NationStates Jolt Archive

I generally avoid the poll numbers as a percent here or there for a lame duck is immaterial, but the racial breakdown was noteworthy.

According to MSNBC - after Katrina his approval rating within the African American community has actually fallen to below the margin of error. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3626796)

Yep. IT says 2%, but that could be high!

That, frankly, is astounding, and if directed against the Republican party in general could make for some interesting races in the South in 06. Especially if the Dems can motivate the African american community to get out and vote.


Republican National Committee chair Ken Mehlman has made concerted efforts to draw African-American voters to the GOP. But in the wake of the government's perceived slow response to Hurricane Katrina, Bush's job proval among African-Americans stands at 2%.While 28% of all those polled say the country is heading in the right direction, only 5% of African-Americans do. "Not that African-Americans are ever a core part of the GOP coalition," McInturff notes, but these results "are some of the most difficult numbers" he says he's seen out of the community.

If the African American vote was important, the Democrats would have won the election.

Just to say it first!

That's just the bias of the liberal media!!@!!!! :p

You cant say that a 2% approval rating in any community isnt going to affect resulst. Especially as african americans are not spread evenly throughout the USA.

I can accept 2% of African-Americans.

I could even accept zero.

I'm rather surprised it's not zero.

Then again, I have met a few die hard black Republicans. Even then, I was surprised.

The Democrats have promised them so much, and delivered so little, I'm surprised that African-Americans haven't run off and created their own party.

If the African American vote was important, the Democrats would have won the election.

:eek: Senator Bulworth?????? :p

I'm glad to know that Americans are finally beginning to see sense. 39% total approval rate in the poll.

Of course, we have to factor in bias. After all, 69.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Bush's presidency is going down the tubes. No attempt at denying it. You can love him all you like and yet it's quite clear that most of the decisions he's made have either hindered or done nothing.

He supports ID being taught in schools, and I read an article in which the White House denied he said God had told him to go to Iraq, but they're obviously lying. And now he's nominated an idiot lapdog of a woman for the Supreme Court, and the only good thing he can say about her has to do with her faith.

He's obviously going down the tubes.

I'm glad to know that Americans are finally beginning to see sense. 39% total approval rate in the poll.

Of course, we have to factor in bias. After all, 69.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

It's actually more along the lines of 41.3%, but who's counting?

I like the way they "make a concerted effort" to bring in African American votes, but when it looks like they're failing, they say African Americans aren't a significant part of the base. Then why do they want them, since they claim they can win everything just with their "base"?

I like the way they "make a concerted effort" to bring in African American votes, but when it looks like they're failing, they say African Americans aren't a significant part of the base. Then why do they want them, since they claim they can win everything just with their "base"?

Because their base, most notably the religious right, are numerous... however, since they're beginning to lose favor with them as well...

Bush's presidency is going down the tubes. No attempt at denying it. You can love him all you like and yet it's quite clear that most of the decisions he's made have either hindered or done nothing.

He supports ID being taught in schools, and I read an article in which the White House denied he said God had told him to go to Iraq, but they're obviously lying. And now he's nominated an idiot lapdog of a woman for the Supreme Court, and the only good thing he can say about her has to do with her faith.

He's obviously going down the tubes.
Bush can go down the tubes if he likes in his second and last term, but it's only useful if he takes the neo-cons with him.

The Democrats have promised them so much, and delivered so little, I'm surprised that African-Americans haven't run off and created their own party.

Ah, good old two-party systems. A lot of minorities basically have to keep to the tactic of voting for whoever abuses them the least.

Not to sound sarcastic...but who cares? He won't get impeached, regardless of atrocities against the American people and people in other lands, so what difference does it make?

He can do whatever he wants...as he has so far...

Because their base, most notably the religious right, are numerous... however, since they're beginning to lose favor with them as well...
We can only hope...:D

Because their base, most notably the religious right, are numerous... however, since they're beginning to lose favor with them as well...

Which makes you wonder - would his approval numbers be larger if he had appointed a conservative firebrand instead of Miers?

Just something to think about.

I'm a Republican, and I have misgivings about Bush not being ruthless enough. I know many Republicans who feel the same.

If we're mishandling the war, it's because we're not being ruthless enough.

Actually I take that back...

I hope he screws up to the point of people realizing how ridiculous republicans and democrats really are and try to raise up a new party. Like the "Americans for America party". Cause even the Independent Party is really just the "other" republican ticket.

Not to sound sarcastic...but who cares? He won't get impeached, regardless of atrocities against the American people and people in other lands, so what difference does it make?

He can do whatever he wants...as he has so far...
..And, since he can't be reelected anyway, what he does this term won't affect him afterwards, so he can do anything he wants. He has nothing to lose, with the GOP Congressional majority, and everything to gain. :headbang:

Yep. IT says 2%, but that could be high!


ahhh my son and i were discussing that poll this morning. our question, naturally, was "who is in that 2%?!!"

so really it could be 0%. that makes more sense.

Actually I take that back...

I hope he screws up to the point of people realizing how ridiculous republicans and democrats really are and try to raise up a new party. Like the "Americans for America party". Cause even the Independent Party is really just the "other" republican ticket.

Too bad stupidity isn't a crime; if it was, America would be free of him, along with half of all politicians.

I think what would help the most is if we were an actual democracy, not this democratic-republic garbage. Nifty idea, poor execution.

Too bad stupidity isn't a crime; if it was, America would be free of him, along with half of all politicians.

We would also spend 2/3 of our national budget on prisons with which to hold all the criminals :)

No, no. Democracy is far too dangerous. It could lead to anarchy, which is the most evil thing, because our economy would implode and lots of foreign powers would invade us.

Besides, we all know the leaders are only here to protect us. :rolleyes:

Not to sound sarcastic...but who cares? He won't get impeached, regardless of atrocities against the American people and people in other lands, so what difference does it make?

He can do whatever he wants...as he has so far...

Actually, he can't. How'd his plans for social security go? How about this latest pick for Supreme Court Justice?

The Republican Congress, especially those up for reelection next year, are looking at his poll numbers and don't want it rubbing off on their own success.

Now what we need is the Dems to come out with a Contract with America type thing and take advantage of all this.

We would also spend 2/3 of our national budget on prisons with which to hold all the criminals :)

The smart people don't have enough money to imprison all the stupid people. :D

No, no. Democracy is far too dangerous. It could lead to anarchy, which is the most evil thing, because our economy would implode and lots of foreign powers would invade us.

Besides, we all know the leaders are only here to protect us. :rolleyes:

:headbang:

There are leaders in a democracy. The main difference is that the vote would be directly decided by the popular vote, people would be allowed to vote on laws and regulations, and they would be able to determine relations with other countries... in the current system, we elect people to do that for us, but those people usually have their own agenda...

Too bad stupidity isn't a crime; if it was, America would be free of him, along with half of all politicians.

Half? I thought more along the line of 95%

:headbang:

There are leaders in a democracy. The main difference is that the vote would be directly decided by the popular vote, people would be allowed to vote on laws and regulations, and they would be able to determine relations with other countries... in the current system, we elect people to do that for us, but those people usually have their own agenda...
Exactly.

I support a direct democracy without leaders—some call it anarchy. A controlled anarchy. The people vote on bills proposed by a special council of 400 representatives, democratically elected. Participation is mandatory. This council will also propose taxes, which the people can then decide where they are going: e.g. national defense, welfare, commerce, etc. Every year, the Council elects a Treasurer General, who collects the taxes and then puts them into the appropriate department. The leader of the Council is called the Secretary General and holds similar authority to a head of state.

This is a model for the government of Czardas, and ought to be for all other nations.

Which makes you wonder - would his approval numbers be larger if he had appointed a conservative firebrand instead of Miers?

Just something to think about.

I'm a Republican, and I have misgivings about Bush not being ruthless enough. I know many Republicans who feel the same.

If we're mishandling the war, it's because we're not being ruthless enough.

Not being ruthless enough...what, would you prefer public executions? Burning at the stake perhaps? I mean, Bush's political technique is to attempt to utterly destroy his opposition by less than honest means. He threatened to VETO a bill outlawing torture!

Sierra, if you think that Bush needs to be more ruthless, you have absolutely no conception of what freedom is or what America stands for. I don't know who abused you so horribly that you think MORE pain, destruction and poisonous words are called for, but it's not right and you need help.

Not to sound sarcastic...but who cares? He won't get impeached, regardless of atrocities against the American people and people in other lands, so what difference does it make?

He can do whatever he wants...as he has so far...
You're right that he won't get impeached, and I wouldn't suggest it even if the Democrats were to win both houses of Congress in the next election and took 70 Senate seats (which won't happen).

But if I were Bush or any of the other big timey people in the administration, I wouldn't venture into Europe or anywhere else with connections to the ICC any time after the Bush administration ends. They might wind up with a detour to the Hague.

Not being ruthless enough...what, would you prefer public executions? Burning at the stake perhaps? I mean, Bush's political technique is to attempt to utterly destroy his opposition by less than honest means. He threatened to VETO a bill outlawing torture!

Sierra, if you think that Bush needs to be more ruthless, you have absolutely no conception of what freedom is or what America stands for. I don't know who abused you so horribly that you think MORE pain, destruction and poisonous words are called for, but it's not right and you need help.

I'm not talking about ruthless to political opponents. One look at Harry Reid and you realize that the Democrats are spineless.

For starters, we should never have disclosed the fact that we took prisoners in Afghanistan - or took them to Guantanamo.

Which makes you wonder - would his approval numbers be larger if he had appointed a conservative firebrand instead of Miers?

I think that's a given--his numbers weren't going to go much lower with Democrats or Independents than they already were, so the only place he really had left to lose ground was with the base, and when he screwed them over with Miers, they started leaving him. That's been all the talk over at places like redstate.org and the Free Republic--that Bush is on his own now. They won't desert their congressmen, and they're not going to vote for a democrat anytime soon, but they've tossed Bush aside as far as their approval goes.

don't know who abused you so horribly that you think MORE pain, destruction and poisonous words are called for, but it's not right and you need help.

Interesting ad hominem.

Unfortunately, while I do believe in personal morality, it has little place in the international arena. This has been proven over and over again, not only in game theory (which even the Nobel committee acknowledges is brilliant and correct), but in realpolitik as well.

That, in a nutshell, has little to do with me, or my personal morality - something that you and a few others here constantly want to confuse.

I think that's a given--his numbers weren't going to go much lower with Democrats or Independents than they already were, so the only place he really had left to lose ground was with the base, and when he screwed them over with Miers, they started leaving him. That's been all the talk over at places like redstate.org and the Free Republic--that Bush is on his own now. They won't desert their congressmen, and they're not going to vote for a democrat anytime soon, but they've tossed Bush aside as far as their approval goes.

Then that might mean that a more conservative person will be nominated to succeed Bush. Whether or not they have a chance to win is another question.

Then that might mean that a more conservative person will be nominated to succeed Bush.
"God" forbid.

"God" forbid.

Well, it makes sense. Figure that the only place Bush could lose numbers is among conservatives, right? I mean, it's not like any Democrats liked him, or would say in a poll, "ooh, I like what Bush is doing".

So he must have lost conservatives. Probably for the reasons that I don't like what he's doing.

The next one will be more ruthless - and embody what to now has only been a tinfoil hat pipedream of the Democrats.

Then that might mean that a more conservative person will be nominated to succeed Bush. Whether or not they have a chance to win is another question.
It's very possible. It's also possible that you'll get a split in your party a lot like the Democrats had first in 1968 and then wider in 1972 when you had the peace party and the Dixiecrats go their separate ways. Of course, the Dixiecrats eventually became the socially conservative wing of the Republican party, so maybe the Dems are better off without them. :D

I'm not talking about ruthless to political opponents. One look at Harry Reid and you realize that the Democrats are spineless.

For starters, we should never have disclosed the fact that we took prisoners in Afghanistan - or took them to Guantanamo.

Yes. Let's just disappear people indiscriminately. Hear hear! Let's spread freedom by acting like all the evils we supposedly stand against.

/sarcasm

It's very possible. It's also possible that you'll get a split in your party a lot like the Democrats had first in 1968 and then wider in 1972 when you had the peace party and the Dixiecrats go their separate ways. Of course, the Dixiecrats eventually became the socially conservative wing of the Republican party, so maybe the Dems are better off without them. :D

I think it's much more likely we end up stupid like Germany and France are right now, with governmental paralysis.

The Democrats are already internally fractured, and the Republicans are headed that way.

The two parties, immobilized by their own internal conflicts.

We end up with something completely inert like the current German government.

Yes. Let's just disappear people indiscriminately. Hear hear! Let's spread freedom by acting like all the evils we supposedly stand against.

/sarcasm

Works for me.

For starters, we should never have disclosed the fact that we took prisoners in Afghanistan - or took them to Guantanamo.

Wow. And just how would that be good policy (I won't even bother with the legality of it)? What would that gain that could outweigh the international diplomatic fallout it would incur? All it would do is put us at odds with the rest of the world, put our soldiers in even more dangerous situations and cause Americans to lose their faith in their country.

When the US acts internationally, it should do so with moral superiority, acting as a role model and just. I think a good example might be how the US treated Nazi POWs during WWII.

Wow. And just how would that be good policy (I won't even bother with the legality of it)? What would that gain that could outweigh the international diplomatic fallout it would incur? All it would do is put us at odds with the rest of the world, put our soldiers in even more dangerous situations and cause Americans to lose their faith in their country.

When the US acts internationally, it should do so with moral superiority, acting as a role model and just. I think a good example might be how the US treated Nazi POWs during WWII.

No one would know they were there. How can there be international fallout over people who don't exist?

Right now, it wouldn't matter if we treated them as well as we did German POWs during WW II. The arab street would hate us just as much, and just as well. The Europeans would still criticize us - for taking them prisoner in the first place.

We should have just disappeared them. What problem?

Bush's presidency is going down the tubes.

"What tubes?"
--George Carlin

I think it's much more likely we end up stupid like Germany and France are right now, with governmental paralysis.

The Democrats are already internally fractured, and the Republicans are headed that way.

The two parties, immobilized by their own internal conflicts.

We end up with something completely inert like the current German government.
The Democrats are fractured by nature--we've always been a disparate group of coalitions of minority groups--so we're used to it, and I think you underestimate the amount to which we've united under the current system. The two congressional caucuses have never held together as well as they have the last year and a half since Reid and Pelosi took over.

But if we do wind up inert, would that be so terrible? At least we wouldn't be fucking anything up.

Works for me.

Then my "ad hominem" isn't an ad hominem, but an accurate description.

The Democrats are fractured by nature--we've always been a disparate group of coalitions of minority groups--so we're used to it, and I think you underestimate the amount to which we've united under the current system. The two congressional caucuses have never held together as well as they have the last year and a half since Reid and Pelosi took over.

But if we do wind up inert, would that be so terrible? At least we wouldn't be fucking anything up.

I believe the Democratic party has been suffering from major internal division since the Chicago riots. They've never fully recovered.

Either the Republicans head that way, or they move further to the right and unify.

For Sierra.. from his favorite news source:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172055,00.html

No one would know they were there. How can there be international fallout over people who don't exist?

Right now, it wouldn't matter if we treated them as well as we did German POWs during WW II. The arab street would hate us just as much, and just as well. The Europeans would still criticize us - for taking them prisoner in the first place.

We should have just disappeared them. What problem?

Something like that wouldn't be kept secret for very long. But I don't want to derail this thread, so back to the current states of the parties, I guess.

I don't think -- or maybe I just hope -- the GOP will slide further right in 08. Sure, they can fire up the evangelicals, but I believe there are more moderates in this country than people on either the right or left fringe. If the GOP plays exlusively to evagelicals and their social causes, they're going to risk losing a huge number of people who just want traditional conservative values, not extreme bible-thumping values.

No one would know they were there. How can there be international fallout over people who don't exist?
It would come out eventually, things usually have a habit of doing that.

I think what would help the most is if we were an actual democracy, not this democratic-republic garbage. Nifty idea, poor execution.I'm quite sure what you mean by that, but something as simple as moving to an approval vote could make a huge difference, at least in terms of who gets to be president.

What I'm talking about is where instead of for just one candidate you vote for as many as you 'approve' of. Whoever gets the most votes (highest approval rating) wins.

But I'm not foolish enough to think we might see this anytime soon. At least not on a nation-wide scale.

I generally avoid the poll numbers as a percent here or there for a lame duck is immaterial, but the racial breakdown was noteworthy.

According to MSNBC - after Katrina his approval rating within the African American community has actually fallen to below the margin of error. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3626796)

Yep. IT says 2%, but that could be high!

That, frankly, is astounding, and if directed against the Republican party in general could make for some interesting races in the South in 06. Especially if the Dems can motivate the African american community to get out and vote.


Umm, isn't that the same demographic which thinks AIDS was invented and spread by the government and OJ didn't do it?

Umm, isn't that the same demographic which thinks AIDS was invented and spread by the government and OJ didn't do it?
so you think they may be mistaken and they actually DO think bush is doing a good job???

Umm, isn't that the same demographic which thinks AIDS was invented and spread by the government and OJ didn't do it?

They also apparently believe that the Corps of Engineers deliberately used military explosives to blow up the levees in New Orleans. At least that's what Farrakhan is saying to his followers in New Orleans. Saying it was a deliberate racist act, and that they shouldn't trust the Red Cross, either.

The Democrats have promised them so much, and delivered so little, I'm surprised that African-Americans haven't run off and created their own party.
Why should political parties by divided by race at all?

Now what we need is the Dems to come out with a Contract with America type thing and take advantage of all this.
They're probably still straining their minds to come up with a name for it.

Right now, it wouldn't matter if we treated them as well as we did German POWs during WW II. The arab street would hate us just as much, and just as well. The Europeans would still criticize us - for taking them prisoner in the first place.

We should have just disappeared them. What problem?
Do you really belive all this stuff you come out with? Disappearing prisoners, what is this, a dictatorship? It would have been a PR disaster. All the good work of the USA would be stained by such a scandal.

Umm, isn't that the same demographic which thinks AIDS was invented and spread by the government and OJ didn't do it?


Wait, wait wait. This asshat called me a bigot, and then he says the entire black demographic thinks AIDS was invented by the government...WHEN THE POLL HE HIMSELF POSTED IN ANOTHER THREAD shows only 15% of blacks think in such a way.

Do you really belive all this stuff you come out with? Disappearing prisoners, what is this, a dictatorship? It would have been a PR disaster. All the good work of the USA would be stained by such a scandal.

How could it be a scandal if no one knew?

Did you know that the US, when leaving South Vietnam, took certain prisoners with them when they left because they were considered too valuable to leave behind?

And somewhere over the Pacific, before the C-141 transports landed in Guam, the prisoners were unceremoniously thrown from the aircraft at cruising altitude?

Wait, wait wait. This asshat called me a bigot, and then the says the entire black demographic thinks AIDS was invented by the governments...WHEN THE POLL HE HIMSELF POSTED IN ANOTHER THREAD shows only 15% of blacks think in such a way.

Well, I can't speak for their ideas on AIDS. But a few of them are wearing tinfoil hats, that's for sure.

Bomb, not Katrina, broke dikes: Farrakhan
Oct 13 3:16 PM US/Eastern
Email this story

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan fueled a rumor that explosives, not Hurricane Katrina, broke New Orleans' dikes and flooded poor African American neighborhoods.

"A member of the Army Corps of Engineers saw burn marks on the concrete," Farrakhan told reporters, describing an e-mail he had received.

"They found two types of explosives used by the military," he said, without naming the source, adding that an eight-meter (25-foot) crater had been blown in the dike.

Farrakhan said locals had reported sounds of explosions, among other things, leading him to believe the rumors should be investigated.

"Wickedness exists in high places," he said. "The duty of the government is to prove the rumor to be false or that these suspicions are true."

The Chicago-based Nation of Islam is an offshoot of Islam. Farrakhan has earned headlines with controversial statements about Jews and homosexuals.

He also attacked the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Red Cross.

"FEMA is insensitive, there are not enough blacks high up. The Red Cross, too. It's too white, it is! Racism poisoned the bloodstream of politics," he said.

"Don't think it's non existent in the Red Cross or FEMA," he said.

How could it be a scandal if no one knew?

Did you know that the US, when leaving South Vietnam, took certain prisoners with them when they left because they were considered too valuable to leave behind?

And somewhere over the Pacific, before the C-141 transports landed in Guam, the prisoners were unceremoniously thrown from the aircraft at cruising altitude?
if you know about it, the secret wasnt kept now was it?

if you know about it, the secret wasnt kept now was it?

It didn't come out until over 20 years later.

And now, no one cares.

How could it be a scandal if no one knew?

Did you know that the US, when leaving South Vietnam, took certain prisoners with them when they left because they were considered too valuable to leave behind?

And somewhere over the Pacific, before the C-141 transports landed in Guam, the prisoners were unceremoniously thrown from the aircraft at cruising altitude?
No, I did not know that. How many of these prisoners were thrown away? Surely not very many as to have failed to raise a stink at the time.

People find out. Do you think most dictatorships are public about their disappearance programmes? Of course they are not, but the human rights groups often discover it anyway.

In addition, how do you know that the US didn't throw a few Nazis off out over the Atlantic? And if they did, what would be your problem with the way prisoners were treated after WW2?

I think what would help the most is if we were an actual democracy, not this democratic-republic garbage. Nifty idea, poor execution.

And I think it would be better if we got rid of the two parties and stayed a federal republic.

Works for me.

Here's hoping it happens to your mother, then.

Wait, wait wait. This asshat called me a bigot, and then he says the entire black demographic thinks AIDS was invented by the government...WHEN THE POLL HE HIMSELF POSTED IN ANOTHER THREAD shows only 15% of blacks think in such a way.

Gawd you love to make a fool of yourself!

"Nearly half of the 500 African Americans surveyed said that HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is man-made. The study, which was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, appears in the Feb. 1 edition of the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33695-2005Jan24.html

"A survey of about 1,000 black church members found 35 percent believed the AIDS conspiracy theory and another 30 percent would not rule it out."
http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/aids_conspiracy/

Now all you have to do is learn to differentiate between a generalization and a global statement. Sorry if that was too tough for you.

Now if only you had gotten what was the actual point! (that just because they think so does not make it true) Others certaily did without any problem.

Now, go wipe that egg off your face.

Gawd you love to make a fool of yourself!

"Nearly half of the 500 African Americans surveyed said that HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is man-made. The study, which was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, appears in the Feb. 1 edition of the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33695-2005Jan24.html

"A survey of about 1,000 black church members found 35 percent believed the AIDS conspiracy theory and another 30 percent would not rule it out."
http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/aids_conspiracy/

Now all you have to do is learn to differentiate between a generalization and a global statement. Sorry if that was too tough for you.

Now if only you had gotten what was the actual point! (that just because they think so does not make it true) Others certaily did without any problem.

Now, go wipe that egg off your face.


well, I guess you misread your own link then:

While you're at it, you should discuss the 15% of black people who feel that AIDS was created by the government as a form of genocide against black people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33695-2005Jan24.html


and even higher (35%-65%) among certain groups;
http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/aids_conspiracy/


Now, to use your 'enlightened' syntax;

"while I don't have a problem with blacks in general, this kind of stuff sticks in my craw. These blacks in particular should be ashamed of themselves."

Gee, not so enlightened after all, are you. I've outed your bigotry.

plus the bits you cited have nothing to do with your statement of use as a genocide against black people. This is the pertinent paragraph from the article:

More than one-quarter said they believed that AIDS was produced in a government laboratory, and 12 percent believed it was created and spread by the CIA.

Umm, isn't that the same demographic which thinks AIDS was invented and spread by the government and OJ didn't do it?

Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it? Nor is consistency.

The Democrats have promised them so much, and delivered so little, I'm surprised that African-Americans haven't run off and created their own party.

No kidding. And the Black Republicans are made out to be enemies of other blacks by the Democrats.

The Democrats have promised them so much, and delivered so little, I'm surprised that African-Americans haven't run off and created their own party.


No kidding. And the Black Republicans are made out to be enemies of other blacks by the Democrats.

Well, maybe more progress would be made on behalf of minorities if Republicans didn't control all 3 branches of the government...

I think it's time for a retraction or something, B0zzy.

I can accept 2% of African-Americans.

I could even accept zero.

I'm rather surprised it's not zero.

Then again, I have met a few die hard black Republicans. Even then, I was surprised.

The Democrats have promised them so much, and delivered so little, I'm surprised that African-Americans haven't run off and created their own party.

The African-Americans in my family don't really care about politics. They're too busy trying to make it by to the next day. My grandfather was the only exception but being a plasterer he wasn't really in a position to do anything on a national scale. Plus he never even went to high school.

As for me, I realize that if African-Americans were to make their own party, that would completely sap the Democrats and practically hand every future election to the GOP, which would screw over blacks even more.

Nice try though. ;)

i think the thing that keeps most black americans out of the republican party (well except for the part where the repubs dont really like black people) is that the party is working hard to repeal the few things the democrats HAVE done to help black people.

Just since this is a vaguely related Katrina thing, I thought I'd post this very good article by a guy from Duke Law School, Jebediah Purdy.
http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=2543

...Why do Americans accept poverty that traps the poor in the path of an approaching disaster? Ironically, one reason is social optimism. Most Americans--about ninety percent, including most blacks--say they believe this is a just country, where the rules of social and economic life are fair and effort and opportunity are rewarded. (Little wonder, then, that twenty percent of Americans tell pollsters they believe themselves to be among the country’s richest one percent, and another twenty percent say they expect to enter that charmed circle soon.) The flip side of this optimism is the suspicion that, if you end up poor or sick or alone, the fault must be in you, and the judgment belongs on you. It is the American habit to admire the rich and powerful and recoil from the weak and poor--even if the weak and poor include one’s self...

No, I did not know that. How many of these prisoners were thrown away? Surely not very many as to have failed to raise a stink at the time.

People find out. Do you think most dictatorships are public about their disappearance programmes? Of course they are not, but the human rights groups often discover it anyway.

In addition, how do you know that the US didn't throw a few Nazis off out over the Atlantic? And if they did, what would be your problem with the way prisoners were treated after WW2?

I guess you'll be handing speeding tickets out at Le Mans this year.

War is hard on the participants, isn't it? Isn't that the idea?

Do you really belive all this stuff you come out with? Disappearing prisoners, what is this, a dictatorship? It would have been a PR disaster. All the good work of the USA would be stained by such a scandal.
He does believe it, if consistency of posts is a guide. It's his constant refrain. I gave up arguing with him and just put him in the same column as the declared enemies of civilization -- bin Laden, etc. It's Americans like him we have to be careful of and why the Dems and other parties need to get their shit together and get active pronto.

The funny part is, people like this always think they'll be part of the "in-crowd" if they ever get the Stalinist murderocracy they dream about. They always think that, and they're always wrong.

He does believe it, if consistency of posts is a guide. It's his constant refrain. I gave up arguing with him and just put him in the same column as the declared enemies of civilization -- bin Laden, etc. It's Americans like him we have to be careful of and why the Dems and other parties need to get their shit together and get active pronto.

The funny part is, people like this always think they'll be part of the "in-crowd" if they ever get the Stalinist murderocracy they dream about. They always think that, and they're always wrong.

Why you think that international politics has anything to do with morality is beyond me.

I'm not saying it's morally right, I'm saying it's the correct thing to do from a survival standpoint.

Big difference.

And, we only have to have another 9-11 type incident (or worse) before people in the US want to round up Muslims and put them in camps. I don't have to "want" that to happen - or even vote for it - it would be an inevitability

Why you think that international politics has anything to do with morality is beyond me.

I'm not saying it's morally right, I'm saying it's the correct thing to do from a survival standpoint.

Big difference.

And, we only have to have another 9-11 type incident (or worse) before people in the US want to round up Muslims and put them in camps. I don't have to "want" that to happen - or even vote for it - it would be an inevitability
See what I mean? They just never see how such an approach inevitably leads to the destruction of a state, not its survival. It's a philosophy borne out of fear and prejudice and ignores both history and current events and their own long-term self interest. What I call medieval peasant thinking.

However, he's right about the number of Americans (and not just Americans) who think like medieval peasants. General Tommy Franks warned about it in the first year of the Iraq war, right after he retired. He said that he feared the increasing militarization of American society and that, if terrorists scored another big attack on US soil with heavy civilian casualties, then Americans would abandon the rule of law and possibly even democracy itself, giving over the biggest military in the world to a dictatorship of some form. He thought this would be a bad thing. I agree with him.

If the US ever became the kind of murderous rogue state Sierra describes, then the rest of the world would be justified in uniting against us militarily, which means we would probably be facing enemies on two fronts -- our current enemies and our former allies. He assumes that their forces would be insignificant, but that is called underestimating the enemy and is the classic, fatal error of all time. History proves it. Sierra is not only espousing a foul philosophy, but also a self-defeating one.

That's all I'm going to say on the subject, because a) it's not the topic, and b) I don't argue with Sierra.

My husband and I were talking about what appears to be an implosion happening within the Republican party.

Just to name a few things...

- Iraq

- Katrina

- DeLay

- Frist

- Rove and Libby

- Miers

- social security

- immigration policy

- trade deficits

and to top it all off, that incredibly embarrassing fiasco yesterday of catching Bush rehearsing for the talk with the troops in Iraq, that was being advertised as unscripted by Bush's own press secretary.

We came to two possible conclusions. One, Bush's policies are finally coming back to haunt him, but that wasn't the one we favoured, in fact what we believe might be going on is in fact some one within the Republican party is setting Bush up to make him look like a fool, not to say he wasn't doing that on his own, but the way the White House appears to be imploding, it seems highly possible that someone is making sure of Bush's demise, not that we mind.

Last year before the 2004 election old school Republicans (Joe Scarborough & Pat Buchanan) http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ and http://www.theamericancause.org/ predicted that after the election there would be a civil war within the Republican party. It would be between old school fiscally responsible Republicans and the NeoCons. It appears that they might have been right by what we are seeing happen.

Which to my mind is a good thing. I hope the old school Republicans win. But we will have to wait and see. However what would be even better is for the Democrats to take advantage of this, but they're not, why? The Democrats at the moment only have the message that "We aren't them" With no clear vision or no clear leadership in the party. If the Democrats would just wake up from their sleep and come out with a plan, they'd nail the election easily in 2008. However I fear what will happen to my neighbours to the south if the Democrats don't wake up with a message of their own and soon, especially if the NeoCons win this internal civil war.

Which to my mind is a good thing. I hope the old school Republicans win. But we will have to wait and see. However what would be even better is for the Democrats to take advantage of this, but they're not, why? The Democrats at the moment only have the message that "We aren't them" With no clear vision or no clear leadership in the party. If the Democrats would just wake up from their sleep and come out with a plan, they'd nail the election easily in 2008. However I fear what will happen to my neighbours to the south if the Democrats don't wake up with a message of their own and soon, especially if the NeoCons win this internal civil war.

The Democrats have their own internal divisions.

Ted Kennedy and his friends have already anointed Kerry for 2008, ostensibly in reaction to a possible Hillary bid (whom they hate).

Howard Dean is the head of the DNC. Nuff said.

If "deer in the headlights" Pelosi, and "I had my books constantly kicked from my hands in high school" Harry Reid are examples of Democratic firebrands, I guess their goose is already cooked.

What would really throw things for a loop would be a major terrorist attack between now and 2008.

The Democrats have their own internal divisions.

Ted Kennedy and his friends have already anointed Kerry for 2008, ostensibly in reaction to a possible Hillary bid (whom they hate).

Howard Dean is the head of the DNC. Nuff said.

If "deer in the headlights" Pelosi, and "I had my books constantly kicked from my hands in high school" Harry Reid are examples of Democratic firebrands, I guess their goose is already cooked.

What would really throw things for a loop would be a major terrorist attack between now and 2008.

Well if this is to be, then lets hope that the old school Republicans win this internal civil war from the Neocons. If not, America could be going to hell in a handbasket and soon.

*Disclaimer* I don't believe in hell, it's just a figure of speech.

Well if this is to be, then lets hope that the old school Republicans win this internal civil war from the Neocons. If not, America could be going to hell in a handbasket and soon.

*Disclaimer* I don't believe in hell, it's just a figure of speech.

My prediction:

No terrorist attack between now and 2008 - old school wins.
Major terror attack between now and 2008 - neocons win.

Democrats remain too divided, especially between young and old school (Dean school vs. Kennedy/Kerry/Hillary) to do anything either way.

BTW, if there is a major terrorist attack, and the neocons win, what's left of the Democratic party and the old school Republicans would fit in a dustpan.

My prediction:
BTW, if there is a major terrorist attack, and the neocons win, what's left of the Democratic party and the old school Republicans would fit in a dustpan.

Then what? I predict America going the way of Rome sooner rather than later. Not that they will be "taken" by any country or anything, they will simply bankrupt the country, similar to what happened to the USSR.

Then what? I predict America going the way of Rome sooner rather than later. Not that they will be "taken" by any country or anything, they will simply bankrupt the country, similar to what happened to the USSR.

One thing to consider - the impact of the US economy.

If the US economy goes in the toilet, it's taking the rest of the G-8 with it whether they like it or not.

The Democrats have their own internal divisions.

Ted Kennedy and his friends have already anointed Kerry for 2008, ostensibly in reaction to a possible Hillary bid (whom they hate).

Howard Dean is the head of the DNC. Nuff said.

If "deer in the headlights" Pelosi, and "I had my books constantly kicked from my hands in high school" Harry Reid are examples of Democratic firebrands, I guess their goose is already cooked.

What would really throw things for a loop would be a major terrorist attack between now and 2008.I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you don't actually know anything about the Democrats, because it's obvious you don't.

Point one--No matter what Kennedy says and how hard he campaigns, Kerry won't be anywhere near the nomination in 2008. No chance in hell. He failed to beat the worst president ever when he had every advantage--no fucking way the Dems let him get near the top of the ticket again.

Point two--Dean is doing a fantastic job as head of the DNC, both as fundraiser and as grassroots organizer, and the fact that right-wingers keep bringing him up when they've got nothing on him is proof of their desperation.

Point three--I guess you never read the story about Reid before he was a Senator and a local "businessman" tried to bribe him. He set up a sting,and when the cops busted in to arrest the guy, they had to pull Reid off of him, because he had the guy by the lapels and was screaming at him "You tried to bribe ME?" Better yet, how about the way he fought the Republicans to a loss on the Social Security privatization scheme? If there's any justice in this world, you'll be calling him "Majority Leader Reid" in 2006, alongside "Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi," who's done a better job of holding together the Democratic Congressional Caucus than any leader since Tip O'Neill.

But go ahead--keep underestimating us.

One thing to consider - the impact of the US economy.

If the US economy goes in the toilet, it's taking the rest of the G-8 with it whether they like it or not.

Oh for sure there will be some major effects on the rest of the 7, however it may not last as long as it will for the USA. The other G-7 countries could and probably would recover in a few years, where as the USA wouldn't, at least not with all their debt being basically owned (well the majority of it) by China and if they were still trying to fight wars. However I think the country going bankrupt might stop them, as the people would backlash, as they did in the USSR as well. I don't disagree that it would take it's toll on the other 7, but they would recover because they will not of been bankrupted. Simply put, I don't think you can count on the UK to back you like they did in Iraq in another foolish venture.

Oh for sure there will be some major effects on the rest of the 7, however it may not last as long as it will for the USA. The other G-7 countries could and probably would recover in a few years, where as the USA wouldn't, at least not with all their debt being basically owned (well the majority of it) by China and if they were still trying to fight wars. However I think the country going bankrupt might stop them, as the people would backlash, as they did in the USSR as well. I don't disagree that it would take it's toll on the other 7, but they would recover because they will not of been bankrupted. Simply put, I don't think you can count on the UK to back you like they did in Iraq in another foolish venture.

I'm not saying that anyone would back anyone. But, if the attack was something like a nuclear detonation in a US city, I don't think anyone in the would would begrudge the US attacking the offending nation.

Not that anyone would help - they just might sit on their hands, as has been the custom of the UN and other nations since WW II.

When in doubt, other nations (indeed even the US) will do nothing. Especially if a massacre is in progress. Despite Muravyets statements to the contrary, it's really, really hard to point to a unified direct intervention against genocidal acts that didn't have the US as a major participant in the military intervention. Especially a major intervention that worked, instead of allowing the massacre to continue.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you don't actually know anything about the Democrats, because it's obvious you don't.

Point one--No matter what Kennedy says and how hard he campaigns, Kerry won't be anywhere near the nomination in 2008. No chance in hell. He failed to beat the worst president ever when he had every advantage--no fucking way the Dems let him get near the top of the ticket again.

Point two--Dean is doing a fantastic job as head of the DNC, both as fundraiser and as grassroots organizer, and the fact that right-wingers keep bringing him up when they've got nothing on him is proof of their desperation.

Point three--I guess you never read the story about Reid before he was a Senator and a local "businessman" tried to bribe him. He set up a sting,and when the cops busted in to arrest the guy, they had to pull Reid off of him, because he had the guy by the lapels and was screaming at him "You tried to bribe ME?" Better yet, how about the way he fought the Republicans to a loss on the Social Security privatization scheme? If there's any justice in this world, you'll be calling him "Majority Leader Reid" in 2006, alongside "Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi," who's done a better job of holding together the Democratic Congressional Caucus than any leader since Tip O'Neill.

But go ahead--keep underestimating us.

Your friendly neighbour to the north sure hopes you're right. :)

Your friendly neighbour to the north sure hopes you're right. :)

I guess that the Nazz would prefer to ignore the reality that the Republican grass roots organization is far larger and older than the Democratic organization - which was essentially non-existent by comparison during the last election.

Or that the Republicans are outstripped the Democrats in fund raising, even if you're only counting individual donations.

Or that there IS a division in the party between the Dean, Hillary, and Kennedy camps.

Or that no one who isn't a die hard Democrat can look at Harry Reid and believe the story about him "jumping" someone.

I guess that the Nazz would prefer to ignore the reality that the Republican grass roots organization is far larger and older than the Democratic organization - which was essentially non-existent by comparison during the last election.

Well that's not really true, Kerry did get 48% of the people who did decide to vote. The margin was not that large and in 2000, hate to bring it up again, but one could really argue that Bush stole that election. I don't think the Democrats are as weak as you'd lead us to believe. I just think they have to come up with a clear message and a stronger leader than Kerry. I agree with Nazz that Kerry doesn't have a hope in hell of taking the nomination for the Democrats in 08.

Well that's not really true, Kerry did get 48% of the people who did decide to vote. The margin was not that large and in 2000, hate to bring it up again, but one could really argue that Bush stole that election. I don't think the Democrats are as weak as you'd lead us to believe. I just think they have to come up with a clear message and a stronger leader than Kerry. I agree with Nazz that Kerry doesn't have a hope in hell of taking the nomination for the Democrats in 08.

I'm not saying Kerry takes the nomination - I'm just saying there's a powerful set of old Dems ready to spend money and clout to try.

I see no credible evidence that Bush "stole" the last election. Otherwise, it would have been contested.

They don't have a clear message. Right now it's, "Republicans suck". And that's it.

They also need to do something to get a stronger leader. They don't have one.

Not that the Republicans have one, either, at this point.

Change to the prediction:

No terrorist attack between now and 2008 -
we get a government screwed up like Germand and France have - with no one clearly in power

Terrorist attack between now and 2008 -
neocons make a comeback and we start wearing black uniforms and talking like Darth Vader, just to make sure that Steph says, "I told you so."

I'm not saying Kerry takes the nomination - I'm just saying there's a powerful set of old Dems ready to spend money and clout to try.

I see no credible evidence that Bush "stole" the last election. Otherwise, it would have been contested.

They don't have a clear message. Right now it's, "Republicans suck". And that's it.

Well the Democrats did basically match the Republicans dollar for dollar when it came to public donations thanks to the brilliance of Howard Dean's Internet idea, which has now been made the standard, you have Howard Dean to thank for that.

I have seen much credible evidence personally to support that Katherine Harris committed fraud in Florida, have bought books and seen many documentaries on it here in Canada to support that Gore in fact won the election. (keeping in mind that Canada had no real vested interest) But, meh, that's old news.

I will agree that the Democrats need to get their act together. Which I also believe is possible.

I'm not saying Kerry takes the nomination - I'm just saying there's a powerful set of old Dems ready to spend money and clout to try.[quote]

Even though Kerry got the 2nd most votes in presidential history, I'm not terribly inspired by him. I prefer Gore.
[QUOTE]
I see no credible evidence that Bush "stole" the last election. Otherwise, it would have been contested.

Well, it was conclusively shown that if a full recount had occurred, Gore would have won. Unfortunately, all Gore requested was a piecemeal recount, which was rejected by the Supreme Court in contradiction to State's rights.


They don't have a clear message. Right now it's, "Republicans suck". And that's it.

They have plenty of clear messages. But, just like our warnings that it would be ill advised for America to treat the rest of the world like it's plaything, you don't seem to be able to hear it. The "the Dems have no messages of their own!" whine is childish in it's denial. Read a fricking Democratic website. You'll see assloads of interesting ideas.


They also need to do something to get a stronger leader. They don't have one.

Dean does seem to be a better organizer and he is making attempts to strengthen the grassroots of the Democratic party. Organizationally and strategically, Dean is good. Now if only we could find someone who talks like Clinton but who actually represents the lower and middle class as a candidate, then we'd have something.

Not that the Republicans have one, either, at this point.

You got that right.

Change to the prediction:

No terrorist attack between now and 2008 -
we get a government screwed up like Germand and France have - with no one clearly in power


This might be interesting if you had something substantive to say. While Germany and France may have more unemployment than us, and their Governments may be even MORE of a confusing morass, the average German and Frenchman work much fewer hours and they get more vacation. From all reports I have, they live quite a richer live than us Americans...just not in a monetary way necessarily. Oh, their stress levels are generally lower than Americans as well.

Terrorist attack between now and 2008 -
neocons make a comeback and we start wearing black uniforms and talking like Darth Vader, just to make sure that Steph says, "I told you so."

Actually, I think another terrorist attack would be the final nail in the coffin for Bush. America is pretty fed up with him, and if we get dramatic proof that we aren't "safer with him," which is his lone area of remaining strength, then I think he and the Republicans will be done for at least 2 election cycles. Saber rattling only goes so far before you see the fear and incompetence that underlies it.

This might be interesting if you had something substantive to say. While Germany and France may have more unemployment than us, and their Governments may be even MORE of a confusing morass, the average German and Frenchman work much fewer hours and they get more vacation. From all reports I have, they live quite a richer live than us Americans...just not in a monetary way necessarily. Oh, their stress levels are generally lower than Americans as well.

The recent confusing morass in Europe is a recent phenomenon. I can't say that a government where you can't tell who is in charge is a government that produced all those nice things in Europe.

BTW, nice things cost money. If you don't mind paying more money to the government, that's fine, but I'm not giving any more - whether its for foreign military expeditions or rebuilding New Orleans or financing midnight basketball.

Umm, isn't that the same demographic which thinks AIDS was invented and spread by the government and OJ didn't do it?

This qualifies as trolling in itself, as baiting an entire race of people. Saying that every African American believes that AIDS was invented by the government is just plain wrong. You've had a past history B0zzy, and it's really starting to catch up to you. Perhaps you need to preview what you type before you post it.

B0zzy: 1-Week Forum ban for Trolling

The recent confusing morass in Europe is a recent phenomenon. I can't say that a government where you can't tell who is in charge is a government that produced all those nice things in Europe.

BTW, nice things cost money. If you don't mind paying more money to the government, that's fine, but I'm not giving any more - whether its for foreign military expeditions or rebuilding New Orleans or financing midnight basketball.

What I'm saying is that there are other factors that contribute to contentment and happiness than just money. We as Americans lose sight of that too often. Money is a means, not an end.

What I'm saying is that there are other factors that contribute to contentment and happiness than just money. We as Americans lose sight of that too often. Money is a means, not an end.

Money is indead a means. However if you want to achieve those means, in America, I'm afraid your going to have to cut the lazy bitching and work for those means.

Its fine if you complain about the long hours, and dealing with tremendous stress. If your that type of guy, then by all means take a single job with little responsibilities then, and live a simple life with the richness of family, and etc. Not everybody demands you work yourself to the bone.

Those of us however who want to do more with our lives, will work more and do more for money and WITH our money. Because, money isn't only used for goddamned cable, fine food, candy, and trinkets. It is also used to change your community in large quantities for the better if you so desire to put up with the sacrifices to be able to so.

Then again, if your lazy, don't worry about Americans working hard. We aren't working FOR you. We are doing it for our own intrests. So why complain?

Money is indead a means. However if you want to achieve those means, in America, I'm afraid your going to have to cut the lazy bitching and work for those means.

Its fine if you complain about the long hours, and dealing with tremendous stress. If your that type of guy, then by all means take a single job with little responsibilities then, and live a simple life with the richness of family, and etc. Not everybody demands you work yourself to the bone.

Those of us however who want to do more with our lives, will work more and do more for money and WITH our money. Because, money isn't only used for goddamned cable, fine food, candy, and trinkets. It is also used to change your community in large quantities for the better if you so desire to put up with the sacrifices to be able to so.

Then again, if your lazy, don't worry about Americans working hard. We aren't working FOR you. We are doing it for our own intrests. So why complain?


See, there's my point there. Unless you slavishly chase the benjamins, by your definition, you're lazy. How about volunteering your time? And who says I'm looking for a handout or for anything to be given to me? I'm personally very well off and have never once been in debt in my life, because I'm careful with my money.

What I'm saying is that there are other factors that contribute to contentment and happiness than just money. We as Americans lose sight of that too often. Money is a means, not an end.

I think that both the Republicans and Democrats need to get off the idea that money spent on government is a solution to a problem.

Most of the government money spent on poverty reduction in the US has had severe negative effects - unlike similar money spent in Europe.

Most of the government money spent on military action by the US has had severe negative effects.

It could be better spent in both areas.

This qualifies as trolling in itself, as baiting an entire race of people. Saying that every African American believes that AIDS was invented by the government is just plain wrong. You've had a past history B0zzy, and it's really starting to catch up to you. Perhaps you need to preview what you type before you post it.

B0zzy: 1-Week Forum ban for Trolling


ROFLMAO!

Euro - Your double standards were always amusing, particularly when it comes to flames - like http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9575517&postcount=11Hmm, maybe you are closer to the owner of that puppet nation than we thought? http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9618444&postcount=30

That was pretty much the thread where you and others demonstrated that this is not the place for free discussion of ideas at all. It is about conforming to a liberal standard - Or for those brave enough not to conform; being a good little objector and behaving by a separate set of rules. I really lost interest in participating once I exposed the hypocrisy here - hence my lower recent post count.

Why I am laughing today is you go and try to convert a generalization into a flame. Well excuhuuuuuse me! Sorry - I forgot that we are only allowed to generalize about fundamentalists, Christians, conservatives, white males, the rich, and other 'safe' targets. A generalization (which I backed backed with a link to the documented fact (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9793600&postcount=64) it is based on) about one of your liberal golden calves however is a FLAME. How dare I forget my place.

I'll be a good little conservative and go to the back of the bus now. Sorry for not clearly stating that I was only referencing a majority opinion (in one case) or substantial number (in the other).

Half of the demographic would never take offense at my statement since they have already stated they agree with it. It is YOU who is flaming them for accepting my statement as an insult. Would it also be insulting to the other half had I generalized the opposite? Ha - you can't answer that without exposing your overzealous attempt at a gotcha.

You and many other mods here are funny to me not because I consider it a 'conspiracy' as much as you have no idea how your bias is so transparent. There are many mods who are very immature - they can't even handle criticism. I have little doubt that I'll be banned by them for having the audacity for addressing this. I've seen in the past how poorly you all handle criticism - similar to Communist China - remove the dissenter - censor the message and terminate the thread if it does not go your way. Which brings me back to the fact that this forum is really not about the free discussion of ideas at all.

You see, when someone shares an idea which is unpopular there will be more folks upset about it than compared to popular ideas. You have been one of the most egregious offender of not grasping that concept. You mistake a volume of responses (from a minority of posters) as an indication that my posts are 'problematic' yet you chose to ignore considerably more blatant offense (like the link I provided) simply because the same busy-bodies who complain about one engineer the others - so there are fewer complaints.

Euro - You are modding like a judge in a popularity contest instead of trying to evenly apply the rules. The only history I have is one of not breaking the rules (as most moderations threads eventually begrudgingly discovered), but just making people really angry by not succumbing to their low-brow antics. You have let them manipulate you - willingly or not.

And that is what makes this whole thing so funny to me. This forum states it wants non-conforming ideas discussed, then applies a different set of rules to those who share them -then wonders why there is such a majority her of one particular idea set.

Have you never wondered why would anyone want to hang out and be treated like a second class citizen? THAT is the reason why this forum is more homogenous than others. Those who disagree with your accepted standard simply get fed up and leave - like I have.

Sorry, I change my mind - I don't think I will sit at the back of the bus after all. I'll just get off here.




I'll be AMAZED if B0zzy is not publicly executed for pointing out your 'lack of clothes'. If I am not then I'll visit now and then and share my unique perspectives. (though not nearly as often as when I thought this forum was serious) but most likely B0zzy dies - laughing.

Party on dude - be excellent to each other.

-B0z

It's not significant. As a whole, the black community rarely has a high turn out.

I hate narcs...hate em. Constantly ruining it for everybody on a self righteous platform of "abuse". Grow up and smell the roses.
George Bush, and the whole goosestepping "team of Americans" behind him are the most traitorous, dangerous crowd of filth my noble country has ever seen.
Let's just make a meager attempt at a list:
Katrina, WsMD, exposing CIA agents, rationalization of torture, Colin Powells' speech to the UN, the trophy video, the Abu Graib photographs, disdain for due process of law(Guitanamo, Abu Graib, etc).
Just off the top of my feeble unpatriotic head.
Why not try to SAVE our country, instead of completely ruining it in the name of unity in the face of terrorism? Why not try to set an example to the rest of the world, instead of blindly lashing out?
I remember 9/11. I remember it very well. A horrible day for me.....for everyone, especially Americans.
Sorry, I ranted.
For a wacky change, let's get back to topic.
Blacks won't support Bush and his partners in crime, because they're not interested in blacks. The Bush Regime is interested in power, and nothing less.

-snip-

Being myself an African-American, I can't say I was all that pleased with your racial generalization. I do think you have a point though. Mod behaviour shouldn't be ideologically biased, and your post wasn't any more incendiary than the norm for NS Gen. But those are the breaks, so you have to ask yourself what you will do about it. Posting one glorious complaint and then skulking off probably won't accomplish much. And when the going gets tough... well you know the rest :)

If the African American vote was important, the Democrats would have won the election.
Those god damn negros need to get back in the fields and pick some more cotton, not vote :rolleyes: