Just smile and pull the donkey lever

[VinceZeb]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33118

edit: Max, Kevin, and the rest of the whiny libs on here should study the first two paragraphs. It describes you perfectly.

Just smile and pull the donkey lever

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 17, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Mychal Massie

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

I recall a white, social-liberal Democrat arguing with me about what it was to be black. That's right – a white, liberal college professor telling me what it was to be black. Growing weary of his pomposity, I explained that "I had been black for 50 years and inquired exactly how long he had been black."

This is the arrogance of elite social liberals. They vilify white males, attempt to thwart Hispanic business progress (that they themselves champion when it benefits them) and convince blacks near en masse, that they will never get ahead without a handout – and that they will always be victims of some nebulous time past, that none today have lived and few can give accurate accounting of.

I was on that plantation at one time. For some unfathomable reason, when I became of voting age, I automatically registered Democratic. It was as if in my mind the Republican Party was not for me, even though my upbringing was based on values and traditions most compatible with the Republican Party.

The question that begs an answer is: What have the Democrats done for minorities, specifically blacks? Charles Barkley put it well, saying, "All liberals have done for the black man is give him an inferiority complex."

It is a fact that "in the 26 major civil-rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil-rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes." ("Republicans and Civil Rights" – Diane Adler, Dec. 14, 2002)

Democrats are adroit at race politics, but blacks should remember that it was the Republicans who helped a Democratic President pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is also a fact that 70 percent of the Democrats in the house and senate opposed its passage.

Republican President Richard Nixon was responsible for incorporating specific provisions to the Civil Rights Act that were designed to help blacks elevate themselves, not wait for the next handout.

Democrats come armed with lies, virulent hyperbolicism, the likes of Jesse Jackson and an elapidal chorus of "white Republicans are anti-black racists and George Bush is keeping the black man down."

But, here again, the facts do not support them. It was the Democratic Party that was openly anti-black. The Democratic Party was responsible for "white-only primaries" and it was the Democrats who supported Jim Crow legislation.

Al Gore is the product (or byproduct) of a rabid segregationist. President John Kennedy was not only lukewarm on civil rights, he was reluctant to support them. He, too, was the offspring a rabid racist and segregationist.

Jimmy Carter, when first in office, made a practice of pointing out how well his mamma, "Miss Lillian" treated the "Nigras" that worked for them. (Slaved for them was probably more accurate.)

Then-Gov. Bill Clinton was one of three top Arkansas officials sued for intimidation of black voters under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Larry Patterson, Gov. Clinton's bodyguard from 1986 to 1992, told of Clinton repeatedly referring to Little Rock black activist, Robert McIntosh as a "n----r." Dolly Kyle Browning, a Dallas attorney, told the hosts of "Hannity and Colmes" (Fox News Channel – Dec. 12, 2002) that she had personally heard Clinton reference McIntosh as that "g-damn n----r."

The Democratic Party claims to be the party of diversity, but it is the Republican Party that has blacks and Hispanics appointed to the highest positions in the Bush administration. Thanks to the Republican Party, the state of Maryland has the first black lieutenant governor in its history.

When President Bush steps from Air Force One, flanked by Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, it is a proud day for American meritocracy.

The Democratic Party and elite social liberals believe in black votes, but not blacks in key leadership positions. Consider Maynard Jackson, passed over for the leadership position of the Democratic National Committee; Isaiah Legget, passed over by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend for her lieutenant-governor running mate. It was said of Allen Page, a Supreme Court Justice in Minnesota, that Walter Mondale was a more viable candidate because Page was black and Minnesota was a predominately white state.

Democrats and the elite, social liberals are very adept at pitting one against another – it is one of their strengths: blacks against whites, rich against poor, labor against corporate and so forth.

The other question that begs an answer is what will it take for blacks to realize they are being used? It took the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings for me.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mychal S. Massie is an op-ed columnist and talk-radio guest host. He also makes regular appearances on political and community-oriented programs in the Philadelphia, Pa. area, is a self-employed business owner of 30 years and a frequent inspirational speaker.

[Zhukov]

They should be called 'Democratic-Republicans'.

[FS]

Snore. I stopped reading this halfway through because nearly everyone here knows that it's the democrats who used to be the conservative ones. There is such a thing as change.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

edit: Max, Kevin, and the rest of the whiny libs on here should study the first two paragraphs. It describes you perfectly.

You're a jackass.

Just smile and pull the donkey lever

I recall a white, social-liberal Democrat arguing with me about what it was to be black. That's right – a white, liberal college professor telling me what it was to be black. Growing weary of his pomposity, I explained that "I had been black for 50 years and inquired exactly how long he had been black."

Condescending piece of garbage. If this man were to ever DARE talk about the plight of the Irish immigrant during the 19th Century, I'd rip him a new asshole.

Because clearly, unless you ARE black, REGARDLESS of how much you know, you simply can't speak on the matter.

This is the kind of political debate that conservatives accuse liberals of all the time, so wah wah wah, blah blah blah.

This is the arrogance of elite social liberals. They vilify white males, attempt to thwart Hispanic business progress (that they themselves champion when it benefits them) and convince blacks near en masse, that they will never get ahead without a handout – and that they will always be victims of some nebulous time past, that none today have lived and few can give accurate accounting of.

translation: blah, blah, blah, wah wah wah, I'm right because I'm a condescendingly "smart" black, of course.

How about these generalizations? Republican conservatives will exploit race and religion to the best of their ability, because they clearly can't appeal to such people on substantive ideas. Thus, Bush sends his Ricky Martin impersonating nephrew around to say "Look! Senor Bush loves Latinos mucho!!!"

I was on that plantation at one time. For some unfathomable reason, when I became of voting age, I automatically registered Democratic. It was as if in my mind the Republican Party was not for me, even though my upbringing was based on values and traditions most compatible with the Republican Party.

Somebody needs to give this guy an award. His experience is soooo unique. I don't get it, why does the Republican White House tend to be full of corporate millionares?? Why do folks in the rural areas of New York tend to register Reppublican?? Why do labor unions tend to support Democrats??? IT'S ALL SO UNIQUE!!

The question that begs an answer is: What have the Democrats done for minorities, specifically blacks? Charles Barkley put it well, saying, "All liberals have done for the black man is give him an inferiority complex."

A fine role model, I must admit. OH WAIT! HE "AIN'T NO ROLE MODEL!" Silly me, I forgot.

This reminds me of the time Vince tried to argue how Ted Nugent is a freat environmentalist.

It is a fact that "in the 26 major civil-rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil-rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes." ("Republicans and Civil Rights" – Diane Adler, Dec. 14, 2002)

Democrats are adroit at race politics, but blacks should remember that it was the Republicans who helped a Democratic President pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is also a fact that 70 percent of the Democrats in the house and senate opposed its passage.

Completely different Party dynamics. This guy is a jackass.

Democrats come armed with lies, virulent hyperbolicism, the likes of Jesse Jackson and an elapidal chorus of "white Republicans are anti-black racists and George Bush is keeping the black man down."

I hear more Republicans whine about this than Democrats, frankly.

But, here again, the facts do not support them. It was the Democratic Party that was openly anti-black. The Democratic Party was responsible for "white-only primaries" and it was the Democrats who supported Jim Crow legislation.

Again, a clear lack of historical understanding.

Al Gore is the product (or byproduct) of a rabid segregationist. President John Kennedy was not only lukewarm on civil rights, he was reluctant to support them. He, too, was the offspring a rabid racist and segregationist.

Gore is a poor example of a Leftist, or even a Liberal for that matter. Kennedy, much like Bobby, changed on the race issue as time progressed. What changed them? The understanding of the civil, social, and economic disparities that existed at the time for African Americans.

Then-Gov. Bill Clinton was one of three top Arkansas officials sued for intimidation of black voters under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Larry Patterson, Gov. Clinton's bodyguard from 1986 to 1992, told of Clinton repeatedly referring to Little Rock black activist, Robert McIntosh as a "n----r." Dolly Kyle Browning, a Dallas attorney, told the hosts of "Hannity and Colmes" (Fox News Channel – Dec. 12, 2002) that she had personally heard Clinton reference McIntosh as that "g-damn n----r."

I wonder what this clown has to say about the 90,000 voters in Florida, most of whom were not guilty of any crimes, and most of whom were BLACK, were relinquished of their right to vote in 2000 by namely, among others, Jeb Bush (who happens to be a Republican, btw, AND, the presidents brother, btw).

The Democratic Party claims to be the party of diversity, but it is the Republican Party that has blacks and Hispanics appointed to the highest positions in the Bush administration. Thanks to the Republican Party, the state of Maryland has the first black lieutenant governor in its history.

Bush appointed token figures, just like EVERY administration does.

And yay for Maryland.

When President Bush steps from Air Force One, flanked by Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, it is a proud day for American meritocracy.

Thank you Ms. Rand!!!!

Colin Powell, who has continuosly been second-guessed by OLD WHITE MEN like Don Rumsfeld, to the point that he has changed his stances prior to the administration. Maybe if he wants to stay along for 2004, he'll have to say "yes masa" instead of "yes Mr. President", eh?

The Democratic Party and elite social liberals believe in black votes, but not blacks in key leadership positions. Consider Maynard Jackson, passed over for the leadership position of the Democratic National Committee; Isaiah Legget, passed over by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend for her lieutenant-governor running mate. It was said of Allen Page, a Supreme Court Justice in Minnesota, that Walter Mondale was a more viable candidate because Page was black and Minnesota was a predominately white state.

And maybe the Democratic minority in the House should've not chosen Nancy Pelosi, who represents the Party's real platform, and instead nominated her competitor, Harold Ford from Tennessee. I mean, he's only an opportunistic Dixiecrat who should really be a Republican. I mean, he'd only further the process of "Clintonization" of the Party. But hey, HE'S BLACK! Isn't this the very race related politics the Republicans claim to be above?

What trash. You should pay me to read this crap, clambake.

[VinceZeb]

What got you so worked up, Kevin? The fact that you think you know what is so good and right for blacks is totally made to look ignorant by someone who is, *gasp*, black?

And I am sorry to hurt your image of Ted, but most hunters are the ultimate conservationists. If there are no animals, what can they hunt? I am sorry that killing Bambi bothers you, but if no one kills deer, they overflood the land with their large population. If you knew anything about nature, you would know that.

And I should answer this in another thread, but frankly I do not want to. I asked max two questions over at newsfilter, he didn't answer any of them even though he "said he did". Now, just becuase someone says they did something, that doesn't mean it happened. I'm sure you are a big boy and can understand that.

Now, I don't remember giving you time off from your lips around my dick head. So get back to it. And please quit with the thought process that allows you to believe that you are better than me. In any kind of physical meeting, I'd have you bent over a table and reamed until you fell in love and wanted to cuddle. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

What got you so worked up, Kevin? The fact that you think you know what is so good and right for blacks is totally made to look ignorant by someone who is, *gasp*, black?

No, what has me worked up is that this condescending twit thinks he knows better than the vast majority of blacks in America.

And I am sorry to hurt your image of Ted, but most hunters are the ultimate conservationists. If there are no animals, what can they hunt? I am sorry that killing Bambi bothers you, but if no one kills deer, they overflood the land with their large population. If you knew anything about nature, you would know that.

What could my "image" possibly be of a person who is admitedly a disgusting womanizer???

Also, your assertion about deer population is in fact a popular falacy, but this thread is about your ignorance and black people. Let's stay on topic, shall we?

And I should answer this in another thread, but frankly I do not want to. I asked max two questions over at newsfilter, he didn't answer any of them even though he "said he did". Now, just becuase someone says they did something, that doesn't mean it happened. I'm sure you are a big boy and can understand that.

I do need to handle anything, it doesn't affect me anyway. All I know is that Max completely demoralized you on two boards, and you ran away with your tail between your legs. Sorry, clambake.

Now, I don't remember giving you time off from your lips around my dick head. So get back to it. And please quit with the thought process that allows you to believe that you are better than me. In any kind of physical meeting, I'd have you bent over a table and reamed until you fell in love and wanted to cuddle. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

translation: I am incapable of making a point/counter-point argument, so I will instead rant on about my homoerotic fantasies.

Boring. Stay at Newsfilter.

[VinceZeb]

I ran away, demoralized after he "destroyed" me? How did he "destroy" me, pray tell? And I was I demoralized? Please explain, because anyone with a brain cell can see that he talked a bunch of shit, I answered a question, then I asked him one and he ran back here and said it was over. Thats pretty much chronologically how it went. Now, I understand that thinking for yourself is hard, but try it sometime.

And for the guy being a condensending twit, why don't you e-mail him and tell him how you know so much about what is good for blacks? I'm sure he will get a kick out if it. If you saw that guy on the street, you would probably scream and give him your wallet and your woman so he wouldn't hurt you.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

I ran away, demoralized after he "destroyed" me? How did he "destroy" me, pray tell? And I was I demoralized? Please explain, because anyone with a brain cell can see that he talked a bunch of shit, I answered a question, then I asked him one and he ran back here and said it was over. Thats pretty much chronologically how it went. Now, I understand that thinking for yourself is hard, but try it sometime.

You're a coward.

And for the guy being a condensending twit, why don't you e-mail him and tell him how you know so much about what is good for blacks? I'm sure he will get a kick out if it.

Why? He's a "contributing op-ed columnist," and a "talk-radio guest host," who nobody but jackasses such as yourself could care about. African Americans predominantly vote Democratic. What makes this guy, or a waste of air such as yourself for that matter, smarter or more virtuous than them???

If you saw that guy on the street, you would probably scream and give him your wallet and your woman so he wouldn't hurt you.

Right. Cuz he's black. yawn.

Have you left yet?

[O71394658]

Condescending piece of garbage. If this man were to ever DARE talk about the plight of the Irish immigrant during the 19th Century, I'd rip him a new asshole.

Because clearly, unless you ARE black, REGARDLESS of how much you know, you simply can't speak on the matter.

I can understand whay you're saying, but I disagree. The professor was telling a black man what it was like to be black. That's like walking up to an Auschwitz victim and saying the Holocaust never happened.

why does the Republican White House tend to be full of corporate millionares??

John Kerry D 550
Amo Houghton R 350
Herb Kohl D 300
Jay Rockerfeller D 300
Diane Feinstein D 50
Frank Lautenberg D 40
Teddy Kennedy D 35
Rob Bennett R 30
Rodney Frelinghuysen R 30
Norm Sisisky D 30

The above are the 10 wealthiest Congressmen. 7 are Democrats.

Completely different Party dynamics

You have to give more than that if you want me to take your argument seriously.

Again, a clear lack of historical understanding.

I would love to hear you elaborate on this!

I wonder what this clown has to say about the 90,000 voters in Florida, most of whom were not guilty of any crimes, and most of whom were BLACK, were relinquished of their right to vote in 2000 by namely, among others, Jeb Bush (who happens to be a Republican, btw, AND, the presidents brother, btw).

Interesting. I have no knowledge of this. I might have to look into it and get back to you.

No, what has me worked up is that this condescending twit thinks he knows better than the vast majority of blacks in America.

Just because the majority accepts it doesn't make it right.

your assertion about deer population is in fact a popular falacy

I strongly disagree here, but to stay on topic, will leave it alone...

[Immortal Goat]

I must again say "Wow". Vince, it never ceases to amaze me how you can generalize so many people into one group. Just because someone is a Democrat, you make them out to be the most wrong person on the planet. Only Republicans are right, that is the only political truth. Democrats are scum, and Republicans rule.

Grow a backbone, Vince. It is a lot easier to paint all democrats with the same wide brush, rather than face the facts that sometimes we can make a good point. Not everything Democrats do is right, but not everything Republicans do is right, either.

Can anyone say "Dubya"?

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by O71394658

[Interesting. I have no knowledge of this. I might have to look into it and get back to you.

Ask him if he can produce ONE black person that was actually turned away on election day. If he can produce one, he'll have done something no one else spreading that rumor around has been able to do.

GOD. I LOVE race warfare...

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by O71394658

I can understand whay you're saying, but I disagree. The professor was telling a black man what it was like to be black. That's like walking up to an Auschwitz victim and saying the Holocaust never happened.

No, it isn't. According to the jackass who wrote this op-ed, the "liberal professor" was telling him what it means to be black. We unfortunately weren't privy to this conversation, and we don't know what the actual context was.

Furthermore, what if this "white, liberal professor" was in fact a PhD in African studies?? What if he has studied Africa for many years? What if he had spent years there doing research and conducting studies?? We'll never know. But if he did, and he was quite knowledgable, would you still say that the "white, liberal professor" has no right to discuss what it "means to be black"?

John Kerry D 550
Amo Houghton R 350
Herb Kohl D 300
Jay Rockerfeller D 300
Diane Feinstein D 50
Frank Lautenberg D 40
Teddy Kennedy D 35
Rob Bennett R 30
Rodney Frelinghuysen R 30
Norm Sisisky D 30

The above are the 10 wealthiest Congressmen. 7 are Democrats.

Out of 535 U.S. Congressman, you found seven wealthy Democrats. And there's a difference between being wealthy and being a corporate player. Certainly Democrats are just as involved and financed by corporations, but that's why I'm not a Democrat.

Also, check out which Party is the most indebted to corporate donors, which Party tends to accept the most corporate campaign contributions, and you'd see it was the Republican Party (Center for Responsive Politics works, www.opensecrets.org).

You have to give more than that if you want me to take your argument seriously.

I frankly don't care how seriously you take my argument, but anyway....

General history overview: Democrats were the party of the south, Republicans of Lincoln tried to stop expansion of slave states, blah blah, Southerners swing towards the Dems, post-civil war, Dems. use segregation models set by North on blacks in the South, Jim Crow laws, etc.,....20th Century, Democrats remain segregationists in the South, blah, blah, blah, but the conservatism remains primarily reserved to the South, (for example, even in many states today, registered Democrats vote Republican. There are more registered Democrats in Florida, but that is misleading due to the northern Floridians who are still registered Democrats, despite their conservatism).

This of course was a grand over-simplification, but it's almost 2:30 am, and I am exhausted. Lets put it this way, saying that modern Democrats are the same as late 19th Century Democrats is kind of like saying that Republicans are the real "pro-black" Party, b/c Lincoln freed the slaves (sort of, kind of, too late).

I wonder what this clown has to say about the 90,000 voters in Florida, most of whom were not guilty of any crimes, and most of whom were BLACK, were relinquished of their right to vote in 2000 by namely, among others, Jeb Bush (who happens to be a Republican, btw, AND, the presidents brother, btw).

Interesting. I have no knowledge of this. I might have to look into it and get back to you.[/quote]

http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=4275

No, what has me worked up is that this condescending twit thinks he knows better than the vast majority of blacks in America.

Just because the majority accepts it doesn't make it right.[/quote]

Ok, but because this ONE black guy says so, it must be the case....

I strongly disagree here, but to stay on topic, will leave it alone...

ok.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Preechr

Ask him if he can produce ONE black person that was actually turned away on election day. If he can produce one, he'll have done something no one else spreading that rumor around has been able to do.

GOD. I LOVE race warfare...

You don't need to turn voters away, when you remove them from the eligible voters list to begin with! And this is no lie, Katherine Harris as much as admited it in court.

[Raven]

I hate partisan politics. My first, last, and only contribution to this thread.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

All politics is partisan. One thing I'll agree with Rush Limbaugh on, moderates are a mythical species.

[Raven]

Than I guess I don't truly exist? You also have made a lier out me. Bastard.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'm pretty sure you exist in a tangible sense, if that makes you feel any better.

[Raven]

Heh. As such I will admit that if I were to be classified in party it would be Constitutionalist. But I look at every parties stance with equal worth. I take their positions, examine them, look at their points, then make my own determination based off what is good for the whole of America. Which would, if I'm correct make me more of a moderate.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Sure, but what vast amounts of Americans think is good for America could be 10 different things. I personally think for example that a universal, single-payer health care system would be best for America. You might disagree, and yet have an entirely different notion about what's best for American health.

I don't believe that there are these political "in-betweeners" who stand right on the line in the proverbial sand. You may be more conservative on some issuesa, and more "Liberal" on others, but that doesn't make you a moderate, it just makes you an individual.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore

Sure, but what vast amounts of Americans think is good for America could be 10 different things. I personally think for example that a universal, single-payer health care system would be best for America. You might disagree, and yet have an entirely different notion about what's best for American health.

I don't believe that there are these political "in-betweeners" who stand right on the line in the proverbial sand. You may be more conservative on some issuesa, and more "Liberal" on others, but that doesn't make you a moderate, it just makes you an individual.

Yes but that is why it must be based upon the Constitution and logic. If you solely base it upon belief, without any basis, then it could be as destructive, as it might have been constructive. Take the universal, single-payer health care system for instance. Is it the job for the federal government to institute such things? Will it benefit the people more than harm them? Does it remove the rights of the American people? These are just a few of the questions someone should ask themself before determining what is right for the American people.

[VinceZeb]

Kevin, why would republicans get more money from corporations?

Hmm... perhaps because most corporations are ran by people who don't want to be taxed to death and want the economy to self-regulate. Republicans are traditionally conservative fiscially, so it goes without saying that they will get the most donations from corporations.

*ding*

Please play again, Kevin.

[O71394658]

No, it isn't. According to the jackass who wrote this op-ed, the "liberal professor" was telling him what it means to be black. We unfortunately weren't privy to this conversation, and we don't know what the actual context was.

Furthermore, what if this "white, liberal professor" was in fact a PhD in African studies?? What if he has studied Africa for many years? What if he had spent years there doing research and conducting studies?? We'll never know. But if he did, and he was quite knowledgable, would you still say that the "white, liberal professor" has no right to discuss what it "means to be black"?

I'm sure he would've mentioned it in the article. But, even if what you say happened to be true, I would still support the black man's reasoning. I could be a PhD in Jewish studies, have written novels on the Holocaust, but I still would probably know less than someone who was actually a victim of the Holocaust. The author is not trying to say, "this guy is an idiot because he is discussing it with me", but he's saying "this guy is an idiot because he's trying to tell me, a black man, how to be black."

Out of 535 U.S. Congressman, you found seven wealthy Democrats. And there's a difference between being wealthy and being a corporate player.

Those are just the Top 10 wealthiest. You also made your statement about being a corporate player. I hate the modern fallacy that just because you believe in or support corporate America, that automatically makes you a scumbag. Not true at all.

General history overview: Democrats were the party of the south, Republicans of Lincoln tried to stop expansion of slave states, blah blah, Southerners swing towards the Dems, post-civil war, Dems. use segregation models set by North on blacks in the South, Jim Crow laws, etc.,....20th Century, Democrats remain segregationists in the South, blah, blah, blah, but the conservatism remains primarily reserved to the South, (for example, even in many states today, registered Democrats vote Republican. There are more registered Democrats in Florida, but that is misleading due to the northern Floridians who are still registered Democrats, despite their conservatism).

I can see what you're saying now. Yes, I would agree that the party dynamics are different now, which is quite obvious. But the author was saying that many, if not most Democrats opposed civil rights legislation passed after 1993. He was just making a historical tangent to the Civil Rights Movement, to better reinforce his point.

Ok, but because this ONE black guy says so, it must be the case....

Just because many black people register Democrat doesn't mean it is in their best interests. That is what the author is pointing out.

Also, check out which Party is the most indebted to corporate donors, which Party tends to accept the most corporate campaign contributions, and you'd see it was the Republican Party (Center for Responsive Politics works, www.opensecrets.org).

The link is broken. I thought that corporate contributions were banned from campaign elections for the past 100 years or so...

You may be more conservative on some issuesa, and more "Liberal" on others, but that doesn't make you a moderate, it just makes you an individual.

[El Blanco]

Kevin, while it doesn't encompass the majority of average people who call themselves liberals or democrats, it does a pretty good job of summing up the democratic leadership. My friend calls them the "biggest pimps in America"

Bush appointed token figures, just like EVERY administration does.

Thats completly unfair. You make it seem as if the appointees were not the most qualified people available. Have you seen Professor Rice's credentials (far greater the Hilary Clinton's I assure you)?

HAve you looked at Secretary Powell's service record? Did you know he is one of the most respected men on the planet? And is often times as we point out, one of the people who will speak up and tell the President when he may be making a mistake or to offer a different idea?

Or do you just assume they are tokens?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Raven

Yes but that is why it must be based upon the Constitution and logic. If you solely base it upon belief, without any basis, then it could be as destructive, as it might have been constructive. Take the universal, single-payer health care system for instance. Is it the job for the federal government to institute such things? Will it benefit the people more than harm them? Does it remove the rights of the American people? These are just a few of the questions someone should ask themself before determining what is right for the American people.

Right. And how does this prove that moderates exist? The ability to compromise on your own beliefs does not make you a moderate, it makes you fair, understanding, and agreeable. But you still had your vision of where the initiative would/should go.

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Kevin, why would republicans get more money from corporations?

Hmm... perhaps because most corporations are ran by people who don't want to be taxed to death and want the economy to self-regulate. Republicans are traditionally conservative fiscially, so it goes without saying that they will get the most donations from corporations.

ok dipshit, now with the very logic you just used, ask yourself why every group of people in America would presumably support the group that they do. Thanks for proving my own point, clambake.

*ding*

Please take a hike.

Originally Posted by 071394658

I'm sure he would've mentioned it in the article.

If you can believe that such a snide commentator would've included this, you should re-read the article.

But, even if what you say happened to be true, I would still support the black man's reasoning. I could be a PhD in Jewish studies, have written novels on the Holocaust, but I still would probably know less than someone who was actually a victim of the Holocaust.

Wait, wait, wait,...I seem to have missed something. Is Mr. Massie a former slave? Is he the decendant of slaves? Wait, lets be fair, maybe he recalls the segregationist South as a young boy. But he doesn't tell us any of this. All he tells us is that he (a black man) had an argument with a professor (a white man) about "being black." I'm willing to bet the conversation was a little bit more complex than this, and I'm likewise willing to bet that he gladly neglected to include all of that.

[quote]The author is not trying to say, "this guy is an idiot because he is discussing it with me", but he's saying "this guy is an idiot because he's trying to tell me, a black man, how to be black."

From the article: " I recall a white, social-liberal Democrat arguing with me about what it was to be black. That's right – a white, liberal college professor telling me what it was to be black."

This can mean MANY more things than what you just stated above. I, a white Irish Catholic, am learning a great deal about Jewish culture, history and society (namely Israel). I have numerous Lefty friends who happen to be Jewish, very secular, and generally lack any kind of empathy for the state of Israel. Do these people hold the right to dismiss an argument made by a white Catholic in defense of Israel, merely because they happen to be Jewish???

Those are just the Top 10 wealthiest. You also made your statement about being a corporate player. I hate the modern fallacy that just because you believe in or support corporate America, that automatically makes you a scumbag. Not true at all.

Not true all of the time. But this wasn't my point. My point, as Vince so uneloquently, and unknowingly pointed out, was that certain interests tend to lean towards certain parties for their own personal, er, interests.

But the author was saying that many, if not most Democrats opposed civil rights legislation passed after 1993. He was just making a historical tangent to the Civil Rights Movement, to better reinforce his point.

From the article: "It is a fact that "in the 26 major civil-rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil-rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes." ("Republicans and Civil Rights" – Diane Adler, Dec. 14, 2002)

1933, not 1993. There's a big difference, and as I said previously, the stat lacks an appreciation for Party history.

Just because many black people register Democrat doesn't mean it is in their best interests. That is what the author is pointing out.

I realize, but the great irony in his argument is that he dismisses one white man for arguing about what it means to be black, citing that he couldn't POSSIBLY relate to black people, and then he goes on to discuss why a majority of blacks in America are mislead sheep. Again, condescending, and with his use of history, VERY manipulative.

To be honest, I'm not even saying this argument can't be had. But I think I've seen it made in a much better fashion than how this fool conducted it.

The link is broken. I thought that corporate contributions were banned from campaign elections for the past 100 years or so...

Yeah, I just noticed the link. I don't know why, I hope they didn't shut down. A GREAT resource for congressional campaigns.

Corporations have various methods they can use to donate to campaigns. One way is setting up a "separate" PAC which they support, or, a really clever one is donating lumps of their employees bonuses to a campaign. That way, when registered with the FEC, it looks like many, many individual donors contributed the cash. Also, I'm not completely certain that there was any legislation banning corporations from making a contribution to a campaign, but they can give it to the Party for certain, which then filters down to the candidate (ie. soft money).

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Kevin, while it doesn't encompass the majority of average people who call themselves liberals or democrats, it does a pretty good job of summing up the democratic leadership. My friend calls them the "biggest pimps in America"

The DLC and DNC are two BIG reasons why I am not a Democrat, nor have I ever been. But their tactics are not to just run black people, they rather prefer to run hollow candidates who support their GOP-Light agenda. This July, the DLC will be showcasing its "up and coming" minority candidates, among them will be Harold Ford and Denise Majette. These two certainly are black, but they certainly don't represent the majority of black Democrats.

Thats completly unfair. You make it seem as if the appointees were not the most qualified people available. Have you seen Professor Rice's credentials (far greater the Hilary Clinton's I assure you)?

Hahaha, I LOVE how you threw "professor" in there. Wasn't it one of those arrogant fucks who started this entire thread? Oh wait, this one's black, so she can have a say. :/

Blanco, in volunteering on several campaigns, both candidate based as well as issue based, I have learned that every decision that is made by an elected official is a calculated one. I'm not saying Colin Powell and Coni Rice aren't accomplished individuals, but what I AM saying is that their skin color played a big part in their appointments, especially with a Party that is trying to defeat "stereotypes" about them being an anti-black, anti-minority party.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Raven

Yes but that is why it must be based upon the Constitution and logic. If you solely base it upon belief, without any basis, then it could be as destructive, as it might have been constructive. Take the universal, single-payer health care system for instance. Is it the job for the federal government to institute such things? Will it benefit the people more than harm them? Does it remove the rights of the American people? These are just a few of the questions someone should ask themself before determining what is right for the American people.

Right. And how does this prove that moderates exist? The ability to compromise on your own beliefs does not make you a moderate, it makes you fair, understanding, and agreeable. But you still had your vision of where the initiative would/should go.

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Kevin, why would republicans get more money from corporations?

Hmm... perhaps because most corporations are ran by people who don't want to be taxed to death and want the economy to self-regulate. Republicans are traditionally conservative fiscially, so it goes without saying that they will get the most donations from corporations.

ok dipshit, now with the very logic you just used, ask yourself why every group of people in America would presumably support the group that they do. Thanks for proving my own point, clambake.

*ding*

Please take a hike.

Originally Posted by 071394658

I'm sure he would've mentioned it in the article.

If you can believe that such a snide commentator would've included this, you should re-read the article.

But, even if what you say happened to be true, I would still support the black man's reasoning. I could be a PhD in Jewish studies, have written novels on the Holocaust, but I still would probably know less than someone who was actually a victim of the Holocaust.

Wait, wait, wait,...I seem to have missed something. Is Mr. Massie a former slave? Is he the decendant of slaves? Wait, lets be fair, maybe he recalls the segregationist South as a young boy. But he doesn't tell us any of this. All he tells us is that he (a black man) had an argument with a professor (a white man) about "being black." I'm willing to bet the conversation was a little bit more complex than this, and I'm likewise willing to bet that he gladly neglected to include all of that.

[quote]The author is not trying to say, "this guy is an idiot because he is discussing it with me", but he's saying "this guy is an idiot because he's trying to tell me, a black man, how to be black."

From the article: " I recall a white, social-liberal Democrat arguing with me about what it was to be black. That's right – a white, liberal college professor telling me what it was to be black."

This can mean MANY more things than what you just stated above. I, a white Irish Catholic, am learning a great deal about Jewish culture, history and society (namely Israel). I have numerous Lefty friends who happen to be Jewish, very secular, and generally lack any kind of empathy for the state of Israel. Do these people hold the right to dismiss an argument made by a white Catholic in defense of Israel, merely because they happen to be Jewish???

Those are just the Top 10 wealthiest. You also made your statement about being a corporate player. I hate the modern fallacy that just because you believe in or support corporate America, that automatically makes you a scumbag. Not true at all.

Not true all of the time. But this wasn't my point. My point, as Vince so uneloquently, and unknowingly pointed out, was that certain interests tend to lean towards certain parties for their own personal, er, interests.

But the author was saying that many, if not most Democrats opposed civil rights legislation passed after 1993. He was just making a historical tangent to the Civil Rights Movement, to better reinforce his point.

From the article: "It is a fact that "in the 26 major civil-rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil-rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes." ("Republicans and Civil Rights" – Diane Adler, Dec. 14, 2002)

1933, not 1993. There's a big difference, and as I said previously, the stat lacks an appreciation for Party history.

Just because many black people register Democrat doesn't mean it is in their best interests. That is what the author is pointing out.

I realize, but the great irony in his argument is that he dismisses one white man for arguing about what it means to be black, citing that he couldn't POSSIBLY relate to black people, and then he goes on to discuss why a majority of blacks in America are mislead sheep. Again, condescending, and with his use of history, VERY manipulative.

To be honest, I'm not even saying this argument can't be had. But I think I've seen it made in a much better fashion than how this fool conducted it.

The link is broken. I thought that corporate contributions were banned from campaign elections for the past 100 years or so...

Yeah, I just noticed the link. I don't know why, I hope they didn't shut down. A GREAT resource for congressional campaigns.

Corporations have various methods they can use to donate to campaigns. One way is setting up a "separate" PAC which they support, or, a really clever one is donating lumps of their employees bonuses to a campaign. That way, when registered with the FEC, it looks like many, many individual donors contributed the cash. Also, I'm not completely certain that there was any legislation banning corporations from making a contribution to a campaign, but they can give it to the Party for certain, which then filters down to the candidate (ie. soft money).

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Kevin, while it doesn't encompass the majority of average people who call themselves liberals or democrats, it does a pretty good job of summing up the democratic leadership. My friend calls them the "biggest pimps in America"

The DLC and DNC are two BIG reasons why I am not a Democrat, nor have I ever been. But their tactics are not to just run black people, they rather prefer to run hollow candidates who support their GOP-Light agenda. This July, the DLC will be showcasing its "up and coming" minority candidates, among them will be Harold Ford and Denise Majette. These two certainly are black, but they certainly don't represent the majority of black Democrats.

Thats completly unfair. You make it seem as if the appointees were not the most qualified people available. Have you seen Professor Rice's credentials (far greater the Hilary Clinton's I assure you)?

Hahaha, I LOVE how you threw "professor" in there. Wasn't it one of those arrogant fucks who started this entire thread? Oh wait, this one's black, so she can have a say. :/

Blanco, in volunteering on several campaigns, both candidate based as well as issue based, I have learned that every decision that is made by an elected official is a calculated one. I'm not saying Colin Powell and Coni Rice aren't accomplished individuals, but what I AM saying is that their skin color played a big part in their appointments, especially with a Party that is trying to defeat "stereotypes" about them being an anti-black, anti-minority party.