Here is a Real Class Act

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » July 13, 2004, 10:58 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/13/fund. ... index.html

Not that the republican donors are angels. . .but cmon.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 13, 2004, 11:50 pm

Laws don't matter when it comes to removing the baby killer Bush!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 13, 2004, 11:56 pm

Everyone knows that rich power people are always Republicans. I don't buy this story at all. It must be part of Bush and Cheney's evil plot against the poor, blacks, women, gays, etc.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » July 14, 2004, 12:06 am

I can't wait for the plea-bargaining to begin for this slimeball =p

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 14, 2004, 12:08 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Everyone knows that rich power people are always Republicans. I don't buy this story at all. It must be part of Bush and Cheney's evil plot against the poor, blacks, women, gays, etc.

lol, dude you are so right

becouse we all know gays are better off with a president that doesnt want them to have the right and freedom to get married

blacks im sure would rather look up to someone who refused to attend the naacp meeting

and women are much better off with the government having complete control of there pregnant child

score one for Bush!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 14, 2004, 12:20 am

Xzion wrote: blacks im sure would rather look up to someone who refused to attend the naacp meeting

That's because the NAACP is only interested in advancing the agenda of liberal black people.

They demonize Condi Rice, and Clarence Thomas just as much as they do Bush.

What's the difference? oh they're conservative.

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » July 14, 2004, 12:22 am

yeah in the paper today the naacp endorsed Kerry and said they wanted Bush out of office.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » July 14, 2004, 12:25 am

Maybe because the only thing racially orientated Bush did was try to strike down affirmative action. Kerry supports it. 'nuff said for the NAACP.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 14, 2004, 12:26 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:
Xzion wrote: blacks im sure would rather look up to someone who refused to attend the naacp meeting
That's because the NAACP is only interested in advancing the agenda of liberal black people.

They demonize Condi Rice, and Clarence Thomas just as much as they do Bush.

What's the difference? oh they're conservative.

Im sure you might be able to understand the organizations distrust for conservatives.
Since conservatives stood against brown vs board of edu, stood against interracial marriage, stood for slavery, and were responciple for 99% of all historical hate crimes.
While liberals such as MLK stood for progression and civil rights...

African americans hold a higher % of liberals then white people do, hence
several issues the NAACP will discuss have a liberal bias. Organizations such as the ACLU also have a liberal bias, becouse they stand for social freedom, and conservatives hate social freedom. I guess you could say Bush hates most black, and most non cuban hispanic people (liberals)
Colin Powell, Condi, and Clayton Bisgy(chapelle show!) dont represent the majority of the african american community
Either way you cant say shit in response to my comments on women/gays

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » July 14, 2004, 12:53 am

They demonize Condi Rice

Think she does a pretty good job at demonizing herself.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 14, 2004, 12:58 am

so how come this guy isn't innocent until proven guilty when all your rightie heroes can do no wrong no matter how overwhelming the evidence of their wrongdoings are?

Mak · Post by **Mak** » July 14, 2004, 1:26 am

"The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. The Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster.

In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it."

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 14, 2004, 9:25 am

That means nothing, up until the Regan era Democrats were as or more conservative then republicans.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » July 14, 2004, 9:43 am

Xzion wrote:That means nothing, up until the Regan era Democrats were as or more conservative then republicans.

This represents ignorance, you being born in the 80's does not mean that time started then Xzion.

If you think Kennedy was more conservative than Nixon it proves that you are utterly clueless.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 14, 2004, 10:03 am

Kylere wrote: If you think Kennedy was more conservative than Nixon it proves that you are utterly clueless.

You actually waited for this as proof that Xzion was clueless?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 14, 2004, 11:17 am

i give this thread a big "so what"

i'm sure there are hundreds of guys like this affiliated with both major parties to varying degrees, and i hope they all get caught and thrown in jail.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 14, 2004, 11:34 am

Bush is the first president since Hoover to not attend a naacp convention.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 14, 2004, 12:00 pm

Candidate Bush attended the NAACP convention in 2000.

I'd also point out that Bush seems quite comfortable appointing minorities to some of the most important positions in his cabinet. Yet he is regarded as having racial hangups?

No, he just doesn't want to provide the presence of the presidental office to a liberal organization who works against his election.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 14, 2004, 12:06 pm

Candidate, not president

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 14, 2004, 12:10 pm

The AP story that said Bush was the first president not to visit since hoover by default excluded the fact that he visited in 2000.

Clever wording that slants the story and casually leaves out the fact that Bush has indeed gone to a NAACP convention.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 14, 2004, 12:11 pm

NAACP is playing some politics here, and Bush is not somebody who speaks where he isn't comfortable. Bush also from my point of view holds grudges and refuses to work with people who may not have seen things his way at certain times. (Ex. not viewing the Hart Rudmann Senate Terror Report in Feb 2001 because Rudman worked on John McCain's Campaign). I'm not sure if it is unrealistic idealism, childishness, or both.

The White House is saying that the NAACP has said bad stuff about Bush, which is probably true, but so what. at any rate, why does the NAACP still have the "C" in their name? i wonder about that!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 14, 2004, 12:14 pm

NAALCP

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 14, 2004, 1:24 pm

Thess wrote:Bush is the first president since Hoover to not attend a naacp convention.

This means nothing. You don't have to attend a convention. Did you attend the latest stem cell research convention? Because you didn't, does this mean you're against against stem cell research? There are too many conventions and meetings to begin with.

Delegate.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » July 14, 2004, 1:26 pm

There is no good reason for Bush to speak to the NAACP. The point he is trying to make is that the NAACP does not accurately represent the constituate they claim to represent. Coming from the the president who has the most minorities in true positions of power ever, I applaud the move.

But then, Bush is not the one who called his Hollywood supporters the "Heart and Soul of America". I hope not.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 14, 2004, 1:44 pm

Winnow wrote:
Thess wrote:Bush is the first president since Hoover to not attend a naacp convention.
This means nothing. You don't have to attend a convention. Did you attend the latest stem cell research convention? Because you didn't, does this mean you're against against stem cell research? There are too many conventions and meetings to begin with.

Delegate.

No but I watched it on cspan3

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 14, 2004, 2:42 pm

HAHA

You know CSPAN can be down right entertaining at times.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 14, 2004, 3:16 pm

yes because appointing one or two black people to your cabinet makes up for a 100+ year history of racism and elitism in the republican party. george bush has two niggers in his cabinet! that's right. how many did clinton have? now who's the racist!

the NAACP isn't an accurate representation of black voters? are you sniffing glue? something like 90% of black voters are democrats. you would have to be completely insane to be black, mexican, gay or a woman and vote republican.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » July 14, 2004, 3:48 pm

That's the problem right there. You dont vote for a party simply because you are black, or white. You vote for the candidate, not the party affiliation. I am doing just that this year. You saying that makes you no better than Midnyte who votes Republican everytime just because that's his party.

For the record, I like the NAACP, but you are crazy if you think I have to swear allegiance to their political views just because we happen to share skin tones. Minorities are not lemmings.

you would have to be completely insane to be black, mexican, gay or a woman and vote republican

You would have to be very closed minded to believe this. Sentences like this are why we have the "my party is 100% right and yours is 100%wrong" mentality today, and it's exactly what keeps this crappy two party system going.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 14, 2004, 3:53 pm

kyoukan wrote:yes because appointing one or two black people to your cabinet makes up for a 100+ year history of racism and elitism in the republican party. george bush has two niggers in his cabinet! that's right. how many did clinton have? now who's the racist!

the NAACP isn't an accurate representation of black voters? are you sniffing glue? something like 90% of black voters are democrats. you would have to be completely insane to be black, mexican, gay or a woman and vote republican.

Way to discount the fact that these two african american might, just might of gotten their jobs by hard work.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » July 14, 2004, 3:55 pm

Way to dicount the fact that these two african american might just might of gotten there jobs by hard work.

http://www.sentencestructure.com

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 14, 2004, 3:57 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:

Way to dicount the fact that these two african american might just might of gotten there jobs by hard work.

http://www.sentencestructure.com

[/quote]

http://www.likeigiveadamn.com

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » July 14, 2004, 3:58 pm

Touche loser!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 14, 2004, 3:58 pm

when you are voting for a candidate that belongs to either party, then you are supporting that party. even if you say you aren't, you can't really avoid it. if you elect a republican representative then you have just strengthened their party. the republican party has a history and reputation of racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, selfishness and corruption. that is what you are supporting.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 14, 2004, 4:00 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:Touche loser!

fuck off!!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 14, 2004, 4:02 pm

I KNOW HE DI'IN!!!

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » July 14, 2004, 4:02 pm

Sending you both to the penalty box for misuse of

Code: Select all

[quote] [/quote]

.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 14, 2004, 4:05 pm

Forthe wrote:Sending you both to the penalty box for misuse of
Code: Select all
[quote] [/quote]
.

Damn

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » July 14, 2004, 4:06 pm

I see your point Kyoukan. But using that argument, should I never vote Democrat because it was the Republican party that freed the slaves? When do we reach a point where the past is considered the past, and vote on current views and issues?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 14, 2004, 4:25 pm

if you vote on current issues then minorities, women and gay people who vote for republicans are still crazy.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 14, 2004, 4:33 pm

Kylere wrote:
Xzion wrote:That means nothing, up until the Regan era Democrats were as or more conservative then republicans.
This represents ignorance, you being born in the 80's does not mean that time started then Xzion.

If you think Kennedy was more conservative than Nixon it proves that you are utterly clueless.

siigh, cmon dude

In modern days "conservative" is usually tacked on to republican, just like liberal is to democrate. In the past, this wasnt necissarily the case. There are a lot of conservative democrates, and there were even more conservative democrates, i never said all democrates were. Yet Regan did give a rebirth to the modern or neoconservative movement.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » July 14, 2004, 4:37 pm

Cartalas wrote:
Krimson Klaw wrote:Touche loser!
fuck off!!

Heh, I have that book...I bought it in grade 7...

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » July 14, 2004, 4:37 pm

decent article:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/ne ... 779.htm?1c

. . .oh well subscription required I guess. Sorry.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 14, 2004, 4:38 pm

Avestan wrote:decent article:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/ne ... 779.htm?1c

"Sign In or Sign Up. It's Free!

When you register on Herald.com you will have privileged access to our articles and services, free of charge. By learning a little about you, we are able to provide the kinds of information, offers and services that are of the most interest to you.

As a Herald.com member, you will enjoy FREE access to: • News and commentary from The Miami Herald
• Breaking local news, weather, sports & business
• Local polls and message boards, commuter traffic reports, stock quotes, movie times, comics and more
• More exciting benefits and prizes throughout the year. "

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 14, 2004, 5:17 pm

tell me more about these prizes Cart!!!

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » July 14, 2004, 5:21 pm

hmm sorry bout that, I just followed a google link with no signin. . .will try to reproduce

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » July 14, 2004, 5:52 pm

Avestan wrote:hmm sorry bout that, I just followed a google link with no signin. . .will try to reproduce

Referee(Forthe)!!!!!!11!!!!1!!!!!one!!!! Surely Ave should get a penalty for bad link usage!

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » July 14, 2004, 6:22 pm

Bush isn't going to skip the NAACP convention because of the republican policy of "keep then darkies down" or anything of that nature. Hell, Ronnie spoke at the convention and he went on public record saying blacks should be shipped back to Africa. GW is skipping it because the man can hardly recite a prepared speach in front of a hand picked crowd of loyals, let alone respond to questions where anyone might (*gasp*) question his policies. This is why he has had less press conferences than any president since they began doing them.

As to the whole minorities voting republican thing, the lincoln era GOP does not even vaguely resemble the modern day version. Furthermore, Lincoln freed the slaves partly as a measure to cause unrest in the south during the civil war. The minority hating dems that came after that were the "Dixiecrats" who had GOP values, but had to be dems because no southerner would elect someone who "set them darkies free" and it took over a century for them to get over that shit. The modern GOP has dick punched minorities and women alike whenever the opportunity arose, with the latest tax scheme being the best example.

Appointing the evil queen of darkness Condi Rice to a cabinet post does not absolve them of this; she is filthy rich and rich people tend to sell out their own kind no matter what color their skin might be. Powell is a nice guy who let himself get talked into a fucked situation and now he is screwed with having completely shot his credibility (and his son playing ball with the fundies while chairing the FCC hasn't helped either), sticking him in a shittty situation his personal honor won't let him walk away from. I don't think anyone believes he enjoys his job as the token "credible ethnic guy" on the GW team.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » July 14, 2004, 7:19 pm

...there are signs that more black Americans are open to the GOP. He said studies have shown that 35 percent of blacks ages 18 to 25 identify themselves as independent, and that from 2000 to 2002, the percentage of blacks describing themselves as Democrats dropped 11 percent, while the GOP gained 6 percent.

source

The times they are a changin`

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 14, 2004, 10:46 pm

Cool, i made rek's sig =)

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » July 14, 2004, 11:37 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:The AP story that said Bush was the first president not to visit since hoover by default excluded the fact that he visited in 2000.

Clever wording that slants the story and casually leaves out the fact that Bush has indeed gone to a NAACP convention.

Funny, the AP story I read several days ago did mention that he attended it in 2000.