's sponsors with its utter lack of paying its bills. your "ilk" already owns the network media.....and gee I am still not scared.
wrong again--the voices of the enlightened are censored on the rightwing pro war corporate media--AirAmerica is a new phenomenon and a vast success--its ancient and early financial issues have long since been resolved

Byrd was using that word in a non racist multicultural fashion--its not like he was praising segregation like Trent Lott and strom Thurmond did
WHAT?!?! Now you are a pyschologist?! Where are your facts, your facts, your facts.

and one more thing, if Ted Kennedy should be praised for treating his addiction, then so should Bush for treating his. Can you at least say that?

That would require Chappaquiddick Ted to renounce his drinking ways...and to own up to Mary Jo Kopechne's death by drowning while he paced in front of the water...and to own up to the rapes in his Florida mansion...
he'll own up to those when Bush owns up to ordering the hit on that Texas woman who was suing him for sexual harassment and on that investigative journalist who had documentation on Bushs blowjobs in the skulls

how compassionate!!!


What's your point? Do you require some compassion? If so I'd check Democrat on your ballot next time.

wrong again--the voices of the enlightened are censored on the rightwing pro war corporate media--AirAmerica is a new phenomenon and a vast success--its ancient and early financial issues have long since been resolved


"long since" as of when, a month? Where are your stats as to how resounding a success they are? Ratings? Where?

What's your point? Do you require some compassion? If so I'd check Democrat on your ballot next time.



you speak of compassion and then refer to conservatives as crew cut gun nuts, I am neither crew cut, nor a gun nut. Perhaps if you'd like to not contradict yourself you should read your ballot before you blindly check democrat.

where the fuck did I say you couldn't say it? Lay off the name calling and get your facts straight.

That assertion is ridiculous, I asked if it was unifying, I never said not to voice your dissent. stop jumping to conclusions

Where did I say you said I couldn't say it. What names did I call you?

Fuck your version of unifying. I'm not going to kiss ass for the sake of "unifying." Only a fascist would insist on stifling dissent for the sake of unity-or a totalitarian communist.

I said a fascist would say that. Only if you're stifling dissent did I call you a fascist. Only if you're a fascist did I claim you stifle dissent. Unless you're admitting to one of those, the other doesn't apply.

he'll own up to those when Bush owns up to ordering the hit on that Texas woman who was suing him for sexual harassment and on that investigative journalist who had documentation on Bushs blowjobs in the skulls


facts? nope, none here because Moore investigated this years ago for his mockumentary and found NOTHING. Conjecture, anyone?

Name-calling is all the Lefties have...
and lies is all the rightys have

Ann Coulter is a mean, inconsiderate human being. I'm a South Park Republican, but I find that Miss Coulter's rhetoric is bombastic and rude. However, I also think that this Arab Discrimation League has bigger fish to fry than Ann Coulter. For instance, shouldn't it work actively to curtail the extremism found in some forms of Islam around the world? Shouldn't this group actively work to defeat terrorism which gives all Muslims a bad name? I say that Ann Coulter may be mean, but y'know who cares. There are plenty of mean people in this world, so what? They don't convince anyone except the people who are already faithful to the cause. Only people with a humble attitude will be able to lead people to their cause. Passion is great, but Ann, don't be rude. Just convince people with the logic of your arguments, no need to shout down or drag arguments through the mud.

He can't very well own up to rapes he didn't commit. And how about Mr Family Values Newt Gingrich? He's on number 3 or 4 for wives. And thinks nothing of presenting a divorce petition to a woman still hospitalized after cancer surgery. Take your own advice and don't throw stones, inhabiter of a glass house.
and Alan Keyes throwing his own lesbian daughter out of the house and refusing to pay for her education

its hate because shes a pathological liar like everyone else on the right--at least when the left hates they do it ethically
Ethical hate . . . . hmm.

Where did I say you said I couldn't say it. What names did I call you?

Fuck your version of unifying. I'm not going to kiss ass for the sake of "unifying." Only a fascist would insist on stifling dissent for the sake of unity-or a totalitarian communist.

I said a fascist would say that. Only if you're stifling dissent did I call you a fascist. Only if you're a fascist did I claim you stifle dissent. Unless you're admitting to one of those, the other doesn't apply.


nice spin. you inferred that I was a fascist. But lovely attempt at looking innocent.

and Alan Keyes throwing his own lesbian daughter out of the house and refusing to pay for her education


proof?

how about Kerry making campaign promises to support gay marriage and then in the debates saying how devout a catholic he was and could never support same sex marriage?

at least bush said from the get go he didn't support it

The politics of personal destruction have been going on a damn sight longer than the last 15 years. Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, etc... all experienced these types of attacks. It's not exactly the invention of Republicans. You should read what the Founders were saying about each other oh so long ago. Read your own posts and tell me theres no personal destruction going on. (re: "hired by his male lover Karl Rove")
but leftys personal attacks are based on the aweful truth--rightys are odious liars and prissy gossip-mongers like Karl Rove

Why not focus on issues instead of personalities? Why can't there ever be a debate over ideas on these forums? All that ever happens is people argue about conservative or liberal personalities. It's either "Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man" or "Ann Coulter is a b_____" Can't you folks actually think about the issues and ideas which are more instrumental than a bunch of celebrity pundits?

and again I say, prove it. If dems can win elections so easily why do they register convicted felons, illegal immigrants, and dead people to vote?
and repubs can only win when the fewest amount of people possible vote

Why not focus on issues instead of personalities? Why can't there ever be a debate over ideas on these forums? All that ever happens is people argue about conservative or liberal personalities. It's either "Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man" or "Ann Coulter is a b_____" Can't you folks actually think about the issues and ideas which are more instrumental than a bunch of celebrity pundits?


the faces make up the parties. Since this is a thread about ann coulter, it's natural to segue into pundits.

if you have a thread debating issue, I would gladly debate.

WHAT?!?! Now you are a pyschologist?! Where are your facts, your facts, your facts.

and one more thing, if Ted Kennedy should be praised for treating his addiction, then so should Bush for treating his. Can you at least say that?
Ill supply my facts after you supply yours

and repubs can only win when the fewest amount of people possible vote


I don't even know where that comes from. Since you brought up disenfranchisement, what about all the military votes thrown out in 2004 and 2000? people serving our country don't get a voice, but convicted felons do?

you speak of compassion and then refer to conservatives as crew cut gun nuts, I am neither crew cut, nor a gun nut. Perhaps if you'd like to not contradict yourself you should read your ballot before you blindly check democrat.

If there were conservative politicians out there who didn't make me feel like I just ate a warm cup of maynoaise every time they opened their mouth I'd consider it, truly.

I really do understand, and sympathize with the "log cabin republican" point of view. But the party has been hijacked by neo-conservative whackos who don't give two shits about the American people. They wrap themselves in christianity and the american flag for the believers and then give passes to murderous corporations when they think you're not looking, and that is only one among many of their misdeeds.

While the democratic party isn't a jewel of purity either, at least they make an EFFORT to address the needs of the ENTIRE population. And, in the end, the question remains...

"What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?"
--Elvis Costello

"long since" as of when, a month? Where are your stats as to how resounding a success they are? Ratings? Where?
theyre adding new markets by the day now--how can they be expanding so rapidly if theyre doing so bad?

Ill supply my facts after you supply yours



show me what you'd like me to back up, and I'll be glad to. Unlike your posts, my facts have been plastered all over the news.

Just a little something to think about.....you started this thread, you should be prepared to debate with fact, not conjecture. So this pathetic little embargo isn't going to fly.

theyre adding new markets by the day now--how can they be expanding so rapidly if theyre doing so bad?


what markets? where? where are the ratings, what are the ratings? are the sponsors making money?

facts? nope, none here because Moore investigated this years ago for his mockumentary and found NOTHING. Conjecture, anyone?
I dont see any facts here--please disregard her mindless partisan rant

Think on this though... aren't we just feeding the problem of bombastic rhetoric that causes more problems by having a huge "debate" about it? I mean, I've read Ann Coulter, Michael Moore and Al Franken but I find them to be offensive only for the sake of being offensive. They don't have any real point and to be honest they are nihilistic to the core. They don't believe in anything other than their own self-worth. There are plenty of great writers who shy away from this utter nihilism which permeates the current liberal/conservative debate. I think of liberals such as Garrison Keiler, Christopher Higgins and the folks from the New Republic. I also think of conservatives such as George Will, Dinesh D'Souza and the folks from National Review. If you want the real deal, try them instead of these nihilists.

While the democratic party isn't a jewel of purity either, at least they make an EFFORT to address the needs of the ENTIRE population. And, in the end, the question remains...




except for people who are successful, or god forbid, crew cut gun nuts. Or people with differing views.

proof?

how about Kerry making campaign promises to support gay marriage and then in the debates saying how devout a catholic he was and could never support same sex marriage?

at least bush said from the get go he didn't support it
the proof is the words of Keyes own daughter

I dont see any facts here--please disregard her mindless partisan rant


um, yes the fact is Moore investigated the charges for his movie, and found nothing. Articles to that effect can be found on his website....what's not factual there?

and yes, I am partisan. To not be would have me siding with you....and that is just scary.

Oooh really? Enlighten me, oh conservative guru! Explain to me how Lib'rals are destryong your country with our compassion, and our unwillingness to simply leave other human beings behind to die in poverty because they "aren't getting a handout from me". Explain to me how liberalism is ruining your life on a personal level. Tell me how Democrats are putting upon you. Your side has had the government by the short and curlies for more than 4 years now. Tell me how they've made your life better.The liberal "compassion" has created a culture of dependence upon government. Thanks to liberal "compassion", we have society that considers a baby an inconvenience that can be discarded at any time...that has for years rewarded laziness and parasitic behavior...that rewards criminals, while punishing the productive class. A society where anything goes, because moral behavior is relative. That's the product of liberal "compassion."

We STILL haven't found Osama, our government now is making ugly learing motions at Syria and Iran. And, worst of all, there are a huge number of shrub groupies who don't care what the rest of the world thinks at all because, "A'merka kicks ass!!".And you know what? Lybia gave up its nuclear arsenal...Syria is ending its illegal occupation of Lebanon...Egypt is finally holding true multi-party elections...the "Palestinians" are finally coming to terms with Israel...the Saudis are finally holding elections...I think the "ugly learing (sic) motions" are working. Let's not forget, a free Iraq held its first truly democratic election, and a free Afghanistan finally held an election. Yeah, it's working, and it drives you crazy.

Even Allen Greenspan is being called dirty names now for speaking out against the gigantic, and thoroughly unacceptable budget problems.Funny, the only dirty names Mr Greenspan is getting thrown his way, come from the Left, and all because he (wisely) advocates fixing the Social Security disaster-in-waiting NOW. For that, he gets called a "partisan hack" by Sen Harry "Next Daschle" Reid, and CON-gresswoman Nancy "Extreme Left" Pelosi.

the proof is the words of Keyes own daughter


which can be found......where?

I don't even know where that comes from. Since you brought up disenfranchisement, what about all the military votes thrown out in 2004 and 2000? people serving our country don't get a voice, but convicted felons do?
alot of those military ballots were tainted and appeared way after deadline and felons who finished serving their sentences shouldnt have a lifetime ban on voting--thats just racist disenfranchisement by republicans against minority voters who mostly vote democrat

and repubs can only win when the fewest amount of people possible vote
Really?
More people voted in the last election than in any other in the history of our country. And the largest percentage of the electorate since 1968.

Voting Stats (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=414313)

wrong again--the voices of the enlightened are censored on the rightwing pro war corporate media--AirAmerica is a new phenomenon and a vast success--its ancient and early financial issues have long since been resolved
if by "vast success" you mean it loses money left and right, and has no sponsors, then yes, Hot Air America is a success.

show me what you'd like me to back up, and I'll be glad to. Unlike your posts, my facts have been plastered all over the news.

Just a little something to think about.....you started this thread, you should be prepared to debate with fact, not conjecture. So this pathetic little embargo isn't going to fly.
granted your propaganda-facts have been plastered all over the hate media but I want non partisan facts

alot of those military ballots were tainted and appeared way after deadline and felons who finished serving their sentences shouldnt have a lifetime ban on voting--thats just racist disenfranchisement by republicans against minority voters who mostly vote democrat


so you are telling me that all convicted felons are minorities? Sounds pretty racist to me

Ethical hate . . . . hmm.
I thought I was the only one who caught the complete idiocy of Skapedroe's statement. Good to see I am not alone.

what markets? where? where are the ratings, what are the ratings? are the sponsors making money?
ill look it up on Tuesday

granted your propaganda-facts have been plastered all over the hate media but I want non partisan facts


and as I said before show me what you'd like me to prove and I will prove it. I will ask the same of you, not quoting your uber partisan democracy now, the george soros cog. I like how I can give you proof and you still won't accept it, and still provide none of your own, that is fascinating.

Ill supply my facts after you supply yours
Translation: "I have no facts, but I will gladly murder the truth of anything you say, in order to make some dumb so-called point."

ill look it up on Tuesday


I'm sure you will.

which can be found......where?
in the democracynow archives

nice spin. you inferred that I was a fascist. But lovely attempt at looking innocent.

You're funny. But you can certainly read whatever you wish into it. :p

theyre adding new markets by the day now--how can they be expanding so rapidly if theyre doing so bad?
Really, what city did Hot Air America add today? Last week? In the last month?

Really?
More people voted in the last election than in any other in the history of our country. And the largest percentage of the electorate since 1968.

Voting Stats (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=414313)
but those stats dont factor in the disenfranchised voters who werent allowed to vote for Kerry

in the democracynow archives


to quote you....I want nonpartisan proof.

if by "vast success" you mean it loses money left and right, and has no sponsors, then yes, Hot Air America is a success.
keep believing that while they continue to grow--I dont mind

alot of those military ballots were tainted and appeared way after deadline and felons who finished serving their sentences shouldnt have a lifetime ban on voting--thats just racist disenfranchisement by republicans against minority voters who mostly vote democrat
Felons DESERVE to be disenfranchised. So do you, by the way, but IQ and education tests have been ruled to be illegal.

Non-partisan facts? What a joke! Every outlet of the American media both left and right are pushing an agenda whether they claim to be or not. I can respect those who actually state their bias such as members of talk radio who say, "I am a conservative." Instead, we have everyone claiming to be unbiased, but they are far from it. The folks at CNN might claim to be non-partisan, but they did not get the nickname the Clinton News Network for nothing. Similarly, Fox News claims to be "fair and balanced." Sorry to Fox News, the only thing you guys have that is close to being fair and balanced is Brit Hume. The media should be honest and able to to come out of the political closet and tell the American public where its true loyalties lie.

but those stats dont factor in the disenfranchised voters who werent allowed to vote for Kerry


where are their lawsuits? where are they? what about the disenfranchised people who were swayed by the media in 2000 into not going to the polls based on bogus projections? what about them?

Non-partisan facts? What a joke! Every outlet of the American media both left and right are pushing an agenda whether they claim to be or not. I can respect those who actually state their bias such as members of talk radio who say, "I am a conservative." Instead, we have everyone claiming to be unbiased, but they are far from it. The folks at CNN might claim to be non-partisan, but they did not get the nickname the Clinton News Network for nothing. Similarly, Fox News claims to be "fair and balanced." Sorry to Fox News, the only thing you guys have that is close to being fair and balanced is Brit Hume. The media should be honest and able to to come out of the political closet and tell the American public where its true loyalties lie.



yes, mine was said in sarcasm

so you are telling me that all convicted felons are minorities? Sounds pretty racist to me
everyone knows that non whites are incacerated at much higher levels

ill look it up on Tuesday
Translation: "By Tuesday, I will move on to another democracynow diatribe without any facts to back me up."

You're funny. But you can certainly read whatever you wish into it. :p


I find nothing funny about your condescension. I will read anything I choose into it, with, or without your permission.

in the democracynow archives
Together with the chupacabra files, and right next to the Halliburton section, right?

and as I said before show me what you'd like me to prove and I will prove it. I will ask the same of you, not quoting your uber partisan democracy now, the george soros cog. I like how I can give you proof and you still won't accept it, and still provide none of your own, that is fascinating.
I just dont want hate facts thats all

everyone knows that non whites are incacerated at much higher levels


and why is that? have you read the UCR from the fbi? I'd bet not.

Really, what city did Hot Air America add today? Last week? In the last month?
I said Tuesday

The reason why blacks are incarcerated more than whites is because well, blacks commit more crimes per capita than any other race does. Is there a possibility of a bias within the judicial system? Certainly. Prejudice is a human trait. However, it must be stated that blacks commit a disproportionately high rate of crime.

I just dont want hate facts thats all


nor do I, so your democracynow "facts" won't cut the mustard. I don't want your hate anything. It's tiresome to be lambasted by people who haven't the foggiest clue what I believe, but assume that because I didn't vote for Kerry that I must be some insane redneck.

to quote you....I want nonpartisan proof.
alot of the non partisan media get their news from democracynow but if you want me to quote them as if they originally posted it insted of democracynow Ill do that

I said Tuesday



tuesday is in a half an hour, what's the wait?

alot of the non partisan media get their news from democracynow but if you want me to quote them as if they originally posted it insted of democracynow Ill do that


who are the nonpartisan media? If they are getting their info from democracynow, they are NOT nonpartisan.

Felons DESERVE to be disenfranchised. So do you, by the way, but IQ and education tests have been ruled to be illegal.
felons who served their time need their full rights restored

That was not a racist comment, but it was a statement of fact. The FBI, State and Local Police agencies across the United States all report the same thing... despite being a minority, blacks commit a lot of crime. I'm posting an article which helps to show the sobriety of this issue.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20021120.shtml

but those stats dont factor in the disenfranchised voters who werent allowed to vote for Kerry
It is not disenfranchisement when you are not allowed to vote because you did not follow the law. Like it or not, felony offenders in many states are not allowed to vote. That is the law. SCOTUS has not seen fit to declare such practices unconstitutional.

It is disenfranchisement when people who are dead somehow end up voting. Or tires of vans to be used to help get voters to the polls get their tires slashed (pending prosecution on that case).

Note that I provide sources for my allegations:

Dead can Vote (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/journaleditorialreport/110504/stealing3.html)

Tires (http://www.lancasteronline.com/pages/news/ap/4/tires_slashed)

militant, I am aware of the statistics, I wanted to point out to our mislead friend here, that incaceration is in proprotion to crimes committed.

tuesday is in a half an hour, what's the wait?
cause its already past my bedtime lady

felons who served their time need their full rights restored



this is not a debate about what you "think" on this matter. I disagree that they need to have those rigts restored, and furthermore, do you really think it would make a difference? Do people who commit heinous crimes really strike you as the same type of folks who would take the time to be civically responsible? Don't kid yourself

It is not disenfranchisement when you are not allowed to vote because you did not follow the law. Like it or not, felony offenders in many states are not allowed to vote. That is the law. SCOTUS has not seen fit to declare such practices unconstitutional.

It is disenfranchisement when people who are dead somehow end up voting. Or tires of vans to be used to help get voters to the polls get their tires slashed (pending prosecution on that case).

Note that I provide sources for my allegations:

Dead can Vote (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/journaleditorialreport/110504/stealing3.html)

Tires (http://www.lancasteronline.com/pages/news/ap/4/tires_slashed)
but it IS disenfranchisement when computer software is developed to hack the vote for Bush without any paper trail

I know. I wanted to contradict his argument as well with fact not ad hominem attacks which only feed into the feeding frenzy of ad hom attacks which engulf these boards

but it IS disenfranchisement when computer software is developed to hack the vote for Bush without any paper trail


and you without proof

I thought I was the only one who caught the complete idiocy of Skapedroe's statement. Good to see I am not alone.
Company is appreciated. :cool:

this is not a debate about what you "think" on this matter. I disagree that they need to have those rigts restored, and furthermore, do you really think it would make a difference? Do people who commit heinous crimes really strike you as the same type of folks who would take the time to be civically responsible? Don't kid yourself
not every felony is for a heinous crime and people who served their time shouldnt continue to be punished

Im goin to bed now

Anne Coulter is HOT! I would SO do her . . . just as long as I can stick a gag in her mouth. :cool:

I find nothing funny about your condescension. I will read anything I choose into it, with, or without your permission.
That's alright, honey, you already have my permission. :fluffle:

Look, Bush won the vote in Ohio fair and square and by 130,000 votes. It was a tight race, but Bush won. Would it be worth stating that all the results were certified by the Ohio State Attorney General? I hate to break it to you, but conspiracies are not going to win elections for Democrats. The only way that Democrats will ever be able to regain power is to put a solid message that refrains from the conspiracy-ladden message that it currently dishes out to a public that simply doesn't want to hear about leftist conspiracy theories.

but it IS disenfranchisement when computer software is developed to hack the vote for Bush without any paper trail
Oh good God! Get out the tin foil hats, folks! Karl Rove, from his secret bunker in the White House, secretly hacked into Ohio's voting machines and changed just enough votes to get a win for Bush. I actually followed the ridiculous conspiracy theories for a while, mainly championed by Kieth Olbermann on MSNBC. Even he doesn't believe that nutty theory. If you had any crediblity left (which you don't), you just completely lost it on that one.

Anne Coulter is HOT! I would SO do her . . . just as long as I can stick a gag in her mouth. :cool:
If I weren't married, so would I! But I would bask in her rhetorical brilliance!

Ann Coulter's brilliant in that she can get people angry at her. That's it. Look for conservative brilliance elsewhere such as http://www.nationalreview.com. Ann's just a mean woman and that's it. Her rhetoric is designed to inflame people and make them angry which A. Doesn't convince anyone and B. Alienates people from her viewpoint. If she was more humble yet just as passionate, she would gain a modicrum of respect from me and many others who are turned off by her feverish, angry rhetoric.

That was not a racist comment, but it was a statement of fact. The FBI, State and Local Police agencies across the United States all report the same thing... despite being a minority, blacks commit a lot of crime. I'm posting an article which helps to show the sobriety of this issue.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20021120.shtml

Maybe the overrepresentation of blacks in prison has less to do with racism in the justice system than racism in the criminal code. For example, when William Randolph Hearst started campaigning to criminalize marijuana, he outright said that it was the drug of choice for mexicans and blacks. Perhaps elements of the criminal code target (purposefully or not) lifestyle elements of minority American cultures.

Regardless of whether that postulation is true, you tread some shark-infested water if you say that blacks are overrepresented in prisons because of the decisions individual blacks face. After all, it would be an astonishing coincidence if all those black people just chose to commit crimes, as the columnist you quoted seemed to be saying. If you reject the notion of a nation-wide, century-long coincidence, you have to infer that something may be compelling these black people to chose the route they took. I personally don't want to blame it genetics, because I'm pretty sure that as a society we've rejected eugenics. It seems likely to me that cultural factors compel blacks to choose to commit crimes at a greater rate than whites. What do you blame it on?

Rather or not there was anything fishy in the returns we'll never know. But disallowing a paper trail certainly doesn't help people have faith in the elective process.

Rather or not there was anything fishy in the returns we'll never know. But disallowing a paper trail certainly doesn't help people have faith in the elective process.
Interesting that you started your sentence with "Rather". Freudian slip, perhaps?

Rather or not there was anything fishy in the returns we'll never know. But disallowing a paper trail certainly doesn't help people have faith in the elective process.
I do agree with you on that, being a computer programmer myself. There should be a computer and a paper tally.

What do you blame it on?
The moral failings of individuals.

I think one of the factors that causes it the most is illegitimacy and the lack of a father figure within many of these homes. Many children grow up, especially in the city of Baltimore where I'm from, without any father to provide guidance and counsel in life. It's hard to say this, but a strong family is one of the greatest antidotes for all sorts of anti-social behavior. This is not to say that families are the perfect solution by any stretch. However, they represent the one institution that is designed to raise children in a right and proper manner. Another serious problem is the fact that many middle class and wealthy whites flock into the inner city to buy drugs which propigates a burgeoning criminal class. In the movie Traffic, there is a sobering line that basically says that if whites could sell drugs and make $200/hour then whites would have no motivation to do anything else besides selling drugs. I think that whites have done great evil to blacks in the past and continue to do so in the present with their habits of buying drugs. Much of crime in the inner city in the past 40 years has been related to both the drug trade as well as the breakdown of the family. Only when whites stop buying drugs and the family is restored in the inner city will there be a reversal of these horrific crime statistics.

Maybe the overrepresentation of blacks in prison has less to do with racism in the justice system than racism in the criminal code. For example, when William Randolph Hearst started campaigning to criminalize marijuana, he outright said that it was the drug of choice for mexicans and blacks. Perhaps elements of the criminal code target (purposefully or not) lifestyle elements of minority American cultures.

Regardless of whether that postulation is true, you tread some shark-infested water if you say that blacks are overrepresented in prisons because of the decisions individual blacks face. After all, it would be an astonishing coincidence if all those black people just chose to commit crimes, as the columnist you quoted seemed to be saying. If you reject the notion of a nation-wide, century-long coincidence, you have to infer that something may be compelling these black people to chose the route they took. I personally don't want to blame it genetics, because I'm pretty sure that as a society we've rejected eugenics. It seems likely to me that cultural factors compel blacks to choose to commit crimes at a greater rate than whites. What do you blame it on?
I don't know much about criminal matters, but isn't it possible that there are a disproportionate number of minorities and particularly black people in prison because they commit a disproportionate number of crimes? I've been to poor black neighborhoods and poor white neighborhoods, and the poor black neighborhoods always seem to be more dangerous and have more crime.

Rather or not there was anything fishy in the returns we'll never know. But disallowing a paper trail certainly doesn't help people have faith in the elective process.
That's what I'm talkin 'bout! I'm not sayin that anyone cheated, but would certainly be easy to do and get away with. Thus, there is a good likelihood of it happening, whether the actual candidate had anything to do with it.

I also find it fishy that the exit polls were always within 1% point of the actual return, except for the places that are contested. In those places (where more votes were counted then there were voters), the exit polls and the results varied pretty wildly. That doesn't make me very confident in our current system.

I don't know much about criminal matters, but isn't it possible that there are a disproportionate number of minorities and particularly black people in prison because they commit a disproportionate number of crimes? I've been to poor black neighborhoods and poor white neighborhoods, and the poor black neighborhoods always seem to be more dangerous and have more crime.

Did you read what I wrote?

Interesting that you started your sentence with "Rather". Freudian slip, perhaps?
Funny. :p

Funny. :p
*Bow* :D

Did you read what I wrote?
Sure did. I even quoted it. What's your point?

I think one of the factors that causes it the most is illegitimacy and the lack of a father figure within many of these homes. Many children grow up, especially in the city of Baltimore where I'm from, without any father to provide guidance and counsel in life. It's hard to say this, but a strong family is one of the greatest antidotes for all sorts of anti-social behavior. This is not to say that families are the perfect solution by any stretch. However, they represent the one institution that is designed to raise children in a right and proper manner. Another serious problem is the fact that many middle class and wealthy whites flock into the inner city to buy drugs which propigates a burgeoning criminal class. In the movie Traffic, there is a sobering line that basically says that if whites could sell drugs and make $200/hour then whites would have no motivation to do anything else besides selling drugs. I think that whites have done great evil to blacks in the past and continue to do so in the present with their habits of buying drugs. Much of crime in the inner city in the past 40 years has been related to both the drug trade as well as the breakdown of the family. Only when whites stop buying drugs and the family is restored in the inner city will there be a reversal of these horrific crime statistics.

Why do you think that there is a greater rate of black one-parent families than white one-parent families? How would you promote two-parent families in the black community? I have noticed a trend towards the glorification of fatherhood in popular hip-hop community. Do you think that is a step in the right direction? I tend to agree with the 'missing father' hypothesis, except for the fact that I personally contradict it. I was raised without a strong figure, and my worse vice is staying up till 2 in the morning on the internet. It just seems to me that people are culturally compelled to make the choices they make (a 'structural' argument), so that instead of throwing an individual in prison for making the decision he or she made, we should focus on the cultural forces behind the individual's decision. Of course I'm not arguing in favor of scrapping the penal system, I just think we should make most non-violent crimes a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

Why do you think that there is a greater rate of black one-parent families than white one-parent families? How would you promote two-parent families in the black community? I have noticed a trend towards the glorification of fatherhood in popular hip-hop community. Do you think that is a step in the right direction? I tend to agree with the 'missing father' hypothesis, except for the fact that I personally contradict it. I was raised without a strong figure, and my worse vice is staying up till 2 in the morning on the internet. It just seems to me that people are culturally compelled to make the choices they make (a 'structural' argument), so that instead of throwing an individual in prison for making the decision he or she made, we should focus on the cultural forces behind the individual's decision. Of course I'm not arguing in favor of scrapping the penal system, I just think we should make most non-violent crimes a misdemeanor instead of a felony.
You can't change the law to fit with someone's culture. A standard of justice is just that, a standard. It's not something that's shifted around because someone didn't have a father.

How about this. Blacks are 12% of the population. They commit 13% of drug crimes. They are 50% of those convicted and 80% of those drawing prison sentences for those crimes.

Sure did. I even quoted it. What's your point?

I'm sorry, I hadn't realized that you actually read what I wrote. In that case, here is my point:

Maybe the fact that blacks commit crimes at a greater rate has to do with racism in the criminal code. For example, when William Randolph Hearst started campaigning to criminalize marijuana, he outright said that it was the drug of choice for mexicans and blacks. Perhaps elements of the criminal code target (purposefully or not) lifestyle elements of minority American cultures.

Regardless of whether that postulation is true, you tread some shark-infested water if you say that blacks are overrepresented in prisons because of they commit a disporportionate amount of crimes. After all, it would be an astonishing coincidence if all those black people just chose to commit crimes at greater rate than white people. If you reject the notion of a nation-wide, century-long coincidence, you have to infer that something may be compelling these black people to chose the route they took. I personally don't want to blame it genetics, because I'm pretty sure that as a society we've rejected eugenics. It seems likely to me that cultural factors compel blacks to choose to commit crimes at a greater rate than whites. What do you blame it on?

You are saying that it's just a coincidence that blacks commit crimes at a greater rate than whites, aren't you?

How about this. Blacks are 12% of the population. They commit 13% of drug crimes. They are 50% of those convicted and 80% of those drawing prison sentences for those crimes.
Source?

[T]ires of vans to be used to help get voters to the polls get their tires slashed (pending prosecution on that case)...


That has got to be the most lame excuse for an excuse ever trotted out by you guys. What's the matter with you, getting tired of backpedaling? Slashing tires?? What's next? An underhanded liberal plot to TP GOP state HQ buildings?

Grow up!

You can't change the law to fit with someone's culture. A standard of justice is just that, a standard. It's not something that's shifted around because someone didn't have a father.

I'm not saying we change the law to fit someone's culture. I'm saying we change the law if we agree that those laws are discriminatory. But you know, I'm not even interested in that anymore. If what bitchkitten is saying is true, and I think it may be, than we do have a fundamental problem of a racist judiciary that we need to take care of first.

I think that problem may have to do with a comment good ol' Vynnland made:
I've been to poor black neighborhoods and poor white neighborhoods, and the poor black neighborhoods always seem to be more dangerous and have more crime.
If you'd be so kind as to answer my queries, good Vynnland: What was it about those black neighborhoods that made them seem so dangerous? Did you see a crime committed? Had you heard about crimes committed there? Just curious, which black neighborhood did you mean specifically? And which white neighborhood?

Thanks everyone for the thoughtful answers. This type of discussion is a rare gift.

Police officers have a lot of discretion on how they make drugs busts. 90% of the busts made in the United States are for small street amounts of whatever drug they catch. For the most part, it has been the people that have no where to use drugs, that are most vulnerable to arrest. Homeless people are charged often with drug possession, and don’t have the means to pay bail. Police also target the people that will lead to the easiest convictions, which is much easier with the poor.

People who have shelter and security, stand a much greater chance of not being caught. When one looks at the social dynamic of the United States and largely Canada, they see who generally has the most money disproportionately are white people. People who have money go to Drug Treatment, while those who don’t go to prison.

People with wealth have the money to hire lawyers, go to treatment programs, and pay bail. People without wealth do not have this opportunity. It has become blaringly obvious that the majority of those going to jail on drug related charges in the United States are people of colour.

While 74% of illegal drugs consumed in the United States are by white populations, the statistics reflect the opposite in terms of incarceration percentages. Only 20% of the people in jail on drug charges are white, while 57% are black. Yet at high quality treatment centres 58.3 percent of users are white, and 23.9% are of African origin.

1 in 4 American black men between the age of 20-29 is in prison. The incarceration rate is skyrocketing so high that if it were to keep up its present rate, by 2017 America will have gone all the way back to the Slavery of 1863. In 1863 there were two million black men, and two million black women in American slavery. At the rate of imprisonment that is happening now in the United States, there will be 1,999,916 black Americans in prison.

The length of sentence for white drug offenders now averages 58 months, while it is 107 months for the black American. America has the highest rate of imprisonment in the entire world. 700/100,000 people are behind bars in the USA while Russia is the other big one at 665. Of that same ratio, 4,848/100,000 people behind bars in America are black men while it is only 705/100,000 white men.

Police officers have a lot of discretion on how they make drugs busts. 90% of the busts made in the United States are for small street amounts of whatever drug they catch. For the most part, it has been the people that have no where to use drugs, that are most vulnerable to arrest. Homeless people are charged often with drug possession, and don’t have the means to pay bail. Police also target the people that will lead to the easiest convictions, which is much easier with the poor.

People who have shelter and security, stand a much greater chance of not being caught. When one looks at the social dynamic of the United States and largely Canada, they see who generally has the most money disproportionately are white people. People who have money go to Drug Treatment, while those who don’t go to prison.

People with wealth have the money to hire lawyers, go to treatment programs, and pay bail. People without wealth do not have this opportunity. It has become blaringly obvious that the majority of those going to jail on drug related charges in the United States are people of colour.

While 74% of illegal drugs consumed in the United States are by white populations, the statistics reflect the opposite in terms of incarceration percentages. Only 20% of the people in jail on drug charges are white, while 57% are black. Yet at high quality treatment centres 58.3 percent of users are white, and 23.9% are of African origin.

1 in 4 American black men between the age of 20-29 is in prison. The incarceration rate is skyrocketing so high that if it were to keep up its present rate, by 2017 America will have gone all the way back to the Slavery of 1863. In 1863 there were two million black men, and two million black women in American slavery. At the rate of imprisonment that is happening now in the United States, there will be 1,999,916 black Americans in prison.

The length of sentence for white drug offenders now averages 58 months, while it is 107 months for the black American. America has the highest rate of imprisonment in the entire world. 700/100,000 people are behind bars in the USA while Russia is the other big one at 665. Of that same ratio, 4,848/100,000 people behind bars in America are black men while it is only 705/100,000 white men.
Source? And if 4,848/100,000 people in jail are black men, and 705/100,000 are white, what's the breakdown of the remaining 94,500ish? 93,000/100,000 are black women?

I'm sorry, I hadn't realized that you actually read what I wrote. In that case, here is my point:

Maybe the fact that blacks commit crimes at a greater rate has to do with racism in the criminal code. For example, when William Randolph Hearst started campaigning to criminalize marijuana, he outright said that it was the drug of choice for mexicans and blacks. Perhaps elements of the criminal code target (purposefully or not) lifestyle elements of minority American cultures.

Regardless of whether that postulation is true, you tread some shark-infested water if you say that blacks are overrepresented in prisons because of they commit a disporportionate amount of crimes. After all, it would be an astonishing coincidence if all those black people just chose to commit crimes at greater rate than white people. If you reject the notion of a nation-wide, century-long coincidence, you have to infer that something may be compelling these black people to chose the route they took. I personally don't want to blame it genetics, because I'm pretty sure that as a society we've rejected eugenics. It seems likely to me that cultural factors compel blacks to choose to commit crimes at a greater rate than whites. What do you blame it on?

You are saying that it's just a coincidence that blacks commit crimes at a greater rate than whites, aren't you?
I'm familiar with what William Randolph Hearst did to help make cannabis illegal. I'm also aware of America's racist past. However, racism is practically a thing of the past. Today, one can only be a racist behind closed doors and with certain people. Otherwise, they tend to get ostracized by their communities. America is quickly overcoming it's racist history. It's not gone, but it's going away at a VERY fast clip.

What I am suggesting is that it is possible that black people do commit a greater proportion of crimes then other races. Black neighborhoods tend to be more violent and crime ridden then non-black neighborhoods. I don't know why that is, but I suspect most of it is self-inflicted. Why is rap, by far the most popular form of music in the black community, so violent and full of descriptions of crimes, which are being glorified? Why is dropping out of school glorified? Why are people who have been to prison held up as heroes while people who make it out of the ghetto by getting a good career ridiculed as "acting white"? Did you hear Bill Cosby's address on the 50th anniversary of the Brown vs the Board of Education? I have an audio copy of it that I have listened to many times, because it is simply such a passionate plee and so profound.

Here's a transcript, I'll see if I can find the audio version.
http://www.eightcitiesmap.com/transcript_bc.htm

OK, here's an MP3 of some excerpts.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/mp3clips/speeches/billcosby.mp3

Source? And if 4,848/100,000 people in jail are black men, and 705/100,000 are white, what's the breakdown of the remaining 94,500ish? 93,000/100,000 are black women?

Take another read and tell us if you get it.

That has got to be the most lame excuse for an excuse ever trotted out by you guys. What's the matter with you, getting tired of backpedaling? Slashing tires?? What's next? An underhanded liberal plot to TP GOP state HQ buildings?

Grow up!
*Sigh*
Alright, slow down there, pardner.
Questions:
1. Lame excuse for what?
2. Who is "you guys"?
3. Backpedalling from what?
4. Slashing tires - using a sharp object, usually a knife, to puncture the tire or tires of an automobile, van, or truck, for the express purpose of disabling such vehicle.
5. Did you actually check out the link I provided?
5. Would you like having your vehicle's tires slashed by some evil GOP'er for the sole reason of keeping you from the polls?
6. If such happened to you, would you dismiss the incident as easily as you are here?

Just curious.

For the record, I was simply countering Skapedroe's specious claims of Democrat voter disenfranchisement because of felony convictions with 2 examples of the opposite.

Next?

Take another read and tell us if you get it.
I did. Care to explain it?

Source?

This was from memory, so it might be slightly off. I gathered some info though.

TABLE 1: Comparison by Race of Drug Use
and Possession Arrest, 1991-1995
YEAR BLACK % of DRUG USERS[1] BLACK % of DRUG ARRESTS [2]
1991 17% 67%
1992 13.7% 63.5%
1993 13% 61.5%
1994 14% 58.3%
WHITE % of DRUG USERS [1] WHITE % of DRUG ARRESTS [2]
1991 72.4% 32.6%
1992 76.4% 0.36%
1993 74% 38.1%
1994 76.5% 41.3%



[1] National Household Survey, SAMSHA; [2] Georgia Crime Information Center

This was from memory, so it might be slightly off. I gathered some info though.

TABLE 1: Comparison by Race of Drug Use
and Possession Arrest, 1991-1995
YEAR BLACK % of DRUG USERS[1] BLACK % of DRUG ARRESTS [2]
1991 17% 67%
1992 13.7% 63.5%
1993 13% 61.5%
1994 14% 58.3%
WHITE % of DRUG USERS [1] WHITE % of DRUG ARRESTS [2]
1991 72.4% 32.6%
1992 76.4% 0.36%
1993 74% 38.1%
1994 76.5% 41.3%



[1] National Household Survey, SAMSHA; [2] Georgia Crime Information Center
Georgia Crime Information, sweety. You're doing the apple to oranges thing again, and it's very unbecoming of you. After all, why would there be a 99% drop in white drug arrests from 91 to 92?

If you'd be so kind as to answer my queries, good Vynnland: What was it about those black neighborhoods that made them seem so dangerous? Did you see a crime committed? Had you heard about crimes committed there? Just curious, which black neighborhood did you mean specifically? And which white neighborhood?

Thanks everyone for the thoughtful answers. This type of discussion is a rare gift.
A few "poor" black neighborhoods I've been to: South Central Los Angeles, Compton, Inglewood, Watts.

A few "poor" white neighboorhoods I've been to: Lawndale, Torrance, Riverside, Cookeville.

Difference: I've heard sirens from police cars and ambulance FAR more often in the black neighborhoods then in the white neighborhoods. In the black neighborhoods, I hear them AT LEAST once on every visit to the neighborhood. Have I witnessed crimes? Yes. Violent crimes? Thankfully, nothing beyond a few fights. I've known people from both types of neighborhoods and those from the poor black neighborhoods died violently FAR more often then those from the white neighborhoods.

Georgia Crime Information, sweety. You're doing the apple to oranges thing again, and it's very unbecoming of you. After all, why would there be a 99% drop in white drug arrests from 91 to 92?

As to that year, I wouldn't know. As to the rest, please clarify your problem with it.

As to that year, I wouldn't know. As to the rest, please clarify your problem with it.
You can't compare nation wide drug offenses to drug arrests in Georgia. That's just silly. And the fact one number is so grossly different puts your data in question.

While 74% of illegal drugs consumed in the United States are by white populations, the statistics reflect the opposite in terms of incarceration percentages. Only 20% of the people in jail on drug charges are white, while 57% are black. Yet at high quality treatment centres 58.3 percent of users are white, and 23.9% are of African origin.
Where are these stats from please? No offense, but these numbers smell a bit fishy to me.

Also, there's a huge gap in the white drug use and black drug arrest. Are the black people in prison from posession or selling? Are most of the dealers white or black? Without the info you provided alone, you can't make an accurate correlation.

Today, one can only be a racist behind closed doors and with certain people. Otherwise, they tend to get ostracized by their communities. America is quickly overcoming it's racist history. It's not gone, but it's going away at a VERY fast clip.

I don't mean to play the race card here, but I am curious. What race are you? If you are not a minority, how would you know if racism still exists in America? I agree with you one hundred percent that America is not as racist as it once was. Unfortunately, a huge divide remains between the races. Discrimination occurs in industries such as real estate that perpetuates that divide. The question is not 'does racial inequity exist?', the question is 'do we want to do something about it?' I don't see how anyone can morally justify answering the latter question negatively. I'd like to see someone try.

What I am suggesting is that it is possible that black people do commit a greater proportion of crimes then other races. Black neighborhoods tend to be more violent and crime ridden then non-black neighborhoods. I don't know why that is, but I suspect most of it is self-inflicted. Why is rap, by far the most popular form of music in the black community, so violent and full of descriptions of crimes, which are being glorified?

Once again, I agree with you. Black people do commit crime at a greater rate than whites. The reason I thought that you hadn't read my post is that I thought that I had made it clear that I agree with that fact. I was questioning the ideology that says that it is entirely each individual's decision to commit crime. That argument is what sociologists refer to as 'agency.' What people ignore when they pursue that ideology is the question 'why is it that blacks across the nation and for the past century have committed crimes at a greater rate than whites?' Your answer is that perhaps their culture glorifies violence. I'd have to agree with you there, but I'll take it a step further: I'd say American culture in general glorifies violence. I would say that the difference between the amount of whites who enjoy rap music and the amount of blacks who enjoy the same kind of music is insignificant, maybe 5 or 10%. And I would say that our culture similarly expects blacks to be criminals. And many times, they do not disappoint us.

I did. Care to explain it?

All right man, sorry if your face gets too red. She wasn't saying that "4,848/100,000 people in jail are black men, and 705/100,000 are white" she was saying that 4,848/100,000 black men are in jail and 705/100,000 white men are in jail.

Need another explanation? She was using a fraction to show the percentage of black men who are in jail. Then she used a fraction to show the percentage of white men who are in jail. Do you understand now? I could try to draw a picture.

You can't compare nation wide drug offenses to drug arrests in Georgia. That's just silly. And the fact one number is so grossly different puts your data in question.

Georgia is just one example, maybe it's different in the rest of the US, but I doubt it. The info was from Human Rights Watch, perhaps there was a typo.

Until March of 1996, drug offenders convicted of a second or subsequent sale of certain controlled substances faced a mandatory life sentence. However, through a procedural loophole, mandatory life sentences came under the discretion of the prosecutor. For a defendant to receive life, the prosecutor, before the trial, must state an intention to seek the enhanced punishment based on prior convictions. If the prosecutor filed the pretrial notice requesting a life sentence, the judge was mandated to impose it. Prosecutors chose not to seek a life sentence in most cases, calling it "hamfisted" and "stupid." In fact, over 85% of those who were eligible for life sentences were sentenced to lesser terms. Table 2 illustrates that of those given life sentences, almost all were African-American.

TABLE 2: Life Sentences for Drug Offenses YEAR BLACK WHITE TOTAL
- 1990 44 2 46
- 1991 59 2 61
- 1992 133 3 136
- 1993 121 1 122
- 1994 124 3 127
- 1995 79 2 81
- ALL 560 13 573

I'm not sure you'll like this since it's from the same site.
http://www.ndsn.org/SEPT96/HRW.html


The disparity does not mirror the racial distribution of those who were eligible for life imprisonment. 3% of whites who qualified were sentenced to life imprisonment compared to 15% of blacks who qualified for and received life sentences. That is, blacks were five times more likely to receive a life sentence. When looking at adults between the ages of 18 and 21, fifty were sentenced to life terms and all fifty were black. These fifty convictions did not include any serious non-drug crimes. Drug crimes alone sufficed for the Georgia criminal justice system to have young adults condemned to life imprisonment.

I don't mean to play the race card here, but I am curious. What race are you? If you are not a minority, how would you know if racism still exists in America? I agree with you one hundred percent that America is not as racist as it once was. Unfortunately, a huge divide remains between the races. Discrimination occurs in industries such as real estate that perpetuates that divide. The question is not 'does racial inequity exist?', the question is 'do we want to do something about it?' I don't see how anyone can morally justify answering the latter question negatively. I'd like to see someone try.

Where did I say "racism doesn't exist anymore"? I said it is on a sharp decline and is not something done publically anymore without being ostracized.

Once again, I agree with you. Black people do commit crime at a greater rate than whites. The reason I thought that you hadn't read my post is that I thought that I had made it clear that I agree with that fact. I was questioning the ideology that says that it is entirely each individual's decision to commit crime. That argument is what sociologists refer to as 'agency.' What people ignore when they pursue that ideology is the question 'why is it that blacks across the nation and for the past century have committed crimes at a greater rate than whites?' Your answer is that perhaps their culture glorifies violence. I'd have to agree with you there, but I'll take it a step further: I'd say American culture in general glorifies violence. I would say that the difference between the amount of whites who enjoy rap music and the amount of blacks who enjoy the same kind of music is insignificant, maybe 5 or 10%. And I would say that our culture similarly expects blacks to be criminals. And many times, they do not disappoint us.

I don't know why things are they way they are, I just point out that they are that way. It may just be a knee jerk reaction to oppression. It may be culturally inherited. It may be genetic. It may be something else that I have not considered. I don't know and I'm not going to sit here and guess either. I have no problem with throwing out ideas and exploring them though.

All right man, sorry if your face gets too red. She wasn't saying that "4,848/100,000 people in jail are black men, and 705/100,000 are white" she was saying that 4,848/100,000 black men are in jail and 705/100,000 white men are in jail.

Need another explanation? She was using a fraction to show the percentage of black men who are in jail. Then she used a fraction to show the percentage of white men who are in jail. Do you understand now? I could try to draw a picture.

4,848/100,000 people behind bars in America are black men
Doh, English is a hard thing isn't Queria? Cause it looks to me that she's talking about people behind bars, since that's what she wrote and all. But maybe your powers of telepathy could explain what she meant better?

Doh, English is a hard thing isn't Queria? Cause it looks to me that she's talking about people behind bars, since that's what she wrote and all. But maybe your powers of telepathy could explain what she meant better?

That box next to you says that you've written 1700 posts. How many have you read? I'm not telepathic, I just have reading comprehension skills. Maybe those are something you should work on if you want to be successful in a medium that relies on understanding what others wrote (i.e. the internet).

-snip-
You're right, I don't like it. Part of it comes from my knowledge of the Human Right's Watch's previous standing on the wrong sides of issues, and part of it comes from their poorly written articles that do not link back to their source. I think this would be more believable if we had statistics from the Justice Department.

That box next to you says that you've written 1700 posts. How many have you read? I'm not telepathic, I just have reading comprehension skills. Maybe those are something you should work on if you want to be successful in a medium that relies on understanding what others wrote (i.e. the internet).
I'm sorry if reading comprehension, to you, means inferring the polar opposite of what someone wrote.

Where did I say "racism doesn't exist anymore"? I said it is on a sharp decline and is not something done publically anymore without being ostracized.

I don't know why things are they way they are, I just point out that they are that way. It may just be a knee jerk reaction to oppression. It may be culturally inherited. It may be genetic. It may be something else that I have not considered. I don't know and I'm not going to sit here and guess either. I have no problem with throwing out ideas and exploring them though.

I didn't mean to imply that you don't think racism exists. I'm just trying to throw out ideas too. What do you think of my idea that a lot of times blacks choose crime because everyone expects them to? Honestly, I think it has more to do with economics. I haven't been to LA and I know very little about it, but I do know that very few white neighborhoods are as poor as the poorest black neighborhoods. I think also it does have something to do with the criminal codes, so that if one were to make drug offenses misdemeanors instead of felonies, there would be less of a disparity between the races in the prison population. Most likely it is a combination of all the factors we've mentioned and probably several we couldn't imagine.

I'm sorry if reading comprehension, to you, means inferring the polar opposite of what someone wrote.


Did you notice that she wrote it properly the first time before she messed up the wording? Do you think that giving someone shit for their typos is an effective means of arguing with them?

I'm researching. Perhaps this is better?
http://www.cjpf.org/drug/outcomes2_print.html
My computer is abyssmally slow.

Did you notice that she wrote it properly the first time before she messed up the wording? Do you think that giving someone shit for their typos is an effective means of arguing with them?
Do you think that ignoring the issue of her lack of source is an effective means of discrediting my viewpoint?

I didn't mean to imply that you don't think racism exists. I'm just trying to throw out ideas too. What do you think of my idea that a lot of times blacks choose crime because everyone expects them to? Honestly, I think it has more to do with economics. I haven't been to LA and I know very little about it, but I do know that very few white neighborhoods are as poor as the poorest black neighborhoods. I think also it does have something to do with the criminal codes, so that if one were to make drug offenses misdemeanors instead of felonies, there would be less of a disparity between the races in the prison population. Most likely it is a combination of all the factors we've mentioned and probably several we couldn't imagine.

I've seen white neighborhoods that are just as poor as black neighborhoods.

Why are there more crimes in black neighborhoods? I dont' know. All I can do is guess. I don't think victimless crimes should be crimes at all, but prisons would still have more blacks then whites, because they perform a disproportionate amount of violent crimes, as well as other felonies. Black men are more likely then white men to commit burglary, GTA and other theft felonies. I wish I could begin to pin point it on some reason, but I have no way of knowing if that reason is a cause or an effect. It's pointless to go after effects and leave the cause unchecked.

The Bill Cosby speech Vynnland linked to earlier is very interesting, and quite pertinent to the topic this thread has morphed into. There is no doubting, that man is an effective communicator. I think that it is never a bad thing to be reminded that you have to take responsibility for yourself. I wonder about this, though: "No longer is a boy considered an embarrassment if he tries to run away from being the father of the unmarried child." It seems to me that most people are considered an embarrassment for that behavior. I have to conclude that he hyperbolized a bit to make his point about a return to a two-parent family. I have to say that single parents seem to me to be an unlikely source for criminal behavior. There are simply too many societies that exist with radically different family structures to say that only a two-parent family will work in our society. I do agree, though, that changing family structures are indicative of a disconnect with the community in our society. And any further isolation in our already fragmented society could be a breaking point. Most depressing Jell-o commercial I've ever seen.

Where are these stats from please? No offense, but these numbers smell a bit fishy to me.

Also, there's a huge gap in the white drug use and black drug arrest. Are the black people in prison from posession or selling? Are most of the dealers white or black? Without the info you provided alone, you can't make an accurate correlation.

Most white dealers, esp. middle class, deal from indoors. Blacks are more likely to deal from outdoor locations. That might be part of it. White offenders are also more likely to be sent to drug treatment while black offenders more often go to prison.

Do you think that ignoring the issue of her lack of source is an effective means of discrediting my viewpoint?

If you'll go over our correspondence again, I think you'll note that we were never discussing her source. You brought up her typo either in ignorance or in arrogant malice. I don't even know what your viewpoint is.

I'm researching. Perhaps this is better?
http://www.cjpf.org/drug/outcomes2_print.html
My computer is abyssmally slow.
I still only see references to "drug charges". There's no context to it. Are these charges for posession, selling, posession with intent to sell? Further, the assertion that white people do 74% of the drugs out there sounds REALLY outlandish to me.

Finally, we can't completely discount that black people in poor neighborhoods glorify people who have been to prison. I've noticed that they generally don't do much to avoid being caught and some even look like they're TRYING to get caught (perhaps so they can have that rite of passage or something to complain about). The white drug dealers I've known are almost always VERY careful about who they deal with, how they deal, etc. The black drug dealers I've known usually don't care who they deal with. I've seen them walk up to people they've never met and try to pitch a sale on MANY occasions. Is this the reason why there are so many more blacks in prison on drug charges then whites? I don't know, but it's not mentioned in this study that assumes the criminal system to be prejudiced.

I still only see references to "drug charges". There's no context to it. Are these charges for posession, selling, posession with intent to sell? Further, the assertion that white people do 74% of the drugs out there sounds REALLY outlandish to me.

Finally, we can't completely discount that black people in poor neighborhoods glorify people who have been to prison. I've noticed that they generally don't do much to avoid being caught and some even look like they're TRYING to get caught (perhaps so they can have that rite of passage or something to complain about). The white drug dealers I've known are almost always VERY careful about who they deal with, how they deal, etc. The black drug dealers I've known usually don't care who they deal with. I've seen them walk up to people they've never met and try to pitch a sale on MANY occasions. Is this the reason why there are so many more blacks in prison on drug charges then whites? I don't know, but it's not mentioned in this study that assumes the criminal system to be prejudiced.

I had two other sources, but my computer dumped my post, probably because it hates pdf's. ike this one http://www.fpd-fln.org/newsletter/July_02.pdf#search='drugs%20race%20ratio%20convictions'

Yes, blacks sell outdoors more, and yes in many places drug dealers are looked up to, but our judicial system is very racially biased. Blacks get stiffer sentences for the same crimes.

Look, Bush won the vote in Ohio fair and square and by 130,000 votes. It was a tight race, but Bush won. Would it be worth stating that all the results were certified by the Ohio State Attorney General? I hate to break it to you, but conspiracies are not going to win elections for Democrats. The only way that Democrats will ever be able to regain power is to put a solid message that refrains from the conspiracy-ladden message that it currently dishes out to a public that simply doesn't want to hear about leftist conspiracy theories.
voter irregularities in Ohio are a FACT not a conspiracy so your acten like a partisan liar when you say he won fair and square so why should dems take advice from partisan bigots?

Oh good God! Get out the tin foil hats, folks! Karl Rove, from his secret bunker in the White House, secretly hacked into Ohio's voting machines and changed just enough votes to get a win for Bush. I actually followed the ridiculous conspiracy theories for a while, mainly championed by Kieth Olbermann on MSNBC. Even he doesn't believe that nutty theory. If you had any crediblity left (which you don't), you just completely lost it on that one.
your a sad brainwashed victim of the establishment

Interesting that you started your sentence with "Rather". Freudian slip, perhaps?
or maybe your just projecting what you wanna freudian hear

or maybe your just projecting what you wanna freudian hear
You're a lot easier to understand when you speak English. Try it sometime.

Election 04 was one of the dirtiest elections in American History and the voting irregularities are WELL documented for those who have eyes to see. Anyone who refuses to see is either a self serving partisan bigot in denial or a sad brainwashed victim of the subverted system

Election 04 was one of the dirtiest elections in American History and the voting irregularities are WELL documented for those who have eyes to see. Anyone who refuses to see is either a self serving partisan bigot in denial or a sad brainwashed victim of the subverted system
You're right. But even with all the cheating the Dems did, they still lost. You must be sad.

Also if all drugs were legalized there would be millions of innocents of ALL races who will no longer be victims of the prison industrial complex and the people will evolve into a more enlightened freer and less war prone species that puts a higher values on reaching their pleasure potentials thru the politics of exstasy