Who says Dems play at demagoguery politics?

[SkinBasket]

Edwards Predicts Doom for African-American Males

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said if he wasn’t elected president, the population of African-American males is likely to either wind up in prison or dead.

At an MTV/MySpace.com forum Thursday, Edwards responded to a question about inner-city kids partaking in violence by saying there was no “silver bullet” to fight the problem.

“We start with the president of the United States saying to America, ‘we cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating — pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.”

[SkinBasket]

http://politicsoffthegrid.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/edwards_john.jpg
Vote for me and you won't die!

[mraynrand]

"when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."


Lay your hands upon me, savior!! Drive away the demons!! Save me!!


http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/content/goingout/2002/12/16/duke_king.jpg

Kerry and Edwards together on the campaign trail (AKA the King and the Duke)

[Harlan Huckleby]

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said if he wasn’t elected president, the population of African-American males is likely to either wind up in prison or dead.

What a kook! This is worse than Al Gore saying he invented the internet.

Thanks for the heads up, from now on I'm only voting for Republicans.

[RashanGary]

I'm somewhere in the middle becuase I grow tired of the religious and oppresive nature that seems to follow the conservative movement but they are somewhat inspiring when it comes to creating competition and strengthening our countries economy.

I was listening to Newt Gingrich on the Hannity show a couple days ago. He is considering entering the race. He is the first candidate that has really made me feel like he has a vision and confidence in his ability to make postive changes in our government.

He said he wanted to limit low skilled immigration while promoting high skilled, high demand immigration that will strengthen our companies. We're a great country adn we have some great people, but where do you think you will find the best and brightest? Scowering 200 million Americans or scowering billions around the world. The more top notch people that get hired at our companies, the more we thrive in technology markets and the more GOOD JOBS that will be available because of our growing companies. This is the biggest issue for me. If we can get the worlds best working for our companies, we WILL thrive and good jobs will be available for all of us. I don't want anything for free. I want an enviorment where I know I can get a good job at a good company. I don't need anything for free. Just make our companies strong so success and security is attainable.

He wants to do everything possible to make sure NY continues to be the trade center of the world instead of moving to London which is where it seems to be heading. This is good if we for our economic world power.

He had some political issues that seem to be driven by getting votes, but the core of his platform seems to be strengthening our economy. I listened to him, and for the first time in this election, I feel inspired.

I beleive that if you want our econony and our country to remain strong, Newt would be the vote that gets us there. The democrats seem focused on getting socialized health care and getting votes from those who don't work. The republicans are going to the core of the problem by strengthening our companies, which will give us jobs and we'll have real security through world dominance instead of false security that will spiral downward as our companies struggle to compete. Ultimately the republicans are setting up an enviornment that allows us to take from the rest of the world by being the best in the world. There are enough people in this world that not everyone gets a great life. Some are going to be poor. Some our going to be rich. Let's make sure our companies dominate their companies and make our country rich. The goal is world dominance on a corprate level which will trickle down to the individual level (for us, not them)

As long as we produce the most desirable products in the world, people will buy our products and our companies will have jobs available to all of us. We have to do everything possible to promote the world dominance of our companies and everythign else will fall into place. First step is to get the world best and brightest into our companies. The 2nd step is to have our govnerment stop trying to take from the companines and create an enviornment that supports their growth and world dominance rather than hindering it. Our future depends on our ability to dominate the world markets. Newt has a vision to do that. The dems just steal votes with false securtiy. If our companines don't remain competitive in the world markets our economy will falter and the govt will not be able to afford all of these free things that they are offering.

[RashanGary]

I'm also a huge fan of Bush trying to level the playing field by forcing all countries to comply with enviormental standards. We are one country. There are many countries other than our own who are dumping crap loads of polution into the world we live. We are making laws that cripple our country while much of the world just wrecks the world and produces cheap products (which takes away from our ability to make money).

If we can find a way to get the whole world complying with these rules, it will bring everyone down a notch because it will take a little more to create products. It will help the earth, and hurt us a little short term but right now we are makign laws that stop us from poluting while the rest of the world just has companies who do what we would have doen, the world still gets werecked and we lose jobs.

The way to fight the wrecking the enviornment is on a world wide level. The republicans again have the right idea.

I used to be down the middle becuase I was influenced by the couple political issues that where brought up in school or on TV but when you look deep, you see that there really is a right and wrong. There really is a good and bad. The dems are awfull. They do a coiuple good things, but they are the party of corruption, false security and pandering. Republicans, for the most part, stand for strengthening the economy and even helping the enviorment which are two major issues for me. I want a world that is beautiful and livalbe and I want a high standard of living.

[Kiwon]

There are two Americas. No, not North and South America.

The two Americas are those with crappy haircuts and those who know and appreciate beauty. $400, or even $1,200, is a small price to pay for perfection.

http://cache.wonkette.com/politics/edwardscompact.jpg/edwardscompact.jpg

[SkinBasket]

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said if he wasn’t elected president, the population of African-American males is likely to either wind up in prison or dead.

What a kook! This is worse than Al Gore saying he invented the internet.

Thanks for the heads up, from now on I'm only voting for Republicans.


Oh, I forgot, I'm only allowed to post stupid things republicans say or do per Harlan's Guide to Forum Posting Section 4.11(c). Thanks for the heads up Harlan! I had almost forgotten that one!

[Harlan Huckleby]

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said if he wasn’t elected president, the population of African-American males is likely to either wind up in prison or dead.

What a kook! This is worse than Al Gore saying he invented the internet.

Thanks for the heads up, from now on I'm only voting for Republicans.


Oh, I forgot, I'm only allowed to post stupid things republicans say or do per Harlan's Guide to Forum Posting Section 4.11(c). Thanks for the heads up Harlan! I had almost forgotten that one!

You made a false statement, don't get discouraged just because I called you on it.

You sound like a teenage girl who's mad at her mom.

John Edwards is probably my all-time least favorite politician, at least from the Democratic side. What he actually said was bad enough.

[SkinBasket]

You made a false statement, don't get discouraged just because I called you on it.

Which statement was that?




You sound like a teenage girl who's mad at her mom.

I can't help what voices you add to posters in your head.




What he actually said was bad enough.

So, what's your inside scoop? What did he "actually" say? Just wondering what you know that the AP doesn't.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1570672&vid=178269

He's not fear mongering. "Elect me or doom" is your spin.

His strategy is to say things that a target audience (black people in the case of this question) want to hear. He says that the deck is hopeless stacked against black people; he demonstrates that he thinks like them and cares about them.
I don't like that he implies that black people are in prison because of racism.

Edwards is pandering. When Mitt Romney tells the NRA audience that he is a hunter (when he's been out in the woods a couple times in his life) he is trying to create a connection. Same sort of thing.

[SkinBasket]

He's not fear mongering. "Elect me or doom" is your spin.


pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.

Telling black people they are heading for jail or death isn't fear mongering? And his solution isn't to be elected president? He's just giving them a heads up? You sure do give Edwards a wide margin on this one don't ya?



Edwards is pandering. When Mitt Romney tells the NRA audience that he is a hunter (when he's been out in the woods a couple times in his life) he is trying to create a connection. Same sort of thing.

It isn't the "same sort of thing." Yes, pandering is telling an NRA audience that you are a hunter. Pandering is not telling an NRA audience that the status quo will lead to the death and/or incarceration of all hunters and that the only logical solution is to elect you.

Although he then goes on to blame the education system, the health care system, and the judicial system for the problems of black America. Playing up the victim status of African Americans involved in crime - that's pandering. Telling black people they're all going to die or go to jail - not so much.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Telling black people they're all going to die or go to jail - not so much.

OK, you can choose to interpret the words literally and call it fear mongering. (Those are some dumb people, those negroes.)

But the next time you hear a politician say the country is going to hell in a handbasket, don't expect to find people running out into the streets waving their arms and screaming.

[SkinBasket]

But the next time you hear a politician say the country is going to hell in a handbasket, don't expect to find people running out into the streets waving their arms and screaming.

No, not all people. I only expect to see Democrats running out into the streets waving their arms and screaming..

[Joemailman]

Obviously, bith sides demagogue. Edwards' comment actually seems fairly mild compared to what Cheney said in 2004:

"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney said.

[4and12to12and4]

This is why I am anti-american, anti-society, anti-territory, anti-republican, anti-democrat, anti-economy, anti-government, anti-humanist, anti-god.

All the shit that has been said in this thread is proof that this whole f'n world is f'd, because humankind thinks that DOMINATING is the only way to a FULFILLED life. No ones life is fulfilled. And I can tell you damn sure, no ones life at Packerrats is fulfilled, or why the hell would we be spending so much time giving a damn about a football team, and allowing our moods and emotions to be embroiled and entangled in its winning and losing. The animals on this planet must all think we are the stupidest creature here. And guess what, we are. Security? Good living? Promising future? Are you f'n kidding me? Read a history book. All mankind has ever done in it's entire history is build up large empires to seemingly take over the planet, just to have something stupid happen and the empire comes crashing down. You think we're impervious to that? Think again. Republican, Democrat, Christian, Athiest, who gives a shit, we all all f'd in the head. The only true peace would be if all peoples would put aside territory, race, etc. and just f'n live IN the world, not overpopulate tiny areas of it, and let 90% of the earth go unfulfilled. Ever watch Legends of The Fall? The character played by Brad Pitt was seemingly the unruly asshole that didn't play by the rules. He was the only person in that movie I could halfway identify with.

[Joemailman]

Lighten up. Francis.

[the_idle_threat]

This is why I am anti-american, anti-society, anti-territory, anti-republican, anti-democrat, anti-economy, anti-government, anti-humanist, anti-god.

All the shit that has been said in this thread is proof that this whole f'n world is f'd, because humankind thinks that DOMINATING is the only way to a FULFILLED life. No ones life is fulfilled. And I can tell you damn sure, no ones life at Packerrats is fulfilled, or why the hell would we be spending so much time giving a damn about a football team, and allowing our moods and emotions to be embroiled and entangled in its winning and losing. The animals on this planet must all think we are the stupidest creature here. And guess what, we are. Security? Good living? Promising future? Are you f'n kidding me? Read a history book. All mankind has ever done in it's entire history is build up large empires to seemingly take over the planet, just to have something stupid happen and the empire comes crashing down. You think we're impervious to that? Think again. Republican, Democrat, Christian, Athiest, who gives a shit, we all all f'd in the head. The only true peace would be if all peoples would put aside territory, race, etc. and just f'n live IN the world, not overpopulate tiny areas of it, and let 90% of the earth go unfulfilled. Ever watch Legends of The Fall? The character played by Brad Pitt was seemingly the unruly asshole that didn't play by the rules. He was the only person in that movie I could halfway identify with.

You just want people to think you look like Brad Pitt.

[SkinBasket]

TEver watch Legends of The Fall?

I tried when I was 18. Ended up making out about 30 minutes in and even after an extended session that included a dry hump, heavy petting, and more making out, the fucking movie was still going. And still with the bwa wa wa. Jesus, what a boring flick. Good if you're young and in love. Bad if you like watching something interesting.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You are so right about Edwards. He shoulda just used the Repub strategy of not addressing them. Paging Thompson, Rudy, McCain, Romney.

[SkinBasket]

You are so right about Edwards. He shoulda just used the Repub strategy of not addressing them. Paging Thompson, Rudy, McCain, Romney.

Yes, much better to make promises you never intend to keep and pretend your party has done anything for blacks in the last 20 or 30 years that's actually made a difference to the black community, other than reinforcing the stereotype that an African American can't possibly be a republican without being a race traitor or an Uncle Tom. And then tell them that unless they vote for you, they'll all die. Or go to jail. That is a wonderful way to address them.

Maybe treating them like everyone else and not acting like they're the retarded kids at school with special needs is considered not addressing them. I don't know. I'm not black.

[Freak Out]

Not the 100 percent dead or in prison that pretty boy stated but you get his point.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

FBI crime numbers.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You are so right about Edwards. He shoulda just used the Repub strategy of not addressing them. Paging Thompson, Rudy, McCain, Romney.

Yes, much better to make promises you never intend to keep and pretend your party has done anything for blacks in the last 20 or 30 years that's actually made a difference to the black community, other than reinforcing the stereotype that an African American can't possibly be a republican without being a race traitor or an Uncle Tom. And then tell them that unless they vote for you, they'll all die. Or go to jail. That is a wonderful way to address them.

Maybe treating them like everyone else and not acting like they're the retarded kids at school with special needs is considered not addressing them. I don't know. I'm not black.

You have missed the point completely. The repubs won't even show up to take questions from blacks. Republican All-American Presidential Forum was held at Morgan State University in Baltimore, Maryland.

Yet, your top 4 weren't there. What message is that sending my friend.

And, enough with the sanctimonious, ridiculous statements. All pols make promises they don't intend to keep. Welcome to being a grown up.

And, just as there isn't one thought process among blacks, there isn't among dems/libs. Stop with the generalizations. Or, i will be forced to talk about Repubs and racism...oops, that wouldn't good as that wouldn't be a generalization with Jesse Helms, David Duke, etc.

Lastly, if you aren't aware that a disproportionate amount of black men are in prison then you are just plain dumb. And, to not acknowledge the unequal sentencing between black and whites is ridiculous.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Not the 100 percent dead or in prison that pretty boy stated but you get his point.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

FBI crime numbers.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html

There you go again with your facts and book lernin. :x

[Freak Out]

Not the 100 percent dead or in prison that pretty boy stated but you get his point.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

FBI crime numbers.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html

Whites were the victims more often (just barely) and Blacks committed more murders.

As much as I did not want to I did listen to the MTV thing beyond his dead or in prison statement and he has some very good ideas...he just has no chance. Edwards should have stayed in Congress....he did piss off many in his home state during his first term and may not have been reelected though.

[mraynrand]

Obviously, bith sides demagogue. Edwards' comment actually seems fairly mild compared to what Cheney said in 2004:

"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney said.

A bit over the top, but it was an accurate description of the difference between the parties. Kerry repeatedly stated that terrorism was more along the lines of a law enforcement problem - that we would respond to attacks, whereas Bush made it clear that he was going on the offensive. Cheney and Bush thought that Kerry's strategy would likely get us hit again. It's not an unreasonable position to take, based on Kerry's own position and the position taken by the previous president, who was far more concerned with international reaction to taking Bin Laden out than seeing him as a true threat to the U.S. Many agreed with Kerry and voted for him. Edwards on the other hand, is a charlatan of the highest order, who is so steeped in moral relativism, it's a wonder he can even function.

[mraynrand]

Moral Relativism (Confusion) at it's extreme, from John Edwards:

Responding to a question of whether he would be OK with having a fairy tale read to his second-grader that ends with two men kissing and living happily ever after, Edwards said: "… I don't want to make that decision on behalf of my children. I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, even in, what did you say, second grade? Well, second grade might be a little tough, but even in second grade, to be exposed to all those possibilities. Because I don't want to impose my view – nobody made me God – I don't get to decide on behalf of my family and my children. … I don't get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right."

[Harlan Huckleby]

Kerry repeatedly stated that terrorism was more along the lines of a law enforcement problem - that we would respond to attacks, whereas Bush made it clear that he was going on the offensive.

Just because someone says that fighting terrorism is done mostly with law enforcement does not in any way imply a passive, reactive approach. For most people in Europe and the U.S., it is a statement of common sense.

Bush went on the offensive primarily in Iraq. The short term impact on terrorism has been disasterous, with hardened, experienced jihadists spreading throughout the world.
The long term impact? I'm gonna be fair and say uncertain.

[mraynrand]

Kerry repeatedly stated that terrorism was more along the lines of a law enforcement problem - that we would respond to attacks, whereas Bush made it clear that he was going on the offensive.

Just because someone says that fighting terrorism is done mostly with law enforcement does not in any way imply a passive, reactive approach. For most people in Europe and the U.S., it is a statement of common sense.

Bush went on the offensive primarily in Iraq. The short term impact on terrorism has been disasterous, with hardened, experienced jihadists spreading throughout the world.
The long term impact? I'm gonna be fair and say uncertain.


Are you really that stupid? Bush went on the offensive around the globe, first in Afghanistan. Kerry talked about a 'global test" for actingagainst other countries, rather than putting the U.S. first. Cheny's quote was an over the top illustration of the difference in approaches. And you're right, "
Just because someone says that fighting terrorism is done mostly with law enforcement does not in any way imply a passive, reactive approach. " But so what? Kerry identified that he would be more likely to be reactive than proactive. That's the point - Cheney was taking about Kerry, not some abstraction.

[mraynrand]

And, enough with the sanctimonious, ridiculous statements. All pols make promises they don't intend to keep. Welcome to being a grown up.


Ahh, more moral equivalence. Since all pols make empty promises, they must all be the same. It couldn't be possible that some promises are worse than others, or some pols are more notorious for making empty promises, could it?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Bush went on the offensive around the globe, first in Afghanistan. Kerry talked about a 'global test" for actingagainst other countries

Any U.S. President would have gone after the Taliban in Afghanistan. Kerry supported the war on the Taliban, you are making a phony contrast.

The war against Islamic fundamentalists is complicated as hell. On the whole, I would say Bush has fouled things up badly with his ham-handed dealings with other countries. He's managed to turn the Iranians from foes of the Taliban to supporters! An amazing trick. The Iranians could and should be our allies in the war on terror, or at worst they could be neutral parties. Naming Syria & Iran as part of the "axis of evil", implying they would be next after Iraq fell, was so stupid and damaging, a terrible overreach.

I'm not confortable arguing about terrorism in a politics context. It's just plain stupid. There can be wise foreign policy leaders in either party. The simple categorizing is kindergarten stuff. Well, a gifted and talented kindergarten.

[SkinBasket]

You have missed the point completely. The repubs won't even show up to take questions from blacks. Republican All-American Presidential Forum was held at Morgan State University in Baltimore, Maryland.

And how often do Dems hold Q&A sessions at an NRA gun club meeting? I think you're missing your own point just as completely as I am.



And, enough with the sanctimonious, ridiculous statements. All pols make promises they don't intend to keep. Welcome to being a grown up.

Well, we're not talking about them. We're talking about Edwards. Or at least we were until you decided to expand this into generalizations, which as you state below, you are so very against.



And, just as there isn't one thought process among blacks, there isn't among dems/libs. Stop with the generalizations. Or, i will be forced to talk about Repubs and racism...oops, that wouldn't good as that wouldn't be a generalization with Jesse Helms, David Duke, etc.

What percent of blacks vote Democratic again? You really think it's their "individual thought processes" that brings them out in staggering numbers for Democrats? Point out again exactly how the Democrats have helped alleviate the problems of black America in the past 3 decades that they should be so very pro-Democratic, other than the continued persistence that if you ain't Democrat, you ain't black?


Lastly, if you aren't aware that a disproportionate amount of black men are in prison then you are just plain dumb. And, to not acknowledge the unequal sentencing between black and whites is ridiculous.

And blaming everyone but the men who committed the crimes is going to solve the problem right? Excellent answer! "Oh, it's the education system! It's the lack of universal health care! It's the judicial system! Don't worry black America, there's nothing wrong in your community! This is a federal government problem! You're victims! Victims I tell you! Don't believe the hype that you can make something of yourself! You're a victim! Remember that at the polls! Vote for me or die!"

[Harlan Huckleby]

What percent of blacks vote Democratic again? You really think it's their "individual thought processes" that brings them out in staggering numbers for Democrats?

This is some 1950's style racism you're trafficking here.

Black people vote in their self-interest to the same extent as whites. And they are capable of making choices.

The Republicans are deep in the process of screwing themselves over for about 50 years. By fighting "Amnesty" for Mexicans who have been living & working in this country for a generation, they are driving Hispanics into the Democratic party in droves. 10 years ago, it was thought hispanics would be natural Republicans because of their social conservativism. That has flipped 180 degrees.

Keep racism alive! Just be aware that payback can be a bitch. :wink:

[HarveyWallbangers]

Exaggerating the Case Against Bush Only Lessens the Focus on His Real Faults: There's a lot to dislike about the George W. Bush administration -- the Iraq war, lack of action on petroleum waste, wiretapping -- but in the rush to make Bush seem as bad as possible, the establishment media consistently have distorted his domestic environmental record, which is basically fine. Air, water and toxic pollution have declined since Bush took office; all U.S. environmental indicators except greenhouse gas emissions have been positive for 20 to 30 years, which you'd never know from opening the morning newspaper.

A problem is that environmental journalists are genetically programmed to spin all stories as bad news while ignoring progress. A classic example is stories expressing horror and outrage that environmental prosecutions initiated by the EPA or filed by the Justice Department are declining, as they have been since the middle of the Clinton administration. But it's good that environmental prosecutions are declining -- the reason is that pollution is declining! As pollution declines, there are fewer violations to prosecute. If speeding declined, police would write fewer tickets: Would we be glad speeding was declining or express horror over the shocking, shocking reduction in prosecution of speeders?

There the canard was again as the Sunday lead-headline story of The Washington Post: "The Environmental Protection Agency's pursuit of criminal cases against polluters has dropped off sharply during the Bush administration, with the number of prosecutions, new investigations and total convictions all down by more than a third," the story began. Of course environmental prosecution is declining, there is less to prosecute every year! The Post's banner story ran 38 paragraphs but never mentioned that all forms of pollution except greenhouse gases are declining, and because greenhouse-gas emissions are legal, there's nothing to prosecute. Mention that pollution is in long-term decline, and Sunday's front-page banner story in The Washington Post goes "poof."

[mraynrand]

The simple categorizing is kindergarten stuff. Well, a gifted and talented kindergarten.

Well, maybe you could consult some kindergartners to help you out. Or perhaps some second graders who are learning their values by sampling all points of view. Sounds like you'd fit in well in the Edwards household.

Really, the point is this - prior to the 2004 election people were pretty divided on how to go after islamic terrorists - on one side was the Kerry 'pursue the perps' strategy and on the other side was the Bush pre-emptive view. Cheney argued that the Kerry view was going to get more Americans killed at home. A lot of people shared his view and a lot thought Kerry's view was right. In contrast we have Edwards running in 2008, ostensibly making the argument that a vote for him is a vote to prevent black men from all being dead or in prison,and that to vote Republican is to sentence black men to death or prison. Can you honestly say that people are approximately equally divided on this view - that most Democrats agree with Edwards?

[mraynrand]

Lastly, if you aren't aware that a disproportionate amount of black men are in prison then you are just plain dumb. And, to not acknowledge the unequal sentencing between black and whites is ridiculous.

But you make a huge, illogical leap with your statement. There is a world of difference between a disparity in the number of blacks in prison or the disparity in sentencing and Edward's contention that all blacks are going to end up dead or in jail. Also, as I said above, since he's running for office against Republicans, the implication is clear that he believes the Republicans are or will be responsible for the extermination or imprisonment of all black men. Even a someone as morally blind as you should be able to see how absurd his position looks.

[SkinBasket]

What percent of blacks vote Democratic again? You really think it's their "individual thought processes" that brings them out in staggering numbers for Democrats?

This is some 1950's style racism you're trafficking here.

Black people vote in their self-interest to the same extent as whites. And they are capable of making choices.

The Republicans are deep in the process of screwing themselves over for about 50 years. By fighting "Amnesty" for Mexicans who have been living & working in this country for a generation, they are driving Hispanics into the Democratic party in droves. 10 years ago, it was thought hispanics would be natural Republicans because of their social conservativism. That has flipped 180 degrees.

Keep racism alive! Just be aware that payback can be a bitch. :wink:

For someone as concerned about social pressures around here, you sure are oblivious to it in real life. What self-interest is involved in blacks voting almost exclusively Democratic? Does black America enjoy being ignored much much more by a Democrat in office than a Republican?

The only racism involved here is the Democrats, and in particular black Democratic "leaders," perpetuating the notion that it is impossible to be black and anything other than a Democrat. They've done an excellent job at it. I just don't happen to agree with it. Which is why I have a problem with what Edwards had to say.

[hoosier]

What self-interest is involved in blacks voting almost exclusively Democratic? Does black America enjoy being ignored much much more by a Democrat in office than a Republican?

I suppose one could ask the same question about farmers in Ohio who voted for W twice--how in the hell did they become convinced that gay marriage is a bigger threat than BushCheney's corporate friendly economic politics? Are you suggesting that Democrat's politics is flawed because it appeals to emotion and not just to rational calculation? If that's your position, I guess you've just declared yourself against any and every political program that has been dreamed up since the end of the 18th century.

[mraynrand]

What self-interest is involved in blacks voting almost exclusively Democratic? Does black America enjoy being ignored much much more by a Democrat in office than a Republican?

I suppose one could ask the same question about farmers in Ohio who voted for W twice--how in the hell did they become convinced that gay marriage is a bigger threat than BushCheney's corporate friendly economic politics?.

As a person who knows a lot of Ohio farmers, I can tell you the answer is that they didn't. What you suggest, just isn't true. If you look at the polls that tried to explain Bush's victory in 2004, they are framed in such a way as to give no choice - either you voted for Bush because of the gay marriage issue or you didn't (For example, poll questions like "were you more or less likely to vote because the gay marriage referendum on the ballot? a 'yes' vote was taken to mean this issue drew you to the polls). While there is a huge population of social conservatives - mainly in areas of Southern and central (non-Columbus) Ohio, if you talk to folks they cite multiple issues as key. Military stance, all social issues (abortion, gay marriage, personal accountability), and (I know this will shock you) personality (A lot of Ohio farmers like and trust Bush and disliked and distrusted Kerry). Finally, a lot of Ohio farmers, like you, like me, and like a lot of other Americans, have a lot of their retirement money invested in the corporations favored by BushCheney's economic policies.

[SkinBasket]

Are you suggesting that Democrat's politics is flawed because it appeals to emotion and not just to rational calculation?

I'm suggesting it's "flawed" because it relies on exploiting social pressures and fears that are race-based, not emotion based, as you claim.

[Harlan Huckleby]

prior to the 2004 election people were pretty divided on how to go after islamic terrorists - on one side was the Kerry 'pursue the perps' strategy and on the other side was the Bush pre-emptive view.

This is empty propoganda. There was little debate on this point, the Democrats were for an aggressive policy in Afghanistan. And as you recall, Kerry and many Dems voted to authorize the war in Iraq.

You are simply echoing Bush's deception: claim that the War in Iraq is part of a pre-emptive fight against terrorism. Then make the leap that those who opposed the unfolding incompetence in Iraq (which has thus far been disasterous) must also be against "a pre-emptive fight against terrorism."

The connection between the war in Iraq and Islamic terrorism is hazy and complicated. Initially there was zero connection.

[Harlan Huckleby]

What self-interest is involved in blacks voting almost exclusively Democratic? Does black America enjoy being ignored much much more by a Democrat in office than a Republican?

You need to accept and respect their decision. They are not stupid, they've weighed what the Republicans stand for and have rejected it. They organize within the Democratic party to maximize their voice.

But I'm sure they would appreciate your concern. :)


The only racism involved here is the Democrats, and in particular black Democratic "leaders," perpetuating the notion that it is impossible to be black and anything other than a Democrat.

who are the white Republican "leaders" that convinced you that it was impossible for you to be a Democrat? Oh, you made this decision yourself, YOU are able to think for yourself.

You might also notice that there are a number of conservative blacks today, and they are often in high profile positions. Like talk radio: Ken Hamblin, Allen Keys, JC Watts, Armstrong Williams, Larry Elder, Walter Williams ....


Which is why I have a problem with what Edwards had to say.

You have a problem with Edward's speech because you see blacks as morons. You engage in ridiculous and false hyperbole by refashioning his words as, "Vote for me or you'll perish!", implying that black people are dumb enough to believe this.

I don't like what Edwards said because he is re-enforcing a sense of victimhood among black people in order to make a personal connection with them. I don't think black people are stupid for seeing themselves as victims of a corrupt, white system, that is their history, and it's still happening to a lesser degree. But it is not productive to fixate on it.

[mraynrand]

prior to the 2004 election people were pretty divided on how to go after islamic terrorists - on one side was the Kerry 'pursue the perps' strategy and on the other side was the Bush pre-emptive view.

This is empty propoganda.

I couldn't disagree more. Do you ever listen to conservatives? A lot of them opposed the war in Iraq also. But they understood there was and is a dramatic difference between the approach of Kerry and Bush to Islamic terrorism. There exists to day a dramatic gulf between the parties on this issue, Iraq excluded.

[mraynrand]

You have a problem with Edward's speech because you see blacks as morons. You engage in ridiculous and false hyperbole by refashioning his words as, "Vote for me or you'll perish!", implying that black people are dumb enough to believe this.

I don't like what Edwards said because he is re-enforcing a sense of victimhood among black people in order to make a personal connection with them.

So you don't like Edwards because he is reinforcing a sense of victimhood among blacks. How did he do that other than to say that blacks are victims, being assured of being either dead or in prison. You constantly contradict yourself.

[Harlan Huckleby]

is a dramatic difference between the approach of Kerry and Bush to Islamic terrorism. There exists to day a dramatic gulf between the parties on this issue, Iraq excluded.

I am open to any example. I see little difference between Dems and Republicans. Little difference between United States and Europe.

Europeans are more proactive than we are in combating terrorism. Spain may have a commy-lib goverment, but they require solid identification to travel there.

[mraynrand]

The connection between the war in Iraq and Islamic terrorism is hazy and complicated. Initially there was zero connection.

What do you mean by initially? before Saddam had the 1993 WTC bombers as his guests? Before the 1993 WTC bombing when he supplied them with passports. Or after 911 and after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, when Zarqawi fled to Iraq and Saddam not only allowed him into the country but allowed him to get medical treatment. There certainly was a long history of Saddam being involved in Islamic terrorism - even if he had nothing to do with the planning and execution of 9/11 itself. ask the Palestinian families who received cash in exchange for detonating their children in Israel.

[swede]

People of color are not allowed to listen to Republicans respectfully. Only "Uncle Toms" would do such a thing.

Far better to listen to John Edwards bloviate about all the black young men being dead or in prison with'n out they vote for him.

And that is all the problem-solving you're gonna get out of that dude. He has carefully staked out the brain dead portion of the Democratic party with some success, and that is no small constituency!

I'd rather have Bill as my first lady than to have that buffoon anywhere near the oval office.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So you don't like Edwards because he is reinforcing a sense of victimhood among blacks. How did he do that other than to say that blacks are victims, being assured of being either dead or in prison. You constantly contradict yourself.

I didn't like anything that he said. But his message was not "vote for me or you will die", that is an exaggeration, he was speaking figuratively. You have to LISTEN to the entire response. A couple sentences taken out of context, interpreted literally, do not tell you much.

[mraynrand]

is a dramatic difference between the approach of Kerry and Bush to Islamic terrorism. There exists to day a dramatic gulf between the parties on this issue, Iraq excluded.

I am open to any example. I see little difference between Dems and Republicans. Little difference between United States and Europe.

I feel like I'm talking to John Edwards' second-grader. How about Guantanamo? How about monitoring foreign al quaeda calls into the U.S.? etc. etc. The Republicans have a completely different view than the Moveons.

[mraynrand]

So you don't like Edwards because he is reinforcing a sense of victimhood among blacks. How did he do that other than to say that blacks are victims, being assured of being either dead or in prison. You constantly contradict yourself.

I didn't like anything that he said. But his message was not "vote for me or you will die", that is an exaggeration, he was speaking figuratively. You have to LISTEN to the entire response. A couple sentences taken out of context, interpreted literally, do not tell you much.

So what? Who cares if it was figuratively. According to you, you didn't like how he reinforced a sense of victimhood (FIGURATIVELY or otherwise), yet you're at the same time trying to argue that he wasn't doing that to begin. He did exactly what you said you didn't like.

I'm sure he was speaking FIGURATIVELY when he said paralytics would walk again when Kerry was elected or was speaking FIGURATIVELY when he said a second grader could assess values on their own, but FIGURATIVELY or not, they are shamless, morally corrupt, stupid things to say. FIGURATIVELY speaking, that is.

[Harlan Huckleby]

How about Guantanamo? How about monitoring foreign al quaeda calls into the U.S.? etc. etc. The Republicans have a completely different view than the Moveons.

What does Guantanamo have to do with anything? Many people of both parties want to close Guantanamo. McCain wants to close Guantanamo.

NOBODY is against monitoring foreign al quaeda calls. There are procedural question.

Republicans try and simplify and polarize. They claim to be champions of fighting terror, then they extend that to say anyone who questions their methods are against fighting terror. So shallow.

[mraynrand]

Republicans try and simplify and polarize. They claim to be champions of fighting terror, then they extend that to say anyone who questions their methods are against fighting terror. So shallow.

So you admit there is a difference.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So what? Who cares if it was figuratively. According to you, you didn't like how he reinforced a sense of victimhood (FIGURATIVELY or otherwise), yet you're at the same time trying to argue that he wasn't doing that to begin. He did exactly what you said you didn't like.

I'm sure he was speaking FIGURATIVELY when he said paralytics would walk again when Kerry was elected or was speaking FIGURATIVELY when he said a second grader could assess values on their own, but FIGURATIVELY or not, they are shamless, morally corrupt, stupid things to say. FIGURATIVELY speaking, that is.

Enforcing a sense of victimhood is one thing.
Telling people they will die if they don't vote for you is another.

[MJZiggy]

Harlan, who is your representative on the State level?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't follow state legislature much, but I guess it is Fred Risser, a democrat as old as the hills.

[SkinBasket]

Once again, thank you for deciding what I think and feel, Harlan. I know it's easy and convenient for you to argue against yourself that way. You're very good at it, and I'm surprised it took you this long to resort to telling me what I think then telling me why I shouldn't think what you've decided I think.



You have a problem with Edward's speech because you see blacks as morons. You engage in ridiculous and false hyperbole by refashioning his words as, "Vote for me or you'll perish!", implying that black people are dumb enough to believe this..


Who's "refashioning his words?" You're the one who chooses to interpret and decode what he's "really" saying instead of taking it at face value.

I guess it's easier to do that and label me a racist than it is to consider why 9/10 blacks vote for a party that hasn't done a goddamn thing for them except watch their communities slowly self-destruct for the past 20 or 30 years.

But whatever, I guess there's nothing wrong with thinking that 90% of black people think the same way, right? I mean, it's not like Saddam who was able to round up that last 10% of the vote by implementing a "vote for me or you and your family will die" political strategy. At least Edwards is giving them the option of going to jail.

[MJZiggy]

I don't follow state legislature much, but I guess it is Fred Risser, a democrat as old as the hills.

Thanks.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said if he wasn’t elected president, the population of African-American males is likely to either wind up in prison or dead.

he didn't say this, you fabricated it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, who is your representative on the State level?

is your gynecologist a democrat or republican?

[MJZiggy]

From what I can tell, Democrat.

[SkinBasket]

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said if he wasn’t elected president, the population of African-American males is likely to either wind up in prison or dead.

he didn't say this, you fabricated it.

That's an AP article. I didn't write it for fuck's sake. And it's not too hard to "fabricate" that line from what he said, EVEN IF you listen to his whole response.

He said: "pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two." He is campaigning. His solution is to be elected president. Come on, even a second grader could put these two things together.

And it doesn't matter if he didn't mean ALL black males or A LOT of black males. The purpose is the same. Scare people into voting for you.

[Harlan Huckleby]

consider why 9/10 blacks vote for a party that hasn't done a goddamn thing for them except watch their communities slowly self-destruct for the past 20 or 30 years.

What would republicans do for blacks?

Republicans are against affirmative action. Blacks, by and large, believe that affirmative action is necessary and justified. Regardless of what you think about affirmative action, how would it be rational for blacks to vote republican?

[Harlan Huckleby]

From what I can tell, Democrat.

Correct answer. Republicans have cold hands.

[mraynrand]

Enforcing a sense of victimhood is one thing.
Telling people they will die if they don't vote for you is another.

You're right. And John Edwards managed to do both things with the same set of words.

[mraynrand]

From what I can tell, Democrat.

Because he "Move(d) on (your) dot org(an)?"

[SkinBasket]

consider why 9/10 blacks vote for a party that hasn't done a goddamn thing for them except watch their communities slowly self-destruct for the past 20 or 30 years.

What would republicans do for blacks?

Republicans are against affirmative action. Blacks, by and large, believe that affirmative action is necessary and justified. Regardless of what you think about affirmative action, how would it be rational for blacks to vote republican?

So you're assuming that all blacks (or at least 90% of them) need affirmative action plans to help them succeed. Who's the racist now?

[Harlan Huckleby]

"pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead."

This is the equivalent of a republican saying, "if democrats keep raising taxes, pretty soon they'll just take it all, and you'all be beggin on the streets"

Headline: "Senator Lipschitz Predicts Depression"

[mraynrand]

consider why 9/10 blacks vote for a party that hasn't done a goddamn thing for them except watch their communities slowly self-destruct for the past 20 or 30 years.

What would republicans do for blacks?

Republicans are against affirmative action. Blacks, by and large, believe that affirmative action is necessary and justified. Regardless of what you think about affirmative action, how would it be rational for blacks to vote republican?

So you're assuming that all blacks (or at least 90% of them) need affirmative action plans to help them succeed. Who's the racist now?

No, he's assuming 90% of Blacks BELIEVE that affirmative action is necessary and justified, presumably to right present and past descriminatory wrongs. The challenge for Republicans is to convince those blacks who agree with this (90% or otherwise) that it's not true, or at least not as prevalent or severe as they imagine or have experienced.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So you're assuming that all blacks (or at least 90% of them) need affirmative action plans to help them succeed. Who's the racist now?

??? I don't think Affirmative Action is a good idea. But its a fact that a large majority of blacks support AA.

I'm still waiting for the part on why blacks would be tempted to vote republican.

[MJZiggy]

From what I can tell, Democrat.

Because he "Move(d) on (your) dot org(an)?"

No, because she is young, urban, working in a profession that could require performing abortions, and living in a city in which 90% voted democrat in the last election.

[mraynrand]

So you're assuming that all blacks (or at least 90% of them) need affirmative action plans to help them succeed. Who's the racist now?

??? I don't think Affirmative Action is a good idea. But its a fact that a large majority of blacks support AA.

I'm still waiting for the part on why blacks would be tempted to vote republican.

As that George W. Bush guy from the JS forum would say: "If yeh vot fer me all giv y'all a tex cut"

[mraynrand]

From what I can tell, Democrat.

Because he "Move(d) on (your) dot org(an)?"

No, because she is young, urban, working in a profession that could require performing abortions, and living in a city in which 90% voted democrat in the last election.

90%? That 90% number rings a bell. If only I could place it.....

[SkinBasket]

Regardless of what you think about affirmative action, how would it be rational for blacks to vote republican?


??? I don't think Affirmative Action is a good idea. But its a fact that a large majority of blacks support AA.

So you feel that it would be irrational for black voters to vote on any other issue than affirmative action?

[mraynrand]

I'm still waiting for the part on why blacks would be tempted to vote republican.

The same reason anyone else would vote for a solid Republican: lower taxes, less governmental intrusion in all walks of life - less government control over health care, school choice; fewer social programs, strong national defense, aggressive pursuit of terrorists and the nations that support or give them safe haven, border protection and enforcement, appointing of strict constructionist judges that don't legislate from the bench, strong traditional social values - valuing the role of God, church, parents and authority figures in our lives, respect for individual rights from the moment life begins at conception until (hopefully) natural death. Etc. etc.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So you feel that it would be irrational for black voters to vote on any other issue than affirmative action?

If they feel passionately about AA, ya, it would be irrational to vote for a Republican. AA is not a narrow issue, it carries broad philosophical weight. And I think the voting record bears this out.

[Harlan Huckleby]

strict constructionist judges that don't legislate from the bench

rich


your platitude list is too much to deal with.

The social conservative issues ought to be appealing to a lot of blacks and hispanics. But it doesn't seem to be enough.

[SkinBasket]

The social conservative issues ought to be appealing to a lot of blacks and hispanics. But it doesn't seem to be enough.

Gee. I wonder what it could be.

[mraynrand]

strict constructionist judges that don't legislate from the bench

rich


your platitude list is too much to deal with.

The social conservative issues ought to be appealing to a lot of blacks and hispanics. But it doesn't seem to be enough.

Funny. To Harlan, less government intrusion is a platitude. Rub the veneer off a 'civil libertarian' and you'll uncover a fascist.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The social conservative issues ought to be appealing to a lot of blacks and hispanics. But it doesn't seem to be enough.

Gee. I wonder what it could be.

no theories? I'd suggest that the Republicans do not fight for the economic interests of working people. And they have a long and deep history of resisting emerging groups: blacks in the 60's, women in the 70's, and now gays and mexicans.
They'll come around, they always do, but about 20 years late.

how are Republicans doing with black, women, gay and hispanic voters? not so well, not so well.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Funny. To Harlan, less government intrusion is a platitude. Rub the veneer off a 'civil libertarian' and you'll uncover a fascist.

what else is on your list that I am now against? :lol: Was motherhood on there?

[Kiwon]

The social conservative issues ought to be appealing to a lot of blacks and hispanics. But it doesn't seem to be enough.

Gee. I wonder what it could be.

no theories? I'd suggest that the Republicans do not fight for the economic interests of working people. And they have a long and deep history of resisting emerging groups: blacks in the 60's, women in the 70's, and now gays and mexicans.
They'll come around, they always do, but about 20 years late.

how are Republicans doing with black, women, gay and hispanic voters? not so well, not so well.

:D :D :D :D :D :D

Face it, boys. HH's got you whipped.

The Republicans did ignore blacks until the 60's.

Republican president Abraham Lincoln did not issue the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863 and push through the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution banning slavery until 1865.