|
|
|
|
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/5/2008 8:13:20 PM |
Hey Poco,
you want us to believe that the republicans are the party that is leading the struggle to achieve real racial equality now. You must be joking. You sound anachronistic in the extreme. Things change in history. Look where all those southern democrats are now: in the Republican party. Why? Is it because the Republican Party is leading the fight for racial equality? If you believe that you aren't just "poco," you really are "mucho loco." The bigots and racist scum are in the party which gives them space and comfort, where they can rub elbows with the wizards of the KKK. That party now is the Republican party, which somewhere in history lost the way that had followed under the leadership of Lincoln. Abe would not be happy seeing what his party has become.
You are just trying to justify spewing racial hate now and feel good about being a republican because of its history. Being anachronistic is another form of simple ignorance
Well let's consider a few things, who locked up the Japanese FDR the one your party brags about! Joe Biden called obama clean an articulate and your party turned on him as if he said something racial? more recent Bill Clinton just accused Obama of playing the race card, he didn't blame MaCain the racial divide right now is in the Demorcatic party, not the Republican party, Republicans aern't fight over race or pulling the race card, The Democrats are, as a matter of fact MaCain has not and will not bring up race! Clinton and Obama talk about it all the time and so do Obamas friends you know Wright? lol It's a known fact Hillary is trying to get the Latino vote while Obaba is trying to get the black vote, so who's really demonstrating Racial divide? MaCain is just trying to get all the votes liberals and dems if he can!He's not chasing colors!
It seems like it really makes you feel good about your self to call Reps scum and bigots, which tells me you really should check your look in the mirror, I see you have some deep rooted issues! The Republican party isn't doing anything or saying anything about race...the Dems are all over it...lol
State you facts man! don't just be a blow blow....actually give me the names of all the Republican clans men? Cite out the republicans and what they said that was bigoted or racial? Before you call me stupid ignorant or a bigot..understand I'm mixed and date a Boricua that's a Puerto Rican...so how am I a racist? STUPID! | |
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/6/2008 2:35:50 PM | Poco,
after reading your response to my post addressed to you, I am convinced of several things:
1) You have no sense of humor at all.
2) My perception that you are "mucho loco" seems to be on target.
3) You like to bully your way into serious discussions by accussing people of insulting you personally, when they don't insult you. They criticize your diatribes in a very open and frank manner, but they don't insult you. You become defensive when people point out that you may be wrong on certain points. Just to prove this point: I did not use the word "stupid" in my post, but you said that I called you "stupid ignorant." I am sorry that you feel this way just because I pointed out that what you are doing is based on anachronic thinking or outdated beliefs. You need to read what I wrote about your way of thinking, analize it, and see if it can help you sort out your beliefs.
Now, I will try to help you deal with some of the issues that have you confused about the reality of the country in which we both live.
I am not a registered Democrat, I am a registered independent. I am on record on these forums as a supporter of Obama who will vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination. I have many reasons to believe that we need to get rid of the predators that are ruining the lives of the American working people. McCain would only be a continuation of this regime that protects the plunderers of our country.
The reason why the Republican Party doesn't need to deal with the race issue within the party is because there isn't a significant number of people who are not white in the Republican party, and the few souls who are not white are not pushing the party to do anything to further the scales to achieve real racial equality in this country. I don't see many black republicans raising their voices to defend the need to help the population of New Orleans to rebuild their communities, nor do I hear them defending the social programs that the right -wing would like to dismantle.
On the other hand, the southern democrats (the same ones that you accused of being racists slave owners,) moved into the Republican Party where they found a lot of support to remain in power. I don't apologize for calling people who go around spewing racial hate what they really are: bigots and racist scum. Sorry that you don't like my language, but that is what they are in my opinion. May be you like people who go around spewing racial hate, but that would be you, and we live in a free country.
I am writing to you because I am an optimist, and I feel that I can help people see that some of their ideas may be based on incorrect information.
Another point. Just because you are of mixed race and are dating a "boricua" lady (you better treat her right!) doesn't mean that you are correct on your perception of the racial issues. You have already been called in these forums to think about your disparaging remarks about other races, cultures and religions. So think about it instead of trying to bully your way out of honest discussions. There is nothing wrong with not knowing something, or not understanding some intricacies of thought development. What is wrong is to refuse to think critically, especially when one is given the information and help with the thought process.
Ok. Why is there a discussion that sometimes may look like a fight touching on racial issues within the Democratic Party, the fight that you seem to relish, the same fight that right-wing press is desperatelt trying to keep alive? I don't know if you have figured this out yet, but I gave a clue before. Simply put: because that is party in which you will find the majority of the people who are truly interested in resolving the racial issues that divide the people of this country. If you want to close your eyes and say that there aren't any racial issues dividing this country because the Republican Party doesn't want to talk about them, then I would suggest that you wake up. Just because the Democratic Party seems to be on the right track now regarding the racial issues doesn't mean that all the people in the Democratic Party are in total agreement. There will be honest disagreements among Democrats, and to you it may sound like a deep rift because it could help McCain. All the right-wingers keep on fanning the flames of the racial rift among the democrats. It won't work because the informed citizens of this country recognize that it is simply another ploy of the right-wing: pure racial baiting.
To finish, since you asked to give you some specifics names to support my statement about what the Republican Party became in the last century. I don't want to abuse your patience with a long list. My hope is that after reading this post you will want to think about this matter and become more interested in finding the facts that can support or undermine your way of thinking. You challenged me to name the racist southern democrats that found comfort within the Republican Party, the party that also welcomes the KKK within its ranks. I will just give two names, and hope you that will take it from there: David Duke, a wizard of the KKK sought the nomination of the Republican party, and Strom Thurmond, a senator from South Carolina. He was a southern democrat who wasn't happy about the changes that were happening regarding the races in this country. However, he didn't had many reservations about fathering children of mixed race. He wasn't very proud of his daughter because of the color of her skin. Was he?
Let me hear from you once you have thought about all this. | |
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/6/2008 3:38:09 PM | I'd say vote for Clinton.. You'll be glad you did.. 
Obama is looking a little ragged and down-trodden these daze. 
Looks like he could use a V-8!
But it might have to be a write-in vote from across the big pond.. Unless you have a Lear-Jet and plenty of gas.. 
-Suth'nBoy 
| |
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/6/2008 6:54:30 PM | "Obama is looking a little ragged and down-trodden these daze.
Looks like he could use a V-8!"
Not tonight, South'n Boy, he isn't! Although I would recommend a V-8 for all of us. We will need it so start working to make sure that McCain won't get us deeper in the hole that we are now. | |
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/6/2008 8:26:25 PM | I would recommend a  for all of us--I agree that we need to assure that McCain doesn't get in, and Shillary doesn't either. Obama's a good man and I am proud of him for winning by a wide margin in NC. In Indiana the spread was around 4 points Not by much
I think I'll go have my I'm gonna need it!! | |
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/6/2008 9:23:19 PM | | Well since there is really only two people running, Ron Paul and then the three headed McObHil. Clearly the choice is Ron Paul. Time to cut out the cancer and stop whistling past the graveyard. | |
|
| |
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/7/2008 6:17:46 AM | Mr.Sense of Humor,(Transfixed)
you may want to read this from Deroy Murdock....he just happens to be black! Now I wonder why he would expose the real history of the Democratic party like this? You really should understand what your writting before embarrassing your self! Here's your response...let's read together! lol
The reason why the Republican Party doesn't need to deal with the race issue within the party is because there isn't a significant number of people who are not white in the Republican party, and the few souls who are not white are not pushing the party to do anything to further the scales to achieve real racial equality in this country. I don't see many black republicans raising their voices to defend the need to help the population of New Orleans to rebuild their communities, nor do I hear them defending the social programs that the right -wing would like to dismantle.
On the other hand, the southern democrats (the same ones that you accused of being racists slave owners,) moved into the Republican Party where they found a lot of support to remain in power. I don't apologize for calling people who go around spewing racial hate what they really are: bigots and racist scum. Sorry that you don't like my language, but that is what they are in my opinion. May be you like people who go around spewing racial hate, but that would be you, and we live in a free country.
I am writing to you because I am an optimist, and I feel that I can help people see that some of their ideas may be based on incorrect information
Well the history lesson you espouse, not only is false but rather slanted and to those who know history it's laughable at best ..nice try! next time understand facts before appearing so foolish! I'm just trying to help you understand the errors of their ways based on misinformation! Thank Me for enlightening you!
February 18, 2005, 7:37 a.m.
Grand Old Party
Blacks might be surprised to compare Republican history with the Democrats’.
Today marks the 90th anniversary of a very special White House ceremony. President Woodrow Wilson hosted his Cabinet and the entire U.S. Supreme Court for a screening of D. W. Griffith's racist masterpiece, Birth of a Nation. The executive mansion's first film presentation depicted, according to Griffith, the Ku Klux Klan's heroic, post-Civil War struggle against the menace of emancipated blacks, portrayed by white actors in black face. As black civil-rights leader W.E.B. DuBois explained: In Griffith's 1915 motion picture, "The freed man was represented either as an ignorant fool, a vicious rapist, a venal or unscrupulous politician, or a faithful idiot."
Thumbs up, Wilson exclaimed. The film "is like writing history with lightning," he remarked, adding, "it is all so terribly true."
This vignette — recently recounted in Ken Burns's PBS documentary, Unforgivable Blackness — was neither the first nor last time a prominent Democrat plunged a hot knife in black America's collective back. Each February, Black History Month recalls Democrat Harry Truman's 1948 desegregation of the armed forces and Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson's signature on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the greatest black legislative victory since Republican Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery in 1863. This annual commemoration, however, largely overlooks the many milestones Republicans and blacks have achieved together by overcoming reactionary Democrats.
The House Policy Committee's 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar offers 365 examples of GOP support for women, blacks, and other minorities, often over Democratic objections. Among its highlights:
"To stop the Democrats' pro-slavery agenda, anti-slavery activists founded the Republican party, starting with a few dozen men and women in Ripon, Wisconsin on March 20, 1854," the calendar notes. "Democratic opposition to Republican efforts to protect the civil rights of all Americans lasted not only throughout Reconstruction, but well into the 20th century. In the south, those Democrats who most bitterly opposed equality for blacks founded the Ku Klux Klan, which operated as the party's terrorist wing."
Contemporary partisan hyperbole? Consider this 1866 comment from Governor Oliver Morton (R., Ind.), who is immortalized in the U.S. Capitol's Statuary Hall: "Every one who shoots down Negroes in the streets, burns Negro school-houses and meeting-houses, and murders women and children by the light of their own flaming dwellings, calls himself a Democrat," Morton said. "Every New York rioter in 1863 who burned up little children in colored asylums, who robbed, ravished, and murdered indiscriminately in the midst of a blazing city for three days and nights, calls himself a Democrat."
White supremacists worked club in hand with Democrats for decades:
May 22, 1856: Two years after the Grand Old party's birth, U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R., Mass.) rose to decry pro-slavery Democrats. Congressman Preston Brooks (D., S.C.) responded by grabbing a stick and beating Sumner unconscious in the Senate chamber. Disabled, Sumner could not resume his duties for three years.
July 30, 1866: New Orleans's Democratic government ordered police to raid an integrated GOP meeting, killing 40 people and injuring 150.
September 28, 1868: Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana killed nearly 300 blacks who tried to foil an assault on a Republican newspaper editor.
October 7, 1868: Republicans criticized Democrats' national slogan: "This is a white man's country: Let white men rule."
April 20, 1871: The GOP Congress adopted the Ku Klux Klan Act, banning the pro-Democrat domestic terrorist group.
October 18, 1871: GOP President Ulysses S. Grant dispatched federal troops to quell Klan violence in South Carolina.
September 14, 1874: Racist white Democrats stormed Louisiana's statehouse to oust GOP Governor William Kellogg's racially integrated administration; 27 are killed.
August 17, 1937: Republicans opposed Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D., Al.), a former Klansman who defended Klansmen against race-murder charges.
February 2005: The Democrats' Klan-coddling today is embodied by KKK alumnus Robert Byrd, West Virginia's logorrheic U.S. senator and, having served since January 3, 1959, that body's dean. Thirteen years earlier, Byrd wrote this to the KKK's Imperial Wizard: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." Byrd led Senate Democrats as late as December 1988. On March 4, 2001, Byrd told Fox News's Tony Snow: "There are white s. I've seen a lot of white s in my time; I'm going to use that word." National Democrats never have arranged a primary challenge against or otherwise pressed this one-time cross-burner to get lost.
Contrast the KKKozy Democrats with the GOP. When former Klansman David Duke ran for Louisiana governor in 1991 as a Republican, national GOP officials scorned him. Local Republicans endorsed incumbent Democrat Edwin Edwards, despite his ethical baggage. As one Republican-created bumper sticker pleaded: "Vote for the crook: It's important!"
Republicans also have supported legislation favorable to blacks, often against intense Democratic headwinds:
In 1865, Congressional Republicans unanimously backed the 13th Amendment, which made slavery unconstitutional. Among Democrats, 63 percent of senators and 78 percent of House members voted: "No."
In 1866, 94 percent of GOP senators and 96 percent of GOP House members approved the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans equal protection of the law. Every congressional Democrat voted: "No."
February 28, 1871: The GOP Congress passed the Enforcement Act, giving black voters federal protection.
February 8, 1894: Democratic President Grover Cleveland and a Democratic Congress repealed the GOP's Enforcement Act, denying black voters federal protection.
January 26, 1922: The U.S. House adopted Rep. Leonidas Dyer's (R., Mo.) bill making lynching a federal crime. Filibustering Senate Democrats killed the measure.
May 17, 1954: As chief justice, former three-term governor Earl Warren (R., Calif.) led the U.S. Supreme Court's desegregation of government schools via the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. GOP President Dwight Eisenhower's Justice Department argued for Topeka, Kansas's black school children. Democrat John W. Davis, who lost a presidential bid to incumbent Republican Calvin Coolidge in 1924, defended "separate but equal" classrooms.
September 24, 1957: Eisenhower deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate Little Rock's government schools over the strenuous resistance of Governor Orval Faubus (D., Ark.).
May 6, 1960: Eisenhower signs the GOP's 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats.
July 2, 1964: Democratic President Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd's 14-hour filibuster and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats (including Tennessee's Al Gore, Sr.) failed to scuttle the measure. Illinois Republican Everett Dirksen rallied 26 GOP senators and 44 Democrats to invoke cloture and allow the bill's passage. According to John Fonte in the January 9, 2003, National Review, 82 percent of Republicans so voted, versus only 66 percent of Democrats.
True, Senator Barry Goldwater (R., Ariz.) opposed this bill the very year he became the GOP's presidential standard-bearer. However, Goldwater supported the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts and called for integrating Arizona's National Guard two years before Truman desegregated the military. Goldwater feared the 1964 Act would limit freedom of association in the private sector, a controversial but principled libertarian objection rooted in the First Amendment rather than racial hatred.
June 29, 1982: President Ronald Reagan signed a 25-year extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The Republican party also is the home of numerous "firsts." Among them:
Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican. America's first black U.S. Representative, South Carolina's Joseph Rainey, and our first black senator, Mississippi's Hiram Revels, both reached Capitol Hill in 1870. On December 9, 1872, Louisiana Republican Pinckney Benton Stewart "P.B.S." Pinchback became America's first black governor.
August 8, 1878: GOP supply-siders may hate to admit it, but America's first black Collector of Internal Revenue was former U.S. Rep. James Rapier (R., Ala.).
October 16, 1901: GOP President Theodore Roosevelt invited to the White House as its first black dinner guest Republican educator Booker T. Washington. The pro-Democrat Richmond Times newspaper warned that consequently, "White women may receive attentions from Negro men." As Toni Marshall wrote in the November 9, 1995, Washington Times, when Roosevelt sought reelection in 1904, Democrats produced a button that showed their presidential nominee, Alton Parker, beside a white couple while Roosevelt posed with a white bride and black groom. The button read: "The Choice Is Yours."
GOP presidents Gerald Ford in 1975 and Ronald Reagan in 1982 promoted Daniel James and Roscoe Robinson to become, respectively, the Air Force's and Army's first black four-star generals.
November 2, 1983: President Reagan established Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a national holiday, the first such honor for a black American.
President Reagan named Colin Powell America's first black national-security adviser while GOP President George W. Bush appointed him our first black secretary of state.
President G.W. Bush named Condoleezza Rice America's first black female NSC chief, then our second (consecutive) black secretary of State. Just last month, one-time Klansman Robert Byrd and other Senate Democrats stalled Rice's confirmation for a week. Amid unanimous GOP support, 12 Democrats and Vermont Independent James Jeffords opposed Rice — the most "No" votes for a State designee since 14 senators frowned on Henry Clay in 1825.
"The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire," Rice has said. "He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I."
"We started our party with the express intent of protecting the American people from the Democrats' pro-slavery policies that expressly made people inferior to the state," wrote Rep. Christopher Cox (R., Calif.), who authorized the calendar last year as House Policy chairman. "Today, the animating spirit of the Republican Party is exactly the same as it was then: free people, free minds, free markets, free expression, and unlimited opportunity."
"Leading the organized opposition to these ideas 150 years ago, just as today, was the Democratic Party," Cox continued. "Then, just as now, their hallmarks were politically correct speech; a preference for government control over individual initiative...and an insistence on seeing people as members of groups rather than as individuals."
But what about racial preferences? The GOP's embrace of color-neutral policies parallels Martin Luther King's dream of racial equality over racial scale tipping. "The constitutional amendments that the Republican party supported after the Civil War did not advance preferences by race," Cox told me. "They made government view every person as an individual, not as a member of a racial group."
Alas, even as Republicans promote work over welfare, educational choice, and personal retirement accounts, all of which would empower blacks, some 90 percent of blacks vote Democrat as reflexively as knees kick when tapped with rubber mallets. After inspecting the Democrats' handiwork — e.g. the tar pit that is public assistance, the Dresden that is the ghetto school system, and the pyramid scheme that is Social Security (which robs too many blacks who die before recouping their "investment") — black Americans should ask Democrats: "Yesterday's gone. What have you done for us lately?"
— New York commentator Deroy Murdock is an advisory board member of Project 21, a Washington-based network of black free-market advocates.
Where's you logic with this?  | |
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/7/2008 6:45:02 AM | Who to vote for, good question. I count McCain out because of his age and lack of an agenda, or rather an agenda that continues Bush's. It will take 8 years to fix the mess we are in and McCain cant last. I like McCain and my guess is that he will win.
Clinton seems to pander too much and as much as I like Bill personally, the man lied to the country and was impeached, I dont want him in the White House again as First Man or shadow President, either. She has made some very irresponsible statements and I dont want her to answer that call at 3 am, thank you.
Obama is the man. I dont think he will make it, he needs your vote and mine but I will vote for him. He has integrity and some vision and the power to inspire people, but mostly because he seems to want to back off from the international conflicts we are engaging and focus on issues at home..........which we really, really need. | |
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/7/2008 8:00:35 AM | Obama is unelectable, although given last night's vote he is almost ensured the Democratic nomination.
The man has no experience (Hillary had little, but that's better than none) and post Wright he's been shown not to be morally fit for the position either. It's one thing to attend a church a couple of times and say, "Oops, the preacher here's a bigot. I'm outta here." and quite another to use that preacher as your spiritual counselor for 20 years.
If you want to make the argument that Obama didn't know about Wright's positions, being brain dead isn't exactly a ringing endorsement either.
Obama can't win the election without getting white voters. In NC, where he had a commanding victory, he lost the white vote 36 percent to Clinton's 60 percent. He won by getting 91 percent of the black vote.
Personally when Obama first showed up on the scene I liked him, but wouldn't have voted for him due to his lack of experience. However, I would have considered voting for him in the future. Now that I know he tolerates racism, I wouldn't vote for him ever.
McCain in 08! | |
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/7/2008 8:23:07 AM | Let's see
Obama talks a good talk but never actually says anything. He surrounds himself with racists and criminal types. He appears to not be able to fess up to mistakes and his people are willing to play the race card if things to to hot for him. He hasn't done anything much in government other than get elected and you need a context decoder ring to be able to understand what he really meant what he says what he really thinks. He can talk a sound bite and turn it into a hundred years war which says alot about his integrity.
Clinton is a classic victim and makes up stories about herself to impress people. Her husband is tainted goods. She is not Presidential material.
Mcain is a war hero...and is a conservative and a liberal depending on whichever will get him what he wants. A regular political two headed coin of a guy.
And the winner is.....not the American people. | |
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/7/2008 9:51:53 AM | I have to agree with the last two posts, with the exception of "McCain in '08"! That would be almost identical to "Bush in '08"! And the only alternative we've voluntarily left ourselves, is Obama. Not an option with tangible promise..
Our viable options have been disappearing fast. And the light at the end for a reasonable recovery, in a reasonable manner, in this country, is fading.
I honestly don't know now, who to support, if anyone.. I'd like a lot better choices. But we have eliminated all of those.
-Suth'nBoy
| |
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/7/2008 10:23:58 AM | I'm not sure how being in the Senate forever gives one "experience". Is someone a better candidate because they voted for 20,000 bills instead of 2,000?
Given this experience factor, though, I'd like to hear from the McCain supporters ...
what's that going to do for someone in a practical way? You go in with an agenda, a voter's mandate ..........and I am not sure exactly what McCain's is, does he have one? What's McCain going to fix and how? Tell me.
You go in with an agenda and you get clobbered by the other party, unless you have the votes, the magic number to carry your bills through ....but if you don,t, you have to go across the aisle and get bipartisan support. Is McCain somehow able to get bipartisan support better than the others? If so, show me.
And for all the experience in Washington mcCain has, supposedly, can someone please list all of his accomplishments? From where I sit, Obama has a longer list of accomplishments in a FAR, FAR shorter amount of time.
List McCain's accomplishements to show the value of his experience, lets see them, please.
If youre going to vote for a war hero, I pick Colonel Sanders | |
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/7/2008 11:47:36 AM | Com'on South'n Boy,
you know that if you sit this one out you will be doing McCain a favor. You also know that Hillary will call for an all out effort to unite behind the nominee. You being such an ardent Hillary supporter should start making peace with the idea, and start sounding less like the McCain machine disguised as Hillary diehards. | |
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/7/2008 1:08:17 PM | | MAJOR pet peve nearve hit, who should you vote for? Well, I guess that depends on who is running for office in YOUR country. People like to blast the united states for "sticking it's nose in to other nations' business, but I cruise forum after forum and see nothing but critique of our government, elections and all kinds of "usefiull advice" on who I should put in office.....from people that don't even live in this country. You want to have a say in our politics? then immigrate here, gain citizenship here and VOTE. | |
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/7/2008 2:17:17 PM | Who are you talking to?
I am here, and will vote. That means that I have already pledged allegiance to the USA.
Guess what? I also had to pay several fees for applications for this and that! And guess what else? I have also paid taxes all the years that I have lived and worked in this country, which has been my entire working life. And guess what else again? I paid for my children's education without asking anyone for handouts from the government.
I have made a bigger investment than a lot of people in this country. (How many fees did you have to pay so that you could feel that you are an American?) That is the reason why I feel that I can speak my mind about what would be better for our future, and the future of my children and grandchildren. | |
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/7/2008 2:29:19 PM | he's been shown not to be morally fit
We'd have to go waaaaaay back to Carter to say we've had one since that was. I liked Reagan although I acknowledge that much of his policies might have been damaging and flew under the radar thanks to the cloak of seeming prosperity just like Clinton's, but I sense morality wasn't necessarily a strong point.
ETA - Poco does have a sense of humor. He just needs to think you're funny. | |
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/7/2008 2:45:02 PM | | We only have fifty states. There was talk of making Puerto Rico the fifty-first, but nothing happened. Perhaps that's why the fifty-third state is so rarely considered. | |
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/7/2008 3:03:38 PM | Sorry, but we've been through all that before. Right now though, the pickings are dismal at best. We have only 2 choices. Bad and worse.
I was an Edwards supporter at first. But he was one of the earlier ones to go. I like Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter, and I rather liked Joe Biden too. But we eliminated all of them.(or for all intents and purposes we did). Clinton came later, because she was the best option of what remained.
I hate to disappoint you, but McCain would be my choice, ONLY if I wanted Bush III. I certainly don't want anything to do with Bush or Cheney ever again, in this lifetime, and you can take that to the bank. It's the most destructive, misguided and corrupt presidency we've ever had, in my opinion.
However, I think Obama will get us into Deep DooDoo. Probably not on purpose. Probably just naiveté and not knowing what he's doing, or by questionable judgment. Although Michelle might also get us into trouble with 0ther countries by expressing her disdain for America, and how she deserves more.
Like I said before, the next four years will be interesting to say the least! Although not likely good-interesting.
-Suth'nBoy 
| |
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/7/2008 3:23:14 PM |
Perhaps that's why the fifty-third state is so rarely considered.
That's like saying someone is the 6th Beatle. You know there's like a hundred "5th Beatles" so what does that say if you're considered a "6th Beatle". | |
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/7/2008 4:15:12 PM | OK. Poco, (or should I say Mucho.):
I was tempted to give up on you, but after re-reading your response with a critical eye, and seeing that you have made some progress, I will give it another try.
You still seem to react in a defensive manner that clouds your ability to think about what you are reading. (I know that I write a bit long, but you have to give me credit for the effort. It is all my own writing, which reflects my way of thinking. I don't need to paste somebody else's articles in my writing to try to make a point. Compare my post to yours. You only wrote six lines: 3 lines before quoting my post and 3 lines after the quotation. And then, after pasting the long article you inserted a short question. All of your writing [I mean the 6 lines and the short question] was basically a defensive, jerky move on your part. There wasn't much of a deep thought, or a sophisticated idea. I am not going to quote it because anyone who wants to read what you wrote can easily find it.) You need to read critically, not accept everything you read as if it was the gospel.
To your credit, you didn't resort to insults this time. That is a good sign. It looks like you are already taking into consideration the advice that I gave you. There is no point in insulting someone saying that he insulted you first, when that someone didn't do such thing. That is a very childish thing to do, and I am glad that you stayed away from that in your last post. However, that type of defensive reaction that you demonstrate when you write may continue to cloud your ability to think on your two feet.
Now, let's move to the important points.
1) You need to start learning about critical thinking. I told you that believing that the Republican Party today is good because Lincoln was a Republican 150 years ago is an anachronistic way of thinking. Is sounds almost like an article of religious faith. You are right in trying to find examples of good things that the Republican Party has done to help people in this country. I am not denying history, but I do look at it critically. By now you should know that the facts in history can be interpreted diferently. You seem impressed by the article mentioning a list of "first appointments" made by past Republican presidents, and a few other important milestones. But, looking at the overall picture, I wouldn't be the first one to say that most of them have been token appointments. They have not had any impact at all in this society, especially in matters that relate to closing the gap dividing the races in social or economic terms.
I will be back to this point.
2) Change occurs in history. Some of it may be good, and some of it may not be good.
The parties have changed, and if you don't want to believe it because you want to cling to your stubborn defense of the Republican Party, then suit yourself. However, defending the Republican party of nowadays with their courageous achievements of the past puts you in the anachronistic realm of history. So you understand want I mean more clearly, I will explain that I don't defend the Southern Democrats who were racist slave owners. Looking back, if I could talk to them I would say the same thing that I have expressed about people who spew racial hate and cling to ideas of racial superiority: "bigots and racist scum." Now, if that should apply to some current, prominent members of the Democratic Party, so be it. I am not defending the Democratic Party, especially its past tainted by racial hate and bigotry, but above all, I am not going to defend any Democrat that would like to turn back the clock when it come to the progress made towards racial equality. Is the Democratic Party of today the same party of 150 years ago? or just 60 years ago? You tell me. Does change occur in history?
3) Finally, you have to think about this one. Do you agree with the point of the article that you pasted in your post? I know you agree with the idea that the Republican Party is good and the Democratic Party is bad, but I suggest to you that this idea is just a manipulative russe to catch some uninformed poor souls in order to sell them the big points of the right-wing agenda: destroying the basic elements of the safety net that could help the great majority of the poor people of this country. Can you see that the whole lithany of the article is just a ploy to promote the dismantling of public assistance, public education and social security? Do you have to resort to soiling the name of historical figures in order to promote your dirty agenda of turning the clock against the people of this country? And here I am back to the point I was explaining before:
Do you agree with the author of the article that 90 % of the black people are so uninformed that they do not realize that the Democratic Party is not good for them?
(By the way, that should be enough for you to agree with one of the points of my posting: the Democratic Party is the political entity where the discussion about race is taking place because that is where the action is in relation to that issue.)
I don't think so, but probably you do. If not, why did you paste the article?
Just to make a simple point: if the black people saw that the Republican Party was offering a greener pasture, I wouldn't be surprised if the black vote would start moving to their side. I think that they are smart enough to figure out what is good for them.
I hope that these exchanges of ideas proves to be somewhat useful to you. At least I am trying to reason with you. | |
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/7/2008 4:20:54 PM | People like to blast the united states for "sticking it's nose in to other nations' business, but I cruise forum after forum and see nothing but critique of our government, elections and all kinds of "usefiull advice" on who I should put in office.....from people that don't even live in this country. You want to have a say in our politics? then immigrate here, gain citizenship here and VOTE.
Consider it the Canadian version of "regime change".
Lots of rational discussion , no one gets killed, and everyone winds up sitting around over a beer talking politics.
I suggest that if you want to really change things in Iraq, YOU should move there and become a citizen. | |
|
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/7/2008 4:43:20 PM | Hi South'n Boy
We have more in common than I thought. Edwards was my choice also. You probably won't believe it, but I voted for him in my primary even though he had withdrawn from the election.
Now, back to reality. No more Bush, Cheney, McCain. We have to do our part. Remember what I said before, we got to vote even if we have to hold our noses when pulling the lever with the other hand.
We are old enough to know that if a president goes the wrong way we can always elect a congress that will offer some checks and balances.
So, lets give Obama a chance to bring relief and hopefully some good changes. | |
|
| |
| Who the best person for me to vote for?
Posted: 5/7/2008 5:57:14 PM | Tran,
Let me see if I can step over your ego and self stroking of how wonderful you find your self to be! You very condescending, and quite in love with how you think you are, goody goody! But let's set your ego and arrogance aisde so you can actually see someone else's point, since you tend to believe everyone is beneath you! Oh and goody for you you can actually write your own thoughts which typically so does everyone else, unless their pointing to a link or article that better articulates their point or illustrates the writtings of another in the know! About 75% of what you write is your attempt at showing everyone how above them you are, when actually it's nothing more then mere tarradiddles, design to make you feel important! After filtering threw all you bullschitt I find your post to be quite empty of substance, allot of balah blah blah blah, that really was quite boring!
What I posted illuminated the difference between the two parties from the beginning to current..yet you chose to call them tokens? How Liberal! you never see the good only the bad...The main purpose of having a Federal Government was too..
Provide Security from foreign invaders not become a Welfare nation! Check your Constitution it's in there! All the progams that have since been developed have been done so to get elected or re-elected, and have turned a nation of many into dependents!
But we obviously don't agree with many issues and I'm fine with that! Take a tip from me, if you enjoy having people to respond to you try talking to them like an equal instead of a retarded child...Being Condescending is really not cool...were all just people, and enjoy good debates not having someone think their so bright they talk down to you! | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
