Hillary has NO chance...

[recxjake]

Poll: Thumbs Down on Prez Hillary Clinton


By a margin of three to one, Americans say they would "definitely" vote against Hillary Clinton for president, a CNN/Gallup poll released Tuesday has found.

While just 16 percent say they had made up their minds to back Clinton when she seeks the presidency in 2008, 51 percent say there's no way they want to see the former first lady back in the White House.

Men are the most vehement when it comes to the prospect of another Clinton presidency, with 60 percent telling Gallup they would vote against Hillary for sure.

Reporting on the Gallup survey in today's edition, the New York Post notes that women are slightly less repulsed by the notion of Mrs. Clinton running the country, with just 43 percent saying they definitely don't want to see her in the Oval Office.

Even Mrs. Clinton's liberal base isn't solidly behind her, with a full one-third of self described liberals telling Gallup/CNN they have no intention of supporting her in 2008.

newsmax.com

[Cochise]

Before any squawking happens, you might want to stop citing newsmax and reference a different source if one is available.


http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/62235.htm

January 25, 2006 -- WASHINGTON — Most American voters now say there's no way they'd vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 — while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp, a stunning new poll shows.

The Gallup/CNN poll found that 51 percent say they definitely won't vote for Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008, another 32 percent might consider it, and only 16 percent vow to back her.

That means committed anti-Hillary voters outnumber pro-Hillary voters by 3-1.

Men are especially anti-Clinton — 60 percent say there's no way they'd back her for commander-in-chief, and that rises to 62 percent among men 50 and over.

Among women, 22 percent say they'd definitely vote for Clinton, but just 11 percent of men agree. Her support is also lower among whites — 14 percent are committed supporters, compared with 28 percent of nonwhites.

Even among self-proclaimed liberals, just 33 percent say they'd definitely vote for her.

The poll suggests she can forget about crossover votes — 90 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives say there's no way they'd back her.

Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reines, brushed off all questions about 2008 polls, good and bad, saying Clinton "remains focused on being the best senator she can for New York."


By the way - Clinton "remains focused on being the best senator she can for New York." should have been followed by a laugh track

['Hamas' Jenkins]

You are both right, however sad that may be. A woman won't be elected President unless she is an Uncle Tom-style woman who kowtows to the interests of the white supremacist patriarchy and sets the women's movement back to the 1950's. A lot of Men won't vote for her because those men are afraid of women in power, it might expose them for what they really are--hollow shells.

[Radar Chief]

You are both right, however sad that may be. A woman won't be elected President unless she is an Uncle Tom-style woman who kowtows to the interests of the white supremacist patriarchy and sets the women's movement back to the 1950's. A lot of Men won't vote for her because those men are afraid of women in power, it might expose them for what they really are--hollow shells.

:spock: Uh, women are the majority in this country.
Just FYI.

[Donger]

You are both right, however sad that may be. A woman won't be elected President unless she is an Uncle Tom-style woman who kowtows to the interests of the white supremacist patriarchy and sets the women's movement back to the 1950's. A lot of Men won't vote for her because those men are afraid of women in power, it might expose them for what they really are--hollow shells.

I would have no problem voting for a female POTUS, and I'm sure that many conservatives wouldn't either.

[Brock]

This is no surprise. Most people are aware she's a horrible human being.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

:spock: Uh, women are the majority in this country.
Just FYI.


Considering that women earn 75 cents on the dollar to what men do and furthermore that over 95 percent of all executive jobs are held by men, I think that points out the clear truth---that the majority of power in this country is held by men, and not women. Anyone who would disagree with this is nothing other than a fool. Furthermore, although women outnumber men, men vote more than women, thus negating that numerical advantage. Nice attempt at skewing the statistics, but like most right-wing b.s. it just doesn't fly when held up to any form of honest analysis.

[Brock]

Considering that women earn 75 cents on the dollar to what men do and furthermore that over 95 percent of all executive jobs are held by men, I think that points out the clear truth---that the majority of power in this country is held by men, and not women. Anyone who would disagree with this is nothing other than a fool. Furthermore, although women outnumber men, men vote more than women, thus negating that numerical advantage. Nice attempt at skewing the statistics, but like most right-wing b.s. it just doesn't fly when held up to any form of honest analysis.

De man be holdin me down.

[Donger]

Considering that women earn 75 cents on the dollar to what men do and furthermore that over 95 percent of all executive jobs are held by men, I think that points out the clear truth---that the majority of power in this country is held by men, and not women.

That there's some really f*cked up thinking.

Are you suggesting that a woman's vote counts less than a man's?

Furthermore, although women outnumber men, men vote more than women

And whose fault is that?

[Radar Chief]

Considering that women earn 75 cents on the dollar to what men do and furthermore that over 95 percent of all executive jobs are held by men, I think that points out the clear truth---that the majority of power in this country is held by men, and not women. Anyone who would disagree with this is nothing other than a fool. Furthermore, although women outnumber men, men vote more than women, thus negating that numerical advantage. Nice attempt at skewing the statistics, but like most right-wing b.s. it just doesn't fly when held up to any form of honest analysis.

What does any of this have to do with voting?

[Radar Chief]

Are you suggesting that a woman's vote counts less than a man's?

:thumb: Beat me to it.

[Cochise]

A new recunt personality?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I'm pointing out statistical inconsistencies. Regarding money, it makes plenty of sense, if you can follow the logic of my original post. None of us are naive enough to believe that money does not equal power in this political system--men hold the majority of wealth in this country, and thus the power. Considering that women can't even get a position as high as VP, I don't think that a woman will be POTUS unless she is able to coalesce the right wing base and in order to do that she will need to appeal to that base who believes that women's place is in the kitchen and making babies--not on truly equal footing with men.

[Brock]

There are zero women head coaches in the NFL. It's a travesty.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

:thumb: Beat me to it.

I'm pointing out institutional factors that make it impossible for women to vote in as great of numbers as men do.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

There are zero women head coaches in the NFL. It's a travesty.

I guess that's more of a Sean Hannity style dodge than Rush Limbaugh. You should be proud of your ability to emulate the only man with a bigger chin than Bill Cowher.

[Donger]

I'm pointing out institutional factors that make it impossible for women to vote in as great of numbers as men do.

Last time I checked, you need neither power nor money to become a registered voter.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Last time I checked, you need neither power nor money to become a registered voter.

That is incredibly naive.

Considering the fact that you need about half a billion dollars to run a campaign for POTUS, there is no way that you can't run w/o money and power...and that money and power trickles down to the voters who see endless political ads. A woman running for POTUS would stimulate so much negative pub simply b/c she is a woman (yes those institutional restraints still exist) that she will have no chance--the women are just as receptive to ads as men and given the influx of right wing money, it's just not realistic.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Last time I checked, you need neither power nor money to become a registered voter.


Perhaps you could explain why voter registration numbers decrease in correspondence with income?

[Donger]

That is incredibly naive.

Considering the fact that you need about half a billion dollars to run a campaign for POTUS, there is no way that you can't run w/o money and power...and that money and power trickles down to the voters who see endless political ads. A woman running for POTUS would stimulate so much negative pub simply b/c she is a woman (yes those institutional restraints still exist) that she will have no chance--the women are just as receptive to ads as men and given the influx of right wing money, it's just not realistic.

Errr, we were discussing voting, not running for office.

[Taco John]

I couldn't vote for her.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

If you can't see the painfully obvious correlation, then I'm not going to waste my time spelling it out for you.

[Donger]

Perhaps you could explain why voter registration numbers decrease in correspondence with income?

Because people with more money tend to be more engaged (and care = vote) than those that do not.

Again, neither power nor money is a requisite for registering to vote. Your argument is false.

You're a student, yes?

[Donger]

If you can't see the painfully obvious correlation, then I'm not going to waste my time spelling it out for you.

That's because you're wrong. Poor people and women can vote just as much as rich folk. Unless you're suggesting that someone is forcing them not to, your argument is false.

[Baby Lee]

Lay off guys. Hamass' gripe is with democracy more than anything.

[Adept Havelock]

Lay off guys. Hamass' gripe is with democracy more than anything.


ROFL :clap:

['Hamas' Jenkins]

That's because you're wrong. Poor people and women can vote just as much as rich folk. Unless you're suggesting that someone is forcing them not to, your argument is false.

That's precisely what I'm suggesting. Do you think that a single mother raising children who has to work two jobs to put food on the table is going to have the time or the inclination to even think about voting the same way that some upper exec who works 15 hours a week does? It's a matter of needs, and those who are less off have more pressing needs than voting, and a large part of that is due to institutional power structures that keep minorities in the ghettos and underprivileged children undereducated.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Perhaps this will further illustrate my point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

[Donger]

That's precisely what I'm suggesting. Do you think that a single mother raising children who has to work two jobs to put food on the table is going to have the time or the inclination to even think about voting the same way that some upper exec who works 15 hours a week does? It's a matter of needs, and those who are less off have more pressing needs than voting, and a large part of that is due to institutional power structures that keep minorities in the ghettos and underprivileged children undereducated.

Wow. A true class-warfare specialist.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Wow. A true class-warfare specialist.

I'm also a culture warfare specialist. I earned my stripes as a child of the Reagan 80's :)

[Donger]

Perhaps this will further illustrate my point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

Yeah, I stated that above.

Again, these down-trodden people still have the right to vote just like the wealthy white guys do. They fact that they CHOOSE not to does not equal being FORCED not to.

Does that clear it up?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Yeah, I stated that above.

Again, these down-trodden people still have the right to vote just like the wealthy white guys do. They fact that they CHOOSE not to does not equal being FORCED not to.

Does that clear it up?

I don't think it's an element of choice as much as it is the overwhelming socioeconomic factors that lead to their exhaustion and a feeling of hopelessness. If you were dirt poor and worked to the bone, how much faith would you have in gov't? If you can't afford cable, how informed of a voter are you going to be? If all you see around you are the downtrodden, then you have no reason to vote, because you have no belief that your circumstances will ever change. Psychologically, it becomes an exercise in futility.

[Donger]

I don't think it's an element of choice as much as it is the overwhelming socioeconomic factors that lead to their exhaustion and a feeling of hopelessness. If you were dirt poor and worked to the bone, how much faith would you have in gov't? If you can't afford cable, how informed of a voter are you going to be? If all you see around you are the downtrodden, then you have no reason to vote, because you have no belief that your circumstances will ever change. Psychologically, it becomes an exercise in futility.

Again, they choose not to. That does not equal being forced not to.

Anyway, to get back to the skirts, the fact that Molly Housewife would rather watch Oprah than take the hour to go and vote is not "being forced" not to vote, either.

[Taco John]

I don't think it's an element of choice as much as it is the overwhelming socioeconomic factors that lead to their exhaustion and a feeling of hopelessness. If you were dirt poor and worked to the bone, how much faith would you have in gov't? If you can't afford cable, how informed of a voter are you going to be? If all you see around you are the downtrodden, then you have no reason to vote, because you have no belief that your circumstances will ever change. Psychologically, it becomes an exercise in futility.


So? That's their CHOICE.

What are you proposing? Anything? Or just whining?

If people choose not to vote because they feel it's an excersize in futility, that's their right to do so. They should be given no sympathy for it though.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Again, they choose not to. That does not equal being forced not to.

Anyway, to get back to the skirts, the fact that Molly Housewife would rather watch Oprah than take the hour to go and vote is not "being forced" not to vote, either.


That may be labeled a choice in the verbage of "did you vote or not", but the issue demands a deeper investigation into the causes of why not.

I fundamentally disagree that she would rather watch Oprah. Rather I believe that she has been socially constructed to think that is her only role in society. Furthermore, those 'skirts' are the ones who vote in much higher numbers than do working class women, who don't because of the reasons that I've outlined above.

[Baby Lee]

I don't think it's an element of choice as much as it is the overwhelming socioeconomic factors that lead to their exhaustion and a feeling of hopelessness. If you were dirt poor and worked to the bone, how much faith would you have in gov't? If you can't afford cable, how informed of a voter are you going to be? If all you see around you are the downtrodden, then you have no reason to vote, because you have no belief that your circumstances will ever change. Psychologically, it becomes an exercise in futility.
Thanks for weighing in Professor Hobbes.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

So? That's their CHOICE.

What are you proposing? Anything? Or just whining?

If people choose not to vote because they feel it's an excersize in futility, that's their right to do so. They should be given no sympathy for it though.

That's not a choice. It's Pavlovian training. They have no faith in gov't b/c gov't has failed them. After a while a dog learns to salivate to a whistle just as the underprivileged learn that no matter who they vote for their circumstances rarely change.

[Donger]

That's not a choice. It's Pavlovian training. They have no faith in gov't b/c gov't has failed them. After a while a dog learns to salivate to a whistle just as the underprivileged learn that no matter who they vote for their circumstances rarely change.

And there it is.

It amazes me how those who claim to be fighting for the downtrodden always seem to end up calling them f*cking mindless idiots.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

And there it is.

It amazes me how those who claim to be fighting for the downtrodden always seem to end up calling them f*cking mindless idiots.

It's not that they are mindless idiots, it's that they have been their environmental factors have conditioned them with a great degree of hopelessness. You are a conditioned being yourself. The fact that you don't realize it only further underscores my point. You think that these people have choices because that's what you've been told to believe. You've been told it so much that you believe it to be the empirical truth, when in reality it is nothing other than propaganda initiated to placate feelings of remorse among both the right and left of the political spectrum. Your attempt to twist my words is futile and ineffective. If you can't follow a simple analogy, then there is no need to continue this debate.

[Radar Chief]

I guess that's more of a Sean Hannity style dodge than Rush Limbaugh. You should be proud of your ability to emulate the only man with a bigger chin than Bill Cowher.

ROFL What I originally posted.

:spock: Uh, women are the majority in this country.
Just FYI.

You reply with a “dodge”.

Considering that women earn 75 cents on the dollar to what men do and furthermore that over 95 percent of all executive jobs are held by men, I think that points out the clear truth---that the majority of power in this country is held by men, and not women. Anyone who would disagree with this is nothing other than a fool. Furthermore, although women outnumber men, men vote more than women, thus negating that numerical advantage. Nice attempt at skewing the statistics, but like most right-wing b.s. it just doesn't fly when held up to any form of honest analysis.

I ask again.

What does any of this have to do with voting?

You reply with more spin, squiggle, “dodge”.

I'm pointing out statistical inconsistencies. Regarding money, it makes plenty of sense, if you can follow the logic of my original post. None of us are naive enough to believe that money does not equal power in this political system--men hold the majority of wealth in this country, and thus the power. Considering that women can't even get a position as high as VP, I don't think that a woman will be POTUS unless she is able to coalesce the right wing base and in order to do that she will need to appeal to that base who believes that women's place is in the kitchen and making babies--not on truly equal footing with men.

None of which addresses the FACT that women are the majority in this country.
But don’t let the FACTS get in the way of your blind partisan stupidity.

[Donger]

It's not that they are mindless idiots, it's that they have been their environmental factors have conditioned them with a great degree of hopelessness. You are a conditioned being yourself. The fact that you don't realize it only further underscores my point. You think that these people have choices because that's what you've been told to believe. You've been told it so much that you believe it to be the empirical truth, when in reality it is nothing other than propaganda initiated to placate feelings of remorse among both the right and left of the political spectrum. Your attempt to twist my words is futile and ineffective. If you can't follow a simple analogy, then there is no need to continue this debate.

Okay, for the last time...

Yes, I acknowledge that poorer/downtrodden people are less likely to vote.

There are not, however, forced not to. They choose not to.

[Cochise]

Gee... I wonder who this newcomer could be :spock:

[Brock]

I'll bet it was a native american a couple of months ago.

[Baby Lee]

That's not a choice. It's Pavlovian training. They have no faith in gov't b/c gov't has failed them. After a while a dog learns to salivate to a whistle just as the underprivileged learn that no matter who they vote for their circumstances rarely change.
You know what, I'm a fat f@ck. Doesn't mean that the vast panoply of exercise machines, trails, running paths, health foods, etc. have been denied me. Just means I haven't got off my fat azz and made use of them.
I have nothing to say to the American who is eligible but doesn't vote. You had your say, and you said nothing. boo-fugging-hoo.

[Chief Henry]

You are both right, however sad that may be. A woman won't be elected President unless she is an Uncle Tom-style woman who kowtows to the interests of the white supremacist patriarchy and sets the women's movement back to the 1950's. A lot of Men won't vote for her because those men are afraid of women in power, it might expose them for what they really are--hollow shells.


Spoken like a true RACIST PiG......... :(

[Chief Faithful]

You are both right, however sad that may be. A woman won't be elected President unless she is an Uncle Tom-style woman who kowtows to the interests of the white supremacist patriarchy and sets the women's movement back to the 1950's. A lot of Men won't vote for her because those men are afraid of women in power, it might expose them for what they really are--hollow shells.

So how does this make Hillary the right choice for President? You got anymore idioms or racist comments you can insult our intelligence with?

[Baby Lee]

You are both right, however sad that may be. A woman won't be elected President unless she is an Uncle Tom-style woman who kowtows to the interests of the white supremacist patriarchy and sets the women's movement back to the 1950's. A lot of Men won't vote for her because those men are afraid of women in power, it might expose them for what they really are--hollow shells.
Rough translation, NO ONE will be elected president unless he or she presents a platform that convinces a majority of the participating electoral to vote for him or her.

Sorry for the accent. I haven't taken 'class warrior' lessons since HS.

[patteeu]

if you can follow the logic of my original post

I'm not embarassed to admit that I couldn't.

[patteeu]

It's not that they are mindless idiots, it's that they have been their environmental factors have conditioned them with a great degree of hopelessness. You are a conditioned being yourself. The fact that you don't realize it only further underscores my point. You think that these people have choices because that's what you've been told to believe. You've been told it so much that you believe it to be the empirical truth, when in reality it is nothing other than propaganda initiated to placate feelings of remorse among both the right and left of the political spectrum. Your attempt to twist my words is futile and ineffective. If you can't follow a simple analogy, then there is no need to continue this debate.

Come on guys, 'Hamas' Jenkins has broken free of the Matrix and he's just trying to help us get out too.

[Adept Havelock]

Come on guys, 'Hamas' Jenkins has broken free of the Matrix and he's just trying to help us get out too.
ROFL

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Spoken like a true RACIST PiG......... :(

Do you even know what an uncle tom is? It's a person who goes against their race or people in order to stay in the good graces of another race or people that is exercising power on them. Read a book, for God's sake.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

ROFL What I originally posted.



You reply with a “dodge”.

Men hold the power of wealth in this country which controls the electorate. Women have higher rates of poverty and illiteracy, both of which make them less likely to vote. If you aren't educated on the importance of voting, and if you are downtrodden, why are you supposed to care?

I ask again.



You reply with more spin, squiggle, “dodge”.

You obviously understand nothing about the electoral process. Winning elections takes money, which requires fundraising. Female candidates are less likely to generate funds, and thus less likely to win. The fact that there are more women in the US points out nothing other than a number...it says nothing about voter tendencies, which point out that men have many institutional advantages that lead them to higher rates of voting than women. Moreover, urban 'women are substantially less likely to be targets of get out the vote drives. Additionally, many of them work long hours, often double shifts or lack available transportation, making it difficult and impractical for them to go to their voting precinct. An additional problem is that many lack proper identification or move often, which creates an even greater hassle in regard to voter registration.


None of which addresses the FACT that women are the majority in this country.
But don’t let the FACTS get in the way of your blind partisan stupidity.

You also completely disregard the fact that more men than women in this country vote. You cannot be simplistic enough to think that census figures equal voter demographics. It's a lot more complicated than that. Furthermore, the women in this country least likely to vote are unwed poor mothers, who also happen to be a group most stepped on by society. If you put up 200 feet of razor wire around Johnson County polls, those rich bastards wouldn't be nearly as likely to vote. But because the contstraints on these voters are psychological, economic, and social, you choose to overlook them and marginalize their problems rather than look at endemic flaws in the system. That's an arrogant, egocentric view.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I typed within your quote to address each section, but here is it delineated for your pleasure:

Men hold the power of wealth in this country which controls the electorate. Women have higher rates of poverty and illiteracy, both of which make them less likely to vote. If you aren't educated on the importance of voting, and if you are downtrodden, why are you supposed to care?

You obviously understand nothing about the electoral process. Winning elections takes money, which requires fundraising. Female candidates are less likely to generate funds, and thus less likely to win. The fact that there are more women in the US points out nothing other than a number...it says nothing about voter tendencies, which point out that men have many institutional advantages that lead them to higher rates of voting than women. Moreover, urban 'women are substantially less likely to be targets of get out the vote drives. Additionally, many of them work long hours, often double shifts or lack available transportation, making it difficult and impractical for them to go to their voting precinct. An additional problem is that many lack proper identification or move often, which creates an even greater hassle in regard to voter registration.

[Donger]

You also completely disregard the fact that more men than women in this country vote. You cannot be simplistic enough to think that census figures equal voter demographics. It's a lot more complicated than that. Furthermore, the women in this country least likely to vote are unwed poor mothers, who also happen to be a group most stepped on by society. If you put up 200 feet of razor wire around Johnson County polls, those rich bastards wouldn't be nearly as likely to vote. But because the contstraints on these voters are psychological, economic, and social, you choose to overlook them and marginalize their problems rather than look at endemic flaws in the system. That's an arrogant, egocentric view.

The world needs ditch-diggers, too.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

The world needs ditch-diggers, too.

That's pathetic. I would have figured as much from a group who only musters a defense once I leave for class.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Spoken like a true RACIST PiG......... :(

Since you obviously don't know the definition, here it is for Uncle Tom:

It is used to denote African Americans whose political views or allegiances are labeled by critics as detrimental to black Americans as a group. This term has been used by some African-Americans to malign black Republicans and appointees, due to their participation in a Republican administration, although it has also been used to describe Democratic African-American politicians accused of ignoring the African-American community.

If you are going to accuse somebody of racism, you might want to start with those who are making racist statements as opposed to those who support egalitarian values and belief systems.

[Donger]

That's pathetic. I would have figured as much from a group who only musters a defense once I leave for class.

It was a joke, Skippy. Lighten up.

What would you like to see done in order to help these downtrodden people?

BTW, you're a teacher or a student? If a teacher, what subject?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I'm sorry if I got a little heated, it's a passionate subject for me.

I would like to see genuine social reform. We need to reinvest in the infrastructure of the cities. I realize that means going into large amounts of debt, but I think at least some of that could be ameliorated by reducing/eliminating the tax cuts (I know, I know).

It would be nice if we could institute systems that paid teachers in inner city districts more money in order entice them there--so that the kids had a fighting chance.

I'm a teacher and a student. I teach English Composition.

[Donger]

I'm sorry if I got a little heated, it's a passionate subject for me.

I would like to see genuine social reform. We need to reinvest in the infrastructure of the cities. I realize that means going into large amounts of debt, but I think at least some of that could be ameliorated by reducing/eliminating the tax cuts (I know, I know).

It would be nice if we could institute systems that paid teachers in inner city districts more money in order entice them there--so that the kids had a fighting chance.

I'm a teacher and a student. I teach English Composition.

No worries. Just trying to see if you had a sense of humor.

So, Great Society Two?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

You know what, I'm a fat f@ck. Doesn't mean that the vast panoply of exercise machines, trails, running paths, health foods, etc. have been denied me. Just means I haven't got off my fat azz and made use of them.
I have nothing to say to the American who is eligible but doesn't vote. You had your say, and you said nothing. boo-fugging-hoo.


I was at class--committments sometimes get in the way of political diatribes.

You know what, you may be a fat f*ck, but have you ever stopped to think that the US has the highest rate of obesity among all industrialized nations? Why do you think that is? Lifestyle and corresponding convenience of terrible foods, combined with genetics. You may eat shitty food and yes it is shitty, but when it's so damned easy to eat a cheeseburger rather than eat baked chicken, you're going to choose the cheeseburger. Your choice isn't as apparent as you may think. You're used to being unhealthy, it's easier to be fat, and after a while you just accept the fact that you are fat, just like these downtrodden people accept the fact that their lot in life will never change.

[Donger]

I was at class--committments sometimes get in the way of political diatribes.

You know what, you may be a fat f*ck, but have you ever stopped to think that the US has the highest rate of obesity among all industrialized nations? Why do you think that is? Lifestyle and corresponding convenience of terrible foods, combined with genetics. You may eat shitty food and yes it is shitty, but when it's so damned easy to eat a cheeseburger rather than eat baked chicken, you're going to choose the cheeseburger. Your choice isn't as apparent as you may think. You're used to being unhealthy, it's easier to be fat, and after a while you just accept the fact that you are fat, just like these downtrodden people accept the fact that their lot in life will never change.

Conversely, as long as we're making generalizations, couldn't one also say that perhaps 'the downtrodden' remain that way because they're lazy or not willing to work hard in order to free themselves from the bottom?

[Chief Henry]

Since you obviously don't know the definition, here it is for Uncle Tom:

It is used to denote African Americans whose political views or allegiances are labeled by critics as detrimental to black Americans as a group. This term has been used by some African-Americans to malign black Republicans and appointees, due to their participation in a Republican administration, although it has also been used to describe Democratic African-American politicians accused of ignoring the African-American community.

If you are going to accuse somebody of racism, you might want to start with those who are making racist statements as opposed to those who support egalitarian values and belief systems.


Are you saying this about Condy Rice? Are you suggesting
Condy Rice is an Uncle Tom? WHy don't use just use the name of Rice
as an Uncle Tom, instead of "beating around the bush"...

Its too bad your ashamed of Condy Rice. She's a self made woman
and your using racist terms like Uncle TOm in discribing her. Thats
BRILLIANT :rolleyes:

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Conversely, as long as we're making generalizations, couldn't one also say that perhaps 'the downtrodden' remain that way because they're lazy or not willing to work hard in order to free themselves from the bottom?

That's not one I'm willing to make. I may be painting in broad strokes, but I'm only pointing out causes for particular behaviors--namely indoctrination and convenience. In no way am I going to make your above statement--leave that to Ann Coulter.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Are you saying this about Condy Rice? Are you suggesting
Condy Rice is an Uncle Tom? WHy don't use just use the name of Rice
as an Uncle Tom, instead of "beating around the bush"...

Its too bad your ashamed of Condy Rice. She's a self made woman
and your using racist terms like Uncle TOm in discribing her. Thats
BRILLIANT :rolleyes:


Actually, Condy Rice would be considered an Aunt Jemima, and yes I think those terms are applicable to her. Given the fact that she supports an administration that has such a deplorable record with minorities and the underprivileged, she should be taken to task for her political alliances, especially when the goals of her political allies are far out of step with those of her African American brethren.

Once again, there is a difference between a pejorative term, and a racist term. Uncle Tom may be pejorative, but it is in no way racist. It points out the very people who kowtow TO RACISTS. You could not be more incorrect.

[Donger]

That's not one I'm willing to make. I may be painting in broad strokes, but I'm only pointing out causes for particular behaviors--namely indoctrination and convenience. In no way am I going to make your above statement--leave that to Ann Coulter.

You subsribe to social egalitarianism, I take it?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

You subsribe to social egalitarianism, I take it?

I just posted that elsewhere on this board. You are correct.

[Donger]

especially when the goals of her political allies are far out of step with those of her African American brethren.

Let me get this straight: black folks should only work for goals/administrations/whatever that help their African-American brethren? But, it's not okay for white folk to do the same?

[Donger]

I just posted that elsewhere on this board. You are correct.

You're relatively young, yes? Early 20s tops?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Let me get this straight: black folks should only work for goals/administrations/whatever that help their African-American brethren? But, it's not okay for white folk to do the same?

I think that black and white people are in fundamentally different positions within this society. Condi Rice should focus on helping the Black community out, rather than herself. Whites should also focus on helping out the black community, and to abandon that responsibility is also reprehensible. But Rice instead serves the interests of the dominant white male entreprenuer and thus spits on the very people she shares the closest bond with.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

You're relatively young, yes? Early 20s tops?

23, yet uncorrupted by the 'real world' the conservatives speak so derisively about.

[Donger]

I think that black and white people are in fundamentally different positions within this society. Condi Rice should focus on helping the Black community out, rather than herself. Whites should also focus on helping out the black community, and to abandon that responsibility is also reprehensible. But Rice instead serves the interests of the dominant white male entreprenuer and thus spits on the very people she shares the closest bond with.

Maybe Condi considers her closest bonds to be based not in the color of her skin, but her political ideology. Somewhat presumptuous and skin-pigment-centric of you to assume otherwise.

[Baby Lee]

Actually, Condy Rice would be considered an Aunt Jemima, and yes I think those terms are applicable to her. Given the fact that she supports an administration that has such a deplorable record with minorities and the underprivileged, she should be taken to task for her political alliances, especially when the goals of her political allies are far out of step with those of her African American brethren.

Once again, there is a difference between a pejorative term, and a racist term. Uncle Tom may be pejorative, but it is in no way racist. It points out the very people who kowtow TO RACISTS. You could not be more incorrect.
The belief that black people should act from a set of black principles, and white act from a set of white principles, indeed that those principles universally exist, IS racist.

[Donger]

23, yet uncorrupted by the 'real world' the conservatives speak so derisively about.

Actually, I'd say that you've been corrupted by it rather decisively. But, I could be wrong.

[Baby Lee]

I was at class--committments sometimes get in the way of political diatribes.

You know what, you may be a fat f*ck, but have you ever stopped to think that the US has the highest rate of obesity among all industrialized nations? Why do you think that is? Lifestyle and corresponding convenience of terrible foods, combined with genetics. You may eat shitty food and yes it is shitty, but when it's so damned easy to eat a cheeseburger rather than eat baked chicken, you're going to choose the cheeseburger. Your choice isn't as apparent as you may think. You're used to being unhealthy, it's easier to be fat, and after a while you just accept the fact that you are fat, just like these downtrodden people accept the fact that their lot in life will never change.
We get it, you discount all notions of personal autonomy and resonsibility, opting instead for a heuristic of individuals powerless against any forces acting upon them.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

From Wikipedia

Rice was eight when her schoolmate Denise McNair was killed in the bombing of the primarily African-American Sixteenth Street Baptist Church by white supremacists on September 15, 1963. Rice states that growing up during racial segregation taught her determination against adversity, and the need to be "twice as good" as non-minorities

It doesn't sound like she values political philosophies over the color of her skin--it just seems that she forgot about these values once she got in the catbird seat. Nice try.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

We get it, you discount all notions of personal autonomy and resonsibility, opting instead for a heuristic of individuals powerless against any forces acting upon them.


That is a gross oversimplification of my statement. I am willing to consider extraneous factors before jumping to unnecessary conclusions unlike you, Baby Lee. All civilized people have certain responsibilities, but along with responsibilities are many institutional apparatuses that cause many choices to not in fact be choices but rather the path of least resistance.

[Donger]

From Wikipedia

Rice was eight when her schoolmate Denise McNair was killed in the bombing of the primarily African-American Sixteenth Street Baptist Church by white supremacists on September 15, 1963. Rice states that growing up during racial segregation taught her determination against adversity, and the need to be "twice as good" as non-minorities

It doesn't sound like she values political philosophies over the color of her skin--it just seems that she forgot about these values once she got in the catbird seat. Nice try.

Nonsense. She perseverved in the face of adversity.

Here's the rest:

She said the Democratic Party's speeches to ''women, minorities, and the poor'' really meant ''helpless people and the poor.'' In a profile in The Washington Post, Rice said, ''I decided I'd rather be ignored than patronized.''

The national security adviser to President Bush was asked if she thinks the Democratic Party still patronizes ''women, minorities, and the poor.'' Laughing, she declined to answer the specific question last week before the Trotter Group, an organization of African-American columnists. But her answer was as riveting as if she had actually gone on to trash the Democrats.

''The fact of the matter is, race matters in America,'' Rice said. ''It has, it always has ... It is not that I mind being associated with the group. I am African-American and proud of it. I wouldn't have it any other way. And it has shaped who I am and it will continue to shape who I am.

''I do not believe it has limited who I am or what I can become. And that's because I had parents who, while telling me what it meant to be African-American and exposing me to that, also allowed me to develop as an individual to be who I wanted to be.''

Rice said the 1963 church bombing in Birmingham that killed four girls, including friend Denise McNair, shaped her views on the war on terrorism. ''If you've been through home-grown terrorism,'' Rice said, ''you recognize there isn't any cause that can be served by it ... Because what it's meant to do is end the conversation.''

In profiles, Rice talks about being hollered at as a child by a white store clerk for touching a hat. Rice's mother told the clerk ''Don't you talk to my daughter that way!'' Her mother then said, ''Now, Condoleezza, you go and touch every hat in this store.''

That reminded me of around 1965 when I was about 10. I bought comic books and ice cream in a drug store in DeKalb, Miss. Later, my grandfather informed me that was the ''white folks'' drug store. He could have berated me for breaking white folks' rules. Instead, he smiled and said, ''Good.''

For me, not accepting racial barriers would mean going on to little things like being on the first integrated child championship bowling team at a particular alley in Milwaukee, then bigger things like sportswriting when there were few African-Americans covering pro teams for major newspapers.

For Rice, it meant parents who ''didn't say to me, 'You know, it's really weird for a black girl from Birmingham, Ala., to want to be a Soviet specialist.''' Rice said that she liked Motown, the blues, and funk music like most of her friends, but her parents drove her to learn Brahms. Rice has often said bluntly that she had to master the white world better than a whole lot of white people to succeed.

''Sometimes when we say to our kids, 'You are a minority,' we don't say it in a way that says it is part of who you are, we say it as if it's an impediment that cannot be overcome by hard work and access to education and all of those things,'' Rice said. ''And I just think the messages are wrong when there is only focus on what group you happen to belong to, rather than the group is part of who you are, but also, who you are is who you are as an individual.

''We don't talk about it very much, but, yes ... it is a very good thing for the rest of the world that when Colin Powell and I walk in with the president of the United States, we are there as secretary of state and national security adviser, because I think it says to people that there aren't boundaries in which black Americans are not supposed to play ... I think it's an extremely important message to our kids. That's why I talk so much about the individual. It's not to deny the group, but I really think it's important that we appeal to each individual's worth and capability.''

Such reflections do not make Rice's political views and America's global arrogance any more appealing to me. But those who dismiss her as a hotheaded cold war queen miss a chance to dwell on her focus and drive. Unlike many black conservatives who shout louder than white ''color-blind'' conservatives that race no longer matters, Rice has no problem saying race matters, and since it is so, black folks had better work to get the most out of their individual talents.

In a Newsweek interview last year, Rice said, ''It wasn't as if someone said, 'You have to be twice as good' and 'isn't that a pity' or 'isn't that wrong.' It was just, 'You have to be twice as good.''' One does not have to like Rice's politics to appreciate how being twice as good has made her the most powerful woman in the world.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

The belief that black people should act from a set of black principles, and white act from a set of white principles, indeed that those principles universally exist, IS racist.

Considering that Black people attend college at lower rates, earn less money, have higher rates of imprisonment, violent crime, teenage pregnancy, drug use, and many other maladies, I think that points out precisely WHY they should be concerned with their principles as a group, and why whites should also invest in the future of African Americans. Never did I once say whites should act from white principles, that is a blatant lie.

[Baby Lee]

That is a gross oversimplification of my statement. I am willing to consider extraneous factors before jumping to unnecessary conclusions unlike you, Baby Lee. All civilized people have certain responsibilities, but along with responsibilities are many institutional apparatuses that cause many choices to not in fact be choices but rather the path of least resistance.
And while you excuse taking the path of least resistance as reasonable in light of the 'apparatus.' I call it weakness.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Nonsense. She perseverved in the face of adversity.

Here's the rest:

She said the Democratic Party's speeches to ''women, minorities, and the poor'' really meant ''helpless people and the poor.'' In a profile in The Washington Post, Rice said, ''I decided I'd rather be ignored than patronized.''

The national security adviser to President Bush was asked if she thinks the Democratic Party still patronizes ''women, minorities, and the poor.'' Laughing, she declined to answer the specific question last week before the Trotter Group, an organization of African-American columnists. But her answer was as riveting as if she had actually gone on to trash the Democrats.

''The fact of the matter is, race matters in America,'' Rice said. ''It has, it always has ... It is not that I mind being associated with the group. I am African-American and proud of it. I wouldn't have it any other way. And it has shaped who I am and it will continue to shape who I am.

''I do not believe it has limited who I am or what I can become. And that's because I had parents who, while telling me what it meant to be African-American and exposing me to that, also allowed me to develop as an individual to be who I wanted to be.''

Rice said the 1963 church bombing in Birmingham that killed four girls, including friend Denise McNair, shaped her views on the war on terrorism. ''If you've been through home-grown terrorism,'' Rice said, ''you recognize there isn't any cause that can be served by it ... Because what it's meant to do is end the conversation.''

In profiles, Rice talks about being hollered at as a child by a white store clerk for touching a hat. Rice's mother told the clerk ''Don't you talk to my daughter that way!'' Her mother then said, ''Now, Condoleezza, you go and touch every hat in this store.''

That reminded me of around 1965 when I was about 10. I bought comic books and ice cream in a drug store in DeKalb, Miss. Later, my grandfather informed me that was the ''white folks'' drug store. He could have berated me for breaking white folks' rules. Instead, he smiled and said, ''Good.''

For me, not accepting racial barriers would mean going on to little things like being on the first integrated child championship bowling team at a particular alley in Milwaukee, then bigger things like sportswriting when there were few African-Americans covering pro teams for major newspapers.

For Rice, it meant parents who ''didn't say to me, 'You know, it's really weird for a black girl from Birmingham, Ala., to want to be a Soviet specialist.''' Rice said that she liked Motown, the blues, and funk music like most of her friends, but her parents drove her to learn Brahms. Rice has often said bluntly that she had to master the white world better than a whole lot of white people to succeed.

''Sometimes when we say to our kids, 'You are a minority,' we don't say it in a way that says it is part of who you are, we say it as if it's an impediment that cannot be overcome by hard work and access to education and all of those things,'' Rice said. ''And I just think the messages are wrong when there is only focus on what group you happen to belong to, rather than the group is part of who you are, but also, who you are is who you are as an individual.

''We don't talk about it very much, but, yes ... it is a very good thing for the rest of the world that when Colin Powell and I walk in with the president of the United States, we are there as secretary of state and national security adviser, because I think it says to people that there aren't boundaries in which black Americans are not supposed to play ... I think it's an extremely important message to our kids. That's why I talk so much about the individual. It's not to deny the group, but I really think it's important that we appeal to each individual's worth and capability.''

Such reflections do not make Rice's political views and America's global arrogance any more appealing to me. But those who dismiss her as a hotheaded cold war queen miss a chance to dwell on her focus and drive. Unlike many black conservatives who shout louder than white ''color-blind'' conservatives that race no longer matters, Rice has no problem saying race matters, and since it is so, black folks had better work to get the most out of their individual talents.

In a Newsweek interview last year, Rice said, ''It wasn't as if someone said, 'You have to be twice as good' and 'isn't that a pity' or 'isn't that wrong.' It was just, 'You have to be twice as good.''' One does not have to like Rice's politics to appreciate how being twice as good has made her the most powerful woman in the world.


And what lessons did she learn from this? Look out for you and you only it would seem. You would think that someone exposed to so much racism would have a stronger grasp on how hard it is to succeed. Most people are not blessed with her intelligence and interpersonal skills, it doesn't come that easy for them. This is something she obviously completely overlooked. She sure as hell doesn't seem to care much about holding hands with people on Stone Mountain, but rather raking in her tax break.

[Baby Lee]

Considering that Black people attend college at lower rates, earn less money, have higher rates of imprisonment, violent crime, teenage pregnancy, drug use, and many other maladies, I think that points out precisely WHY they should be concerned with their principles as a group, and why whites should also invest in the future of African Americans. Never did I once say whites should act from white principles, that is a blatant lie.
Almost as big as the lie that I alleged that you said that they SHOULD.

The point is simple. You posit that black skin tone should dictate thought processes, beliefs and actions. It's a racist view.

It's OK, I ain't mad atcha. There's time to learn.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

And while you excuse taking the path of least resistance as reasonable in light of the 'apparatus.' I call it weakness.


Which when translated means that those who don't vote and don't earn money are weak and lazy by nature. You think that it's in the human nature to fight--and that is fools logic. It's in human nature to conform.

That's Social Darwinism if I've ever seen it. Go join a Nazi rally.

[Donger]

Most people are not blessed with her intelligence and interpersonal skills.

And maybe, given those facts, they don't deserve to reach the levels of success that she has?

I know its icky for idealists to acknowledge, but people are NOT equal.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Almost as big as the lie that I alleged that you said that they SHOULD.

The point is simple. You posit that black skin tone should dictate thought processes, beliefs and actions. It's a racist view.

It's OK, I ain't mad atcha. There's time to learn.

I posit that if one is part of an oppressed group, then they should band together with that group in order to find a common good. Calling that racist is analagous to calling the War on Terror genocide because we banded together to fight a common foe.

[Baby Lee]

Which when translated means that those who don't vote and don't earn money are weak and lazy by nature. You think that it's in the human nature to fight--and that is fools logic. It's in human nature to conform.

That's Social Darwinism if I've ever seen it. Go join a Nazi rally.
F-UCK YOU!!!
It appears that you've given up on any pretense of reasoned discussion, and have leapt into the loving arms of ad hominem attacks. So feel free to take it elsewhere. Asshole.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

And maybe, given those facts, they don't deserve to reach the levels of success that she has?

I know its icky for idealists to acknowledge, but people are NOT equal.


I agree that people are not equal, but they should be given equal opportunities to succeed. Despite many of the hardships she faced, Ms. Rice had many opportunities that many girls her age, including that unfortunate bombing victim, never did. But whenever she reached her inscrutable level of power she did nothing to help those who suffered along side her as a child. I see that as heartless.

[Baby Lee]

I posit that if one is part of an oppressed group, then they should band together with that group in order to find a common good. Calling that racist is analagous to calling the War on Terror genocide because we banded together to fight a common foe.
And I'm sure you are certified dissent-free on the issue of Bush's GWOT.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

F-UCK YOU!!!
It appears that you've given up on any pretense of reasoned discussion, and have leapt into the loving arms of ad hominem attacks. So feel free to take it elsewhere. Asshole.


You obviously have no reproach for my comments, so it is you in fact who resorted to ad hominem attacks. I am merely calling it as I see it, and when you make a clear analogy stating that a certain group is downtrodden because they are fundamentally weak, then I see nothing other than the espousal of Social Darwinism. If you have a problem with that, look in the mirror or think about some introspection into your own ideology.

[Donger]

I agree that people are not equal, but they should be given equal opportunities to succeed. Despite many of the hardships she faced, Ms. Rice had many opportunities that many girls her age, including that unfortunate bombing victim, never did. But whenever she reached her inscrutable level of power she did nothing to help those who suffered along side her as a child. I see that as heartless.

Stupid people won't succeed, regardless of their race. She had opportunities because she's very bright, had good parents and was driven.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Stupid people won't succeed, regardless of their race. She had opportunities because she's very bright, had good parents and was driven.

I agree with your statement in and of itself, but there are many bright driven people that get chewed up by urban life.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

And I'm sure you are certified dissent-free on the issue of Bush's GWOT.

You are obviously itching for a fight because you feel embarrassed by the inherent racism in your logic. I'm not going to stoop to your level, but I will simply say that I think it is difficult to eliminate a global, disparate phenomenon such as terrorism with widespread military intervention. I see it as more like a law enforcement problem, and thus requires the flexibility of well funded local and international police agencies working together in order to unearth many of these cells. It's hard for an army to find 5 people who could be anywhere in the world, but numerous cops networking skills can do so.

[Baby Lee]

You obviously have no reproach for my comments, so it is you in fact who resorted to ad hominem attacks. I am merely calling it as I see it, and when you make a clear analogy stating that a certain group is downtrodden because they are fundamentally weak, then I see nothing other than the espousal of Social Darwinism. If you have a problem with that, look in the mirror or think about some introspection into your own ideology.
1. I made no ad hominem attacks.
2. I never said any group was fundamentally weak. I said that THE ACT of choosing the path of least resistence is weak.

We've a a system of equality of opportunity. You have observed that system in action and noted that people don't take equal advantage. Your solution is to scrap equal opportunity and skew opportunity to the people who fail to exercise their opportunities in the first place. I disagree.

[Donger]

We've a a system of equality of opportunity. You have observed that system in action and noted that people don't take equal advantage. Your solution is to scrap equal opportunity and skew opportunity to the people who fail to exercise their opportunities in the first place. I disagree.

Silence the NAZI, please.

[chiefs4me]

You're relatively young, yes? Early 20s tops?





they don't even notice the web you spin....:shake:

[Baby Lee]

You are obviously itching for a fight because you feel embarrassed by the inherent racism in your logic. I'm not going to stoop to your level, but I will simply say that I think it is difficult to eliminate a global, disparate phenomenon such as terrorism with widespread military intervention. I see it as more like a law enforcement problem, and thus requires the flexibility of well funded local and international police agencies working together in order to unearth many of these cells. It's hard for an army to find 5 people who could be anywhere in the world, but numerous cops networking skills can do so.
So you have a different view from Bush on what would be an effective war on terror.
Perhaps Ms. Rice has nothing more than a different view on how the citizenry optimize their civic existence.

And, as has been clearly demonstrated here. The views you have espouse possess the inherent racism. Just leveling the accusation at me doesn't it make it so.

[Donger]

I agree with your statement in and of itself, but there are many bright driven people that get chewed up by urban life.

Those that get chewed up by by choosing to live it? I've no sympathy.

Those that get caught in the crossfire while attempting to escape? Complete sympathy.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

1. I made no ad hominem attacks.
2. I never said any group was fundamentally weak. I said that THE ACT of choosing the path of least resistence is weak.

We've a a system of equality of opportunity. You have observed that system in action and noted that people don't take equal advantage. Your solution is to scrap equal opportunity and skew opportunity to the people who fail to exercise their opportunities in the first place. I disagree.


So calling me an asshole and saying f*ck you in 48 point font was not an ad hominem attack.

I guess I know how much credence to place in your word now.

I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that our system as currently implemented is an equal opportunity system. Rather I see it as one that promotes a white capitalist patriarchy, and if it didn't then why do nearly all people of power in this country share those three common features?

The myth of equal opportunity is a lie spread by the right and left wings in order to placate their base against the injustices inherent in their ideologies.

[Donger]

they don't even notice the web you spin....:shake:

What?

[Donger]

So calling me an asshole and saying f*ck you in 48 point font was not an ad hominem attack.

I guess I know how much credence to place in your word now.

I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that our system as currently implemented is an equal opportunity system. Rather I see it as one that promotes a white capitalist patriarchy, and if it didn't then why do nearly all people of power in this country share those three common features?

The myth of equal opportunity is a lie spread by the right and left wings in order to placate their base against the injustices inherent in their ideologies.

Well now, perhaps you shouldn't have implied that BL, one of our more level-headed posters, a NAZI.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

So you have a different view from Bush on what would be an effective war on terror.
Perhaps Ms. Rice has nothing more than a different view on how the citizenry optimize their civic existence.

And, as has been clearly demonstrated here. The views you have espouse possess the inherent racism. Just leveling the accusation at me doesn't it make it so.


The only problem with the logic in your statement is that I see Bush's tacit view and Rice's (completely hypothetical) view as being utterly incorrect. Explain to me how Rice can move from a stance of such brazen awareness of the importance of her race and the difficulties to thrive as a member of it to joining a political apparatus that shits on the very people she grew up with?

[Donger]

I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that our system as currently implemented is an equal opportunity system. Rather I see it as one that promotes a white capitalist patriarchy, and if it didn't then why do nearly all people of power in this country share those three common features?

Why do you think that the vast majority of NFL players are black?

[Baby Lee]

So calling me an asshole and saying f*ck you in 48 point font was not an ad hominem attack.
I countered your 'arguments' with reason. I expressed my disdain for your personality with epithets.
Those are epithets, not ad hominem attacks, and you earned them.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Well now, perhaps you shouldn't have implied that BL, one of our more level-headed posters, a NAZI.


When one makes statements that claim a particular group fails because of weaknesses inherent within its constitution, that is a Darwinist statement and is no different than the rhetoric of Hitler or the Klan.

[Donger]

When one makes statements that claim a particular group fails because of weaknesses inherent within its constitution, that is a Darwinist statement and is no different than the rhetoric of Hitler or the Klan.

I'd be willing to bet that BL feels that taking the path of least resistance is a weakness regardless of which race is doing it.

[Baby Lee]

When one makes statements that claim a particular group fails because of weaknesses inherent within its constitution, that is a Darwinist statement and is no different than the rhetoric of Hitler or the Klan.
What is wrong with you. Are you so shaky in your positions that you are completely compelled to misrepresent mine just to have something 'productive' to say.

That's twice now. RETRACT!!

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Why do you think that the vast majority of NFL players are black?

There is an absolute difference between athletic ability and academic/professional service potential. People will seek out great athletes, and great scholars regardless of where they come from---you are arguing extremes to try and prove a point--hat doesn't work. If you have two people of equal athletic ability and one is given access to excellent coaching, strength and conditioning, mental preparedness, etc. then that person will have a much greater chance at success than the person who uses broken down equipment, runs with shitty shoes, and never gets a physical.

[Baby Lee]

I'd be willing to bet that BL feels that taking the path of least resistance is a weakness regardless of which race is doing it.
And I was remarking on the ACT of taking the path of least resistence, not which particular demographic does so.
But Hamass is so lost at this point that he can only battle the imagined bogeymen he's created, not the actual participants in this thread.

[Baby Lee]

If you have two people of equal athletic ability and one is given access to excellent coaching, strength and conditioning, mental preparedness, etc. then that person will have a much greater chance at success than the person who uses broken down equipment, runs with shitty shoes, and never gets a physical.
And the wants it more has a greater chance than ALL the rest.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I countered your 'arguments' with reason. I expressed my disdain for your personality with epithets.
Those are epithets, not ad hominem attacks, and you earned them.

Ad hominem is latin for to the man, attacks to a person. f*ck you is an imperative command telling me to go f*ck myself. That is, it is an attack towards my person, the very definition of ad hominem. You should brush up on your argumentation skills before you tell me what is what, it's obvious that you are unaware of the subject which you speak of.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

And I was remarking on the ACT of taking the path of least resistence, not which particular demographic does so.
But Hamass is so lost at this point that he can only battle the imagined bogeymen he's created, not the actual participants in this thread.


I think that the discourse within this thread speaks for itself. You accuse me of making racist statements when it is you yourself who are the one espousing an ideology of Social Darwinism and thinly veiled racial hatred. We have a complete disagreement with basic implementations of public policy, but rather than keep a cool head about it you resort to childish attacks followed quickly by baseless accusations and lies to cover up the weakness of your statements. I'm sorry that you have so much hatred that you have to take it out on people on an internet message board. Hopefully you find some solace somewhere.

[Baby Lee]

Ad hominem is latin for to the man, attacks to a person. f*ck you is an imperative command telling me to go f*ck myself. That is, it is an attack towards my person, the very definition of ad hominem. You should brush up on your argumentation skills before you tell me what is what, it's obvious that you are unaware of the subject which you speak of.
An ad hominem attack refers to trying to discount someone's ARGUMENTS by reference to proposed personal shortcomings irrelevant to the merits. I invited you to engage in ononism based on your posting style. I countered your arguments on the merits.
You OTOH, attempted to discount my ARGUMENTS by calling me a Nazi.

[Baby Lee]

I think that the discourse within this thread speaks for itself. You accuse me of making racist statements when it is you yourself who are the one espousing an ideology of Social Darwinism and thinly veiled racial hatred. We have a complete disagreement with basic implementations of public policy, but rather than keep a cool head about it you resort to childish attacks followed quickly by baseless accusations and lies to cover up the weakness of your statements. I'm sorry that you have so much hatred that you have to take it out on people on an internet message board. Hopefully you find some solace somewhere.
And you've thrice proven you cannot debate without mischaracterizing your opposition in a manner that assures your upper hand.
You want to debate? Debate what I said. At this point it's no accident. You're consciously lying about my position.
You have no evidence of my racial hatred [however veiled] because I;
1. don't have any, and
2. haven't espoused any.
OTOH, I've laid out a clear and cogent case for the racism in your stance. And you've done nothing to counter. It's sad from the start, because you can't. And it's doubly sad because you don't even try.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

There's the way it is, and the way you want it to be. Me 'mischaracterizing' your position is breaking it down into its constituent parts and exposing them for what they are, an ideology of oppression and white apathy.

[Baby Lee]

There's the way it is, and the way you want it to be. Me 'mischaracterizing' your position is breaking it down into its constituent parts and exposing them for what they are, an ideology of oppression and white apathy.
You've done nothing of the sort. And I don't know what's sadder, the possibility that you KNOW that, and yet continue in this vein, or the possibility that you DON'T KNOW.
I guess it's the former. Because at least if it's the latter, we can all look forward to the day that it dawns on you, and we celebrate the genesis of another sentient citizen.

[Nightwish]

Considering that women earn 75 cents on the dollar to what men do and furthermore that over 95 percent of all executive jobs are held by men, I think that points out the clear truth---that the majority of power in this country is held by men, and not women. Anyone who would disagree with this is nothing other than a fool. Furthermore, although women outnumber men, men vote more than women, thus negating that numerical advantage. Nice attempt at skewing the statistics, but like most right-wing b.s. it just doesn't fly when held up to any form of honest analysis.
In addition to those points, a lot of the women in this country are as opposed to a female President as the men are. They may be the majority sex, but that doesn't mean that they would represent a majority vote in favor of a woman President, even if it was one they liked.

What I'd like to know from this poll is of those who answered that they clearly would or would not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008, how many answered that way because she's a woman, and how many answered that way specifically because she's Hillary Clinton? I suspect that a lot of those who vehemently denied they'd vote for Hillary would also probably give a similar answer if queried about Condaleeza Rice.

[alanm]

Considering that women earn 75 cents on the dollar to what men do and furthermore that over 95 percent of all executive jobs are held by men, I think that points out the clear truth---that the majority of power in this country is held by men, and not women. Anyone who would disagree with this is nothing other than a fool. Furthermore, although women outnumber men, men vote more than women, thus negating that numerical advantage. Nice attempt at skewing the statistics, but like most right-wing b.s. it just doesn't fly when held up to any form of honest analysis.

Nice attempt at skewing the statistics, but like most right-wing b.s. it just doesn't fly when held up to any form of honest analysis.

Kinda like your brain under a 25 watt bulb for inspection. :shake:

[Nightwish]

Honestly, I don't think Hillary, or any other woman can win in '08. Although I would have no problem with a woman President, I think it is too radical a change to expect at this point. Condi is seen by many as too weak, and Hillary is seen as too controversial. I think the Democrats would have more success electing a woman President, but first they will have to regain control of the White House, and significantly clean up the mess the Republicans have left behind. That would get the country used to having the Dems in control again. Then from there you can take another step toward change by offering a woman candidate for the Presidency. But it's gonna have to be done in baby steps, not a radical leap by a party that isn't in power while the nation's politics are as messy as they've ever been.

[patteeu]

I think that the discourse within this thread speaks for itself. You accuse me of making racist statements when it is you yourself who are the one espousing an ideology of Social Darwinism and thinly veiled racial hatred. We have a complete disagreement with basic implementations of public policy, but rather than keep a cool head about it you resort to childish attacks followed quickly by baseless accusations and lies to cover up the weakness of your statements. I'm sorry that you have so much hatred that you have to take it out on people on an internet message board. Hopefully you find some solace somewhere.

It certainly does. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand the language. This thread reminds me of the Black Knight scene in Monte Python and the Holy Grail with you playing the part of the limbless Black Knight.

http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Scripts/HolyGrail/jpgs/04-kn-4.jpg

[alanm]

F-UCK YOU!!!
It appears that you've given up on any pretense of reasoned discussion, and have leapt into the loving arms of ad hominem attacks. So feel free to take it elsewhere. Asshole.
ROFL ROFL ROFL

[banyon]

This is possibly the first time I've hoped that a Newsmax article posted by Recxjake was accurate.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

It certainly does. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand the language. This thread reminds me of the Black Knight scene in Monte Python and the Holy Grail with you playing the part of the limbless Black Knight.



What you have proven is a systemic inability to read between the lines of what someone says. As a shouting post for the right wing , all Baby Lee did was thinly conceal his rhetoric with various platitudes and excuses, namely that those who don't succeed only do so because they are weak. He said so much themselves, that those who fail, fail because of weakness, not because of a lack of opportunities. He could not have been more explicit. That is nothing other than a might equals right philosophy which again is Social Darwinism, which is the same philosophy espoused by Hitler and other groups advocating racial stratification and/or hatred. Perhaps you should actually analyze the text rather than come to the conclusion that you desire because of either your a) political leaning or b) loyalty to this poster.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

http://www.ioa.com/~shermis/socjus/socdar.html

Social Darwinism is a quasi-philosophical, quasi-religious, quasi-sociological view that came from the mind of Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher in the 19th century. It did not achieve wide acceptance in England or Europe, but flourished in this country, as is true of many ideologies, religions, and philosophies. A good summary of Social Darwinism is by Johnson:


In these years, when Darwin's Origin of Species, popularized by Herbert Spencer as "the survival of the fittest, " and applied to races as well as species in a vulgarized form, Social Darwinism, the coming Christian triumph was presented as an Anglo-Saxon Protestant one.

Social Darwinism is by no means dead, for vestiges of it can be found in the present.

But, for our purposes, it is the use to which some people made of biological evolution which concerns us. Some simplified the idea to "survival of the fittest." Others believed that an identical process took place among human beings. They believed that white Protestant Europeans had evolved much further and faster than other "races." And some, especially the followers of Herbert Spencer, took it one step further. Human society is always in a kind of evolutionary process in which the fittest- which happened to be those who can make lots of money--were chosen to dominate. There were armies of unfit, the poor, who simply could not compete. And just as nature weeds out the unfit, an enlightened society ought to weed out its unfit and permit them to die off so as not to weaken the racial stock.

This idea eventually led to a variety of practices and beliefs, e.g., Nordic Racism, used by German anthropologists and later Nazi theoreticians. It also led to eugenics in which, it was believed, the unfit transmit their undesirable characteristics. A breeding program for human beings would see to it that the unfit did not transmit their undesirable characteristics.

Another application of a biological concept to human behavior was the notion that any attempt to provide welfare for the poor was a tragically misguided mistake. Feeding or housing the poor simply permitted them to survive and to transmit their unfitness to their children, who in turn would pass it on to their children. A spurious piece of sociology about two families known as the Jukes and the Kallikaks purported to trace a race of criminals and prostitutes to two persons in the Revolutionary War. This study was used for many years to demonstrate that "inferiority" was inherited.

[Baby Lee]

What you have proven is a systemic inability to read between the lines of what someone says. As a shouting post for the right wing , all Baby Lee did was thinly conceal his rhetoric with various platitudes and excuses, namely that those who don't succeed only do so because they are weak. He said so much themselves, that those who fail, fail because of weakness, not because of a lack of opportunities. He could not have been more explicit. That is nothing other than a might equals right philosophy which again is Social Darwinism, which is the same philosophy espoused by Hitler and other groups advocating racial stratification and/or hatred. Perhaps you should actually analyze the text rather than come to the conclusion that you desire because of either your a) political leaning or b) loyalty to this poster.
That's right folks, deep down in my remarks, nearly completely hidden, but visible between the lines and on the periphery was a thinly veiled message of hate that could not have been more explicit, express, even blatant.

Baby Lee - his writings are rhetorical sine waves.

[Chief Faithful]

I'm sorry if I got a little heated, it's a passionate subject for me.

I would like to see genuine social reform. We need to reinvest in the infrastructure of the cities. I realize that means going into large amounts of debt, but I think at least some of that could be ameliorated by reducing/eliminating the tax cuts (I know, I know).

It would be nice if we could institute systems that paid teachers in inner city districts more money in order entice them there--so that the kids had a fighting chance.

I'm a teacher and a student. I teach English Composition.

What do you propose that is different than what has been going on for the last 40 years that has lead to this decay? Obviously, government and socialistic type spending has not worked.

[Chief Henry]

Stupid people won't succeed, regardless of their race. She had opportunities because she's very bright, had good parents and was driven.
rep for Donger

[Chief Henry]

When one makes statements that claim a particular group fails because of weaknesses inherent within its constitution, that is a Darwinist statement and is no different than the rhetoric of Hitler or the Klan.


This guy teaches our children... pray for the kids.

[patteeu]

That's right folks, deep down in my remarks, nearly completely hidden, but visible between the lines and on the periphery was a thinly veiled message of hate that could not have been more explicit, express, even blatant.

Baby Lee - his writings are rhetorical sine waves.

ROFL You are both subtle and obvious in your blatant, hidden racism.

[patteeu]

This guy teaches our children... pray for the kids.

My kids don't attend a madrasa so I think they are safe.

[Radar Chief]

When one makes statements that claim a particular group fails because of weaknesses inherent within its constitution, that is a Darwinist statement and is no different than the rhetoric of Hitler or the Klan.

Or the Black Panthers, or Hamas, or Luis Farrakhan, or etc….
Why is it that you limit your rhetoric to only white racist groups?
Spread the love ‘round, judgeing from your posts there’s obviously loads more hate come’n from more than just those damn cracka’s.

[Chief Faithful]

In addition to those points, a lot of the women in this country are as opposed to a female President as the men are. They may be the majority sex, but that doesn't mean that they would represent a majority vote in favor of a woman President, even if it was one they liked.

What I'd like to know from this poll is of those who answered that they clearly would or would not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008, how many answered that way because she's a woman, and how many answered that way specifically because she's Hillary Clinton? I suspect that a lot of those who vehemently denied they'd vote for Hillary would also probably give a similar answer if queried about Condaleeza Rice.

Yes, I would vote for Condaleeza Rice and no I would not vote for Hillary Clinton. I know my wife would do the same.

Not voting for Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with being a female and everything to do with her being a political animal with no soul and extreme socialistic leanings. I would vote for Rice because she is extremely bright, honest, and believes in traditional core American values. In summary, the difference for me and my wife is trust.

So what does that say to your suspicions?

[Sully]

I honestly know very littel about Hillary, so her lack of a penis aside, what is she about? (I've only gotten into politics for the last 1.5 years, or so, so I'm way behind)
Tell me what makes her "extremely socialistic" or not. Why is she good/bad?

[Jilly]

I think the reason that Hamas is so ill-received here is that I'm guessing the posters here are mainly white men...I'm making a broad judgment...they may be black men, but they are mainly men. The things that Hamas is saying threaten a position of power, it would mean sacrificing that power in order for someone else to gain power. Self-sacrifice is not something our "look out for number one" society is good at. The reason for the rejection of a policy that might start actually addressing the problems associated with the African American community means that we might actually have to sacrifice some of our white priveleges that we don't even realize we have. People who are in the position of power and who have always had it cannot ever know what it is like to walk in the "other's" shoes and it isn't until we start listening and addressing that not everyone can conform to a societal norm that they were never a part of forming that we can start stepping towards the equality we seem to think we have already.

[patteeu]

I think the reason that Hamas is so ill-received here is that I'm guessing the posters here are mainly white men...I'm making a broad judgment...they may be black men, but they are mainly men. The things that Hamas is saying threaten a position of power, it would mean sacrificing that power in order for someone else to gain power. Self-sacrifice is not something our "look out for number one" society is good at. The reason for the rejection of a policy that might start actually addressing the problems associated with the African American community means that we might actually have to sacrifice some of our white priveleges that we don't even realize we have. People who are in the position of power and who have always had it cannot ever know what it is like to walk in the "other's" shoes and it isn't until we start listening and addressing that not everyone can conform to a societal norm that they were never a part of forming that we can start stepping towards the equality we seem to think we have already.

Fortunately for us, you have broken through the barriers to knowledge that still hold the rest of us back and have decided to generously share this secret. I can't tell you how grateful I am to have been so blessed.

[Chief Henry]

My kids don't attend a madrasa so I think they are safe.


But somebodys kids do...

[Radar Chief]

I think the reason that Hamas is so ill-received here is that I'm guessing the posters here are mainly white men...I'm making a broad judgment...they may be black men, but they are mainly men. The things that Hamas is saying threaten a position of power, it would mean sacrificing that power in order for someone else to gain power. Self-sacrifice is not something our "look out for number one" society is good at. The reason for the rejection of a policy that might start actually addressing the problems associated with the African American community means that we might actually have to sacrifice some of our white priveleges that we don't even realize we have. People who are in the position of power and who have always had it cannot ever know what it is like to walk in the "other's" shoes and it isn't until we start listening and addressing that not everyone can conform to a societal norm that they were never a part of forming that we can start stepping towards the equality we seem to think we have already.

Really? I thought it’s because Hamas’ BS deflections are the same justifications dropped on the oppressed in order to make them think they’re oppression is beyond their control, related to what they are, and thus meant to keep them hopeless and further oppressed.
The last thing any spokesman for the oppressed wants the oppressed to know is that they have the ability to pull themselves up by their own boot straps.
Guess it’s all in what’cha wanna read. :shrug:

[Chief Faithful]

I think the reason that Hamas is so ill-received here is that I'm guessing the posters here are mainly white men...I'm making a broad judgment...they may be black men, but they are mainly men. The things that Hamas is saying threaten a position of power, it would mean sacrificing that power in order for someone else to gain power. Self-sacrifice is not something our "look out for number one" society is good at. The reason for the rejection of a policy that might start actually addressing the problems associated with the African American community means that we might actually have to sacrifice some of our white priveleges that we don't even realize we have. People who are in the position of power and who have always had it cannot ever know what it is like to walk in the "other's" shoes and it isn't until we start listening and addressing that not everyone can conform to a societal norm that they were never a part of forming that we can start stepping towards the equality we seem to think we have already.

My secret to success has been revealed, its my fault I admit it! As an Arab American I learned that lesson well and started oppressing the black man and women from my youth leading to positions of power and success. Next I'm going to oppress the white man and rule the world! BWAHAHAHAHA!

[CHIEF4EVER]

Explain to me how Rice can move from a stance of such brazen awareness of the importance of her race and the difficulties to thrive as a member of it to joining a political apparatus that shits on the very people she grew up with?

Translation: Since Condeleeza Rice didn't play the "everyone is out to get me because of my race" card and instead she did what she needed to do to be successful, she all of a sudden is shitting on the very subculture she came from? That is retarded beyond description sir.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Translation: Since Condeleeza Rice didn't play the "everyone is out to get me because of my race" card and instead she did what she needed to do to be successful, she all of a sudden is shitting on the very subculture she came from? That is retarded beyond description sir.

Then explain this quote by her, "As a minority, you have to work twice as hard to be successful."

[patteeu]

Then explain this quote by her, "As a minority, you have to work twice as hard to be successful."

You are a master of the non sequitur.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

You are a master of the non sequitur.

You are inable to follow a logical progression of thought. If someone said it's twice as hard to make it in this country when you are black, you would accuse them of playing the race card, but when someone says you have to work twice as hard to make it as a minority, you accuse me of using a non sequitor. They are the same thing, the exact same thing. Stop looking through the eyes of the National Review and use some independent analysis for once. Working twice as hard to make is when you are a minority is just another way of saying "it's hard to make it in this country when you are black".

[Baby Lee]

You are inable to follow a logical progression of thought.
And, for an English composition teacher, you are fairly incapable of forming a sentence composed entirely of proper grammer and actual English words.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

And, for an English composition teacher, you are fairly incapable of forming a sentence composed entirely of proper grammer and actual English words.

If that's the best you can do to sidetrack my arguments, the right wing has a long way to go. That's a petty shot from a defeated man. It should be noted that the 'U' and 'I' are beside one another on the keyboard, however, and thus it's a perfectly reasonable error. If you would like, I could go back and run your numerous posts through the ringer of grammatical correctness.

[patteeu]

You are inable to follow a logical progression of thought. If someone said it's twice as hard to make it in this country when you are black, you would accuse them of playing the race card, but when someone says you have to work twice as hard to make it as a minority, you accuse me of using a non sequitor. They are the same thing, the exact same thing. Stop looking through the eyes of the National Review and use some independent analysis for once. Working twice as hard to make is when you are a minority is just another way of saying "it's hard to make it in this country when you are black".

Haha. But getting back to the thread, what Rice said (if she even said it, do you have a link?) has nothing to do with "a political apparatus that shits on the very people she grew up with." Furthermore, times have changed dramatically since "she grew up." Try to understand that not everyone accepts your patronizingly racist worldview as ground truth, Hammy.

[Baby Lee]

If that's the best you can do to sidetrack my arguments, the right wing has a long way to go. That's a petty shot from a defeated man. It should be noted that the 'U' and 'I' are beside one another on the keyboard, however, and thus it's a perfectly reasonable error. If you would like, I could go back and run your numerous posts through the ringer of grammatical correctness.
No, that's the glib jab of the guy who realized that a rational discussion with you is a waste of his time, but still loves his cheap and easy irony.

BTW - even if the phrase 'you are unable to follow' manages to be comprised entirely of actual words, it's still grammatically incorrect. :thumb: ROFL

[Jilly]

Of course, I'm an ignorant and stupid person and so is anyone else who disagrees with a majority view....I mean really, what a horrible thought to actually believe that people might need to depend on each other and rely on each other for help; my god, why should any of us ever change to actually help our fellow humanity dig out of the trenches? I mean really, anyone can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, why should we do anything to help? I think I'll just go put on my blindfold and pretend that nothing unjust is happening in the world at all. Frick....

[Baby Lee]

Of course, I'm an ignorant and stupid person and so is anyone else who disagrees with a majority view....I mean really, what a horrible thought to actually believe that people might need to depend on each other and rely on each other for help; my god, why should any of us ever change to actually help our fellow humanity dig out of the trenches? I mean really, anyone can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, why should we do anything to help? I think I'll just go put on my blindfold and pretend that nothing unjust is happening in the world at all. Frick....
We've gone pretty far afield from the original topic. Nobody's saying "don't help." Hamass started with the proposition that democracy is unfair because the system is so fricken ponderous that the oppressed are sapped of the strength to so much as pull a lever come election time. The fact that there are more women voters than men voters is irrelevant because them dames end up pulled over at the side of the road bawling their eyes out at the difficulties inherent in choosing a representative or voting on an initiative.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

“You are unable to follow a logical progression of thought.”

You (noun, also the subject of this given sentence)
Are (a form of the verb ‘to be’ indicating a current state in this case)
Unable (adjective, it describes something about you, in this case an inability to follow a logical progression of thought, along with the rules of basic grammar. On a deeper level, it also shows how clouded your own brain is by your dogged determination to prove yourself right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.)
“To follow a logical progression” is a prepositional phrase, and wholly grammatically correct.
“Of thought” is another prepositional phrase, and purposely grammatically acceptable.

Considering that most standard English consists of a Subject-Verb-Object construction and this sentence is indicative of that fact, you are woefully misguided in your attempt to grammatically nitpick.

Of course, were you trying to get every single nuance of your above quote wrong, then you succeeded admirably.

Patteau, here is the link to the Condi Rice quote (BTW, read the thread, it is mentioned numerous times within the thread, as well as directly cited by both myself and a fellow poster)

From
http://www.racematters.org/lessononlifecondoleezzarice.htm
Such reflections do not make Rice's political views and America's global arrogance any more appealing to me. But those who dismiss her as a hotheaded cold war queen miss a chance to dwell on her focus and drive. Unlike many black conservatives who shout louder than white ''color-blind'' conservatives that race no longer matters, Rice has no problem saying race matters, and since it is so, black folks had better work to get the most out of their individual talents.
In a Newsweek interview last year, Rice said, ''It wasn't as if someone said, 'You have to be twice as good' and 'isn't that a pity' or 'isn't that wrong.' It was just, 'You have to be twice as good.''' One does not have to like Rice's politics to appreciate how being twice as good has made her the most powerful woman in the world.

Furthermore, she supports affirmative action, yet still ignores the plight of her race in numerous other ways

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/17/rice.action/index.html

Another source is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice

['Hamas' Jenkins]

We've gone pretty far afield from the original topic. Nobody's saying "don't help." Hamass started with the proposition that democracy is unfair because the system is so fricken ponderous that the oppressed are sapped of the strength to so much as pull a lever come election time. The fact that there are more women voters than men voters is irrelevant because them dames end up pulled over at the side of the road bawling their eyes out at the difficulties inherent in choosing a representative or voting on an initiative.


That is a gross misrepresentation of my stance. Never did I say that democracy does not work. The United States is not ALL DEMOCRACY. The United States is A DEMOCRACY, and one that does not function to its potential. What I said is that our current political system is not fully representative of the populace do to a myriad of socioeconomic and political factors, not the inherent weakness that Baby Lee seems to suggest (and suggests again in this post with his dismissive and sarcastic final phrase).

[Donger]

That is a gross misrepresentation of my stance. Never did I say that democracy does not work. The United States is not ALL DEMOCRACY. The United States is A DEMOCRACY, and one that does not function to its potential. What I said is that our current political system is not fully representative of the populace do to a myriad of socioeconomic and political factors, not the inherent weakness that Baby Lee seems to suggest (and suggests again in this post with his dismissive and sarcastic final phrase).

For the love of God.

It's not "fully representative of the populace" because THEY CHOOSE NOT TO VOTE.

They have the right. They chose not to exercise it.

Only a liberal would blame that on someone other the person who chooses not to.

[Donger]

For the love of God.

It's not "fully representative of the populace" because THEY CHOOSE NOT TO VOTE.

They have the right. They chose not to exercise it.

Only a liberal would blame that on someone other the person who chooses not to.

Oh, one other thing, ALL of these people that you claim aren't represented are, of course. Perhaps if they chose to actually participate in the selection of their representatives, they might get better representatives.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Oh, one other thing, ALL of these people that you claim aren't represented are, of course. Perhaps if they chose to actually participate in the selection of their representatives, they might get better representatives.

To quote the great Seargent Al Powell, "Christ man, can't you see what's happening, can't you read between the line?"

Yes they theoretically [I]could vote, but they don't because of a myriad of socioeconomic and political factors. They are ignored by the government and receive substandard educations. That substandard education manifests itself in a variety of ways, including poor employment availability, long work hours, and a lesser desire to consume outside sources of media which makes them far less likely to vote. Numerous sociological studies and analyses of voter turnout back this up. Considering that women are on average much more likely to be illiterate and impoverished, they are thus far more likely to fall into the above demographics, which as a consequence makes them less likely to vote. It's a 'choice', but it's not the same choice that you and I have. It requires a hell of a lot more effort.

[Donger]

To quote the great Seargent Al Powell, "Christ man, can't you see what's happening, can't you read between the line?"

Yes they theoretically [I]could vote, but they don't because of a myriad of socioeconomic and political factors. They are ignored by the government and receive substandard educations. That substandard education manifests itself in a variety of ways, including poor employment availability, long work hours, and a lesser desire to consume outside sources of media which makes them far less likely to vote. Numerous sociological studies and analyses of voter turnout back this up. Considering that women are on average much more likely to be illiterate and impoverished, they are thus far more likely to fall into the above demographics, which as a consequence makes them less likely to vote. It's a 'choice', but it's not the same choice that you and I have. It requires a hell of a lot more effort.

Forgive me, but theoretical my ass. I understand why they don't, but that does not equal being denied the right.