Who says Dems play at demagoguery politics?

[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.

[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.

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.