USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Warin 0]

Quote[/b] ]The Republicans have one co-chair person and is a woman compared to five "vice" chairs. Also, two of those DNC vice chairs must be given to a female.

And that is so evil because why exactly?

didn't you know that it is evil to suggest that there is equality by providing for equality based on equal representation, versus equality based on "merit".

I mean come on, dont you know that old white guys are inherently more suited for leadership than women and minorities??

[EiZei 0]

Talking about 19th century democrat/republican actions is bit.. well, you know.

There is a reason why republicans took south during the mid 20th century. Hint: it involves the phrase civil rights legistlation.

[ralphwiggum 6]

for those of you who claim that GOP is not biased you might wanna reconsider a few things if this article is true.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/09/helms.memoir.ap/index.html

Quote[/b] ]RALEIGH, North Carolina (AP) -- In his upcoming memoir, former Sen. Jesse Helms acknowledges he was wrong about the AIDS epidemic but believes integration was forced before its time by "outside agitators who had their own agendas."

"Here's Where I Stand," to be published in September by Random House, contains Helms' first extended comments on national affairs since the Republican retired from the Senate in 2003 after five terms. Advance proofs were described in Thursday's editions of The News & Observer of Raleigh.

Helms, 83, was one of the state's leading voices of segregation as a TV commentator in Raleigh in the 1960s and opposed nearly every civil rights bill while in the Senate. He has never retracted his views on race or said segregation was wrong.

In the book, Helms suggests he believed voluntary racial integration would come about without pressure from the federal government or from civil rights protests that he said sharpened racial antagonisms.

"We will never know how integration might have been achieved in neighborhoods across our land, because the opportunity was snatched away by outside agitators who had their own agendas to advance," according to the uncorrected proof. "We certainly do know the price paid by the stirring of hatred, the encouragement of violence, the suspicion and distrust."

Helms also was an outspoken opponent of laws to protect homosexuals from discrimination and of funding for AIDS research, but he writes in the book that his views evolved during his final years in the Senate. He cited friendships he developed with North Carolina evangelist Franklin Graham and rock singer Bono, both of whom got him involved in the fight against the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

"Until then," Helms writes, "it had been my feeling that AIDS was a disease largely spread by reckless and voluntary sexual and drug-abusing behavior, and that it would probably be confined to those in high risk populations. I was wrong."

notice the amount of bias and prejudice that this man has. first of all let's start with AIDS. his quote is, "a disease largely spread by reckless and voluntary sexual and drug-abusing behavior, and that it would probably be confined to those in high risk populations."

what a man. he thinks only the high-risk population will get those. when it comes to high-risk sex, there are no limits. kids in suburban neighbors engage in high-risk sex just as urban kids do. adults are no better. obviously this dork thought that his sphere of circles were not. a classic 'holier than thou' meets denial.

on subject of integration, I wonder if he listened to the whites in the south. they used to say "it's been the way, and it will be forever". And anytime civil rights movement was mentioned they were called "outside agitators" with "their own agendas".

maybe if he had to live in fear of getting beaten in those days perhaps he would understand, but guess not.

and speaking of "outside agitators" with "their own agendas", these are the words that conservatives rally around. is it coincidence that warped mind of a segregationist is celebrated as one of the best minds during his work as senator? his records in senate were no better. he took every chance to piss off democrats.

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]*sighs* physical age doesn't always reflect maturity. I take in both sides before I decide on which side I'm on. Also, if you read a lot, then why do you have so many spelling and grammar mistakes?

Because I'm not being graded on my spell checking or my grammer and by trusting everything you hear makes very immature.

Quote[/b] ](Still waiting for you to read all of my post)

I have and I think its mostly BS.

Quote[/b] ]Why dont we just nuke North Korea and watch all the mines blow up in the DMZ?

That made no sense what so ever kid.

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]Indeed thanks to Lincoln. Course I think the fact the GOP never followed up on promises to freed slaves had a lot to do with it as well.

Maybe to appease the Democrats.

Quote[/b] ]

Possibly. But that wasn't the point of the discussion unless you want to switch over to suggested political strategy for the two parties.

Just saying Democrats are losing focus too.

Quote[/b] ]

Yes. And what party dumped him faster than you can say "whoop!" when he came out against the administations policies?

They didn't dump him but he wanted to.

Quote[/b] ]I might add it was also a rather brilliant move on the GOP to have a black male and a black female as part of their cabinet. Perhaps they learned something from the Dems when they had the first female Defense.

Perhaps the Dems. learned from Reps. when Powell was the first minority Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Quote[/b] ]Yes putting minorities in seats of power is bs. Then why bring up the first sec. of state? I guess that is BS too?

The GOP leadership is completely white and thats not bs? Biased much? But the GOP isn't a "white christian party" right?

The Republicans have one co-chair person and is a woman compared to five "vice" chairs. Also, two of those DNC vice chairs must be given to a female.

Look at all the speculation!!!!!! Practice what you preach dude!!!!

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes. Clearly you are correct. The GOP reneged on slave promises to make the Democrats feel better...  

Now you are just typing with absolutely no thought behind it.

Rutherford B. Hayes's election...look it up how the Republicans appeased the southern democrats and South. Compromise of 1877 rings a bell? The Republicans had no choice.

Quote[/b] ]But perhaps you can explain why it is BS for the DNC to have minority leadership, while its ok for the GOP to be all white? Try to do it without political rhetoric.

They have two spots for leadership, chairman and co-chair. They don't have a special spot or five co-chairs.

Quote[/b] ]I mean come on, dont you know that old white guys are inherently more suited for leadership than women and minorities??

:/

Quote[/b] ]There is a reason why republicans took south during the mid 20th century. Hint: it involves the phrase civil rights legistlation.

Look up Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Everett Dirksen. More Republicans voted for the acts than Democrats. The Southern strategy has evolved over time from racial to abortion and etc. Both parties use race/socio-economic status. You can't win the WH now without the South or atleast one souther state.

Quote[/b] ]Look at all the speculation!!!!!! Practice what you preach dude!!!!

How is that speculation? It's fact. You are not promoting diversity by using a quota system. You are saying that these people are different. Also, you could say pandering the vote. The Republicans did appease the Southern democrats following reconstruction so Rutherford B. Hayes could be president and so US would not be fudged up again. The Democrats are losing focus dealing with minorities and are starting to take the black vote for granted. Powell could of stayed on but he wanted to resign and go back to private life. etc etc.

Quote[/b] ]for those of you who claim that GOP is not biased you might wanna reconsider a few things if this article is true.

Do I have to bring out Robert "white niggers" Byrd or Corrine Brown "white man" comments. Every party has its trash. Anyway, "white flight" crosses all party lines. I'm sure plenty of democrats pulled "white flight" because it's true and I have seen it. :/

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]There is a reason why republicans took south during the mid 20th century. Hint: it involves the phrase civil rights legistlation.

Look up Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Everett Dirksen. More Republicans voted for the acts than Democrats. The Southern strategy has evolved over time from racial to abortion and etc. Both parties use race/socio-economic status. You can't win the WH now without the South or atleast one souther state.

Actually they were not stupid enough to against the law itself, they just started with the "state's rights" stuff.

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]How is that speculation?

Its the way you say it that makes it spectulation genius.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Look up Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Everett Dirksen. More Republicans voted for the acts than Democrats. The Southern strategy has evolved over time from racial to abortion and etc. Both parties use race/socio-economic status. You can't win the WH now without the South or atleast one souther state.

Yes, the Dixiecrats are well known. It should be noted though that a good number of the Dixiecrats that were against segregation eventually switched to the Republican party.

Quote[/b] ]Rutherford B. Hayes's election...look it up how the Republicans appeased the southern democrats and South. Compromise of 1877 rings a bell? The Republicans had no choice.

I'll give ya this. You are correct. The Democrats during the Civil War though could hardly be called a party. It was divided between North And South, and then further subdivided by supporting the war or not. It should be noted though that neither party attempted to advance civil rights until the Democrats of the late 1940s. The southern wing of the Democrats though can hardly be termed "democrats" in the sense you and I use it, as they are quite conservative, and tend to swith to Republican voting.

Quote[/b] ]They have two spots for leadership, chairman and co-chair. They don't have a special spot or five co-chairs.

That still doesn't answer the question. So freakin' what how many chairs and vice-chairs there are? The Dems are openly advancing minorities, while the GOP remains almost exclusively a white man's club.

Quote[/b] ]How is that speculation? It's fact. You are not promoting diversity by using a quota system. You are saying that these people are different. Also, you could say pandering the vote.

Every party panders to its constituency, it is hardly just a Democratic failing (or shall I bring up religious voters again?). Without legislated equality, the South never would have been desegregated, and civil rights never would have been brought about. The law you decry are they ones that give you the very equality and protection you enjoy today.

The fact is, the Democratic leadership constitutes a more diverse leadership, with more diverse views, and a better slice of the American people then the GOP leadership.

Quote[/b] ]Powell could of stayed on but he wanted to resign and go back to private life. etc etc.

After being "politely" told that he wouldn't be coming back.

Quote[/b] ]Do I have to bring out Robert "white niggers" Byrd or Corrine Brown "white man" comments. Every party has its trash. Anyway, "white flight" crosses all party lines. I'm sure plenty of democrats pulled "white flight" because it's true and I have seen it. :/

Umm...not seein' the point.

Quote[/b] ]The Democrats are losing focus dealing with minorities and are starting to take the black vote for granted.

Speculation!!!!!

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]That still doesn't answer the question. So freakin' what how many chairs and vice-chairs there are? The Dems are openly advancing minorities, while the GOP remains almost exclusively a white man's club

There is no race to see advance minorities faster.

http://www.jointcenter.org/electio....ks'

http://jointcenter.org/election-2004/r-degates-alternates.pdf

:/

Quote[/b] ]Umm...not seein' the point.

About Wiggum's knock about the GOP "bias". Democrats has their trash too.

Quote[/b] ]Speculation!!!!!

Hey, Al Sharpton say so

Quote[/b] ]Sharpton said, "You know, the only thing I never got over in life is I took a young lady to a dance when I was in high school and she left with somebody else. And that's what the Democrats, some, have done to the black community. We helped take you to the dance, and you leave with right-wingers, you leave with people that you say are swing voters, you leave with people that are antithetical to our interests. I am saying in 2004, if we take you to the party, you (are) going home with us, or we're not taking you to the party."

Jesse in a not so direct manner...

Quote[/b] ]“This issue of Democrats take us for granted,†Jackson said, “well, Republicans want to take us for fools. Our interests are with the Democrats.â€

From 1865 through 2004, Jackson noted, “we’ve tended to vote our interests with amazing consistency. Do we need to challenge the Democrats more? Yes.â€

Quote[/b] ]Yes, the Dixiecrats are well known. It should be noted though that a good number of the Dixiecrats that were against segregation eventually switched to the Republican party.

Nah, they tended to split..most of the Senate dixiecrats stayed Democrat. Only Helms and Thurmond became Republican.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]for those of you who claim that GOP is not biased you might wanna reconsider a few things if this article is true.

Do I have to bring out Robert "white niggers" Byrd or Corrine Brown "white man" comments. Every party has its trash. Anyway, "white flight" crosses all party lines. I'm sure plenty of democrats pulled "white flight" because it's true and I have seen it. :/

difference is that Helms was a VERY influential person within the party. furthermore, general tone of GOP has been not so in sync with general non-white voters.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]difference is that Helms was a VERY influential person within the party. furthermore, general tone of GOP has been not so in sync with general non-white voters.

Byrd is influential person within the Democratic Party. Can't people have difference in their beliefs. The Republicans are trying to reach out to blacks but the Democrats have basically instilled in to many black minds that they are racists and only Democrats can help them (nice job, dems). Granted, the Republicans did that with white voters (nice job, reps).

[Balschoiw 0]

Poll: Bush Job Approval Dips to New Low

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON - As the war in

Iraq drags on,

President Bush's job approval and the public's confidence in the direction he's taking the nation are at their lowest levels since The Associated Press-Ipsos poll began in December 2003.

About one-third of adults, 35 percent, said they think the country is headed in the right direction, while 43 percent said they approve of the job being done by Bush. Just 41 percent say they support his handling of the war, also a low-water mark.

"There's a bad mood in the country, people are out of sorts," said presidential scholar and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution Charles Jones, who lives near Charlottesville, Va. "Iraq news is daily bad news. The election in Iraq helped some, and the formation of the government helped some, but dead bodies trump the more positive news."

California retiree Carol Harvie was quick to mention Iraq when asked about how Bush was doing his job.

"I don't think he's read his history enough about different countries and foreign affairs," said Harvie, a political independent who lives near San Diego, a region with several military bases. "Anything they try to do in Iraq has spelled trouble. I think he bit off more than he can chew."

Car bombings and attacks by insurgents killed 80 U.S. troops and more than 700 Iraqis last month and

Pentagon officials acknowledge the level of violence is about the same as a year ago, when they were forced to scrap a plan to substantially reduce the U.S. troop presence in Iraq.

Bush administration officials say the key to getting U.S. forces out of Iraq is training Iraqis to provide their own security.

While Bush has gotten generally low scores for his handling of domestic issues for many months, most Americans have been supportive of his foreign policy. Not any more.

The poll conducted for AP by Ipsos found 45 percent support Bush's foreign policy, down from 52 percent in March.

Bush's popularity reached its zenith shortly after the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, when various polls found nearly 90 percent approved of the job he was doing. It was close to 80 percent when Ipsos started tracking attitudes about Bush at the start of 2002, and was just over 50 percent when the AP-Ipsos poll was started in December 2003.

But since winning re-election last November, Bush has seen his poll numbers sag.

Bush, who faces no more elections, has responded to past dips in the polls by saying, "You can find them going up and you can find them going down."

David Fultz, a Republican from Venice, Fla., is among those who are sticking with the president.

"In terms of where we're going in the future, President Bush is laying out a plan," said Fultz, an assistant principal at a middle school. "When it's all said and done, we'll be where we want to be. We need to help establish democracy in the Middle East."

Support for Bush's handling of domestic issues remained in the high 30s and low 40s in the latest AP-Ipsos poll.

Thirty-seven percent support Bush's handling of

Social Security, while 59 percent disapprove. Those numbers haven't budged after more than four months of the president traveling the country to sell his plan to create private accounts in Social Security.

Support for his handling of the economy was at 43 percent.

Congress gets even lower grades than Bush, a potentially troubling development for those seeking re-election next year.

Only about three in 10 polled said they approve of the job being done by Congress, while 64 percent disapprove.

"Presidents who are low in the polls have a hard time getting Congress to go along with them," said Charles Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "He has to persuade the people in Congress to follow his legislative agenda and they're all worried about 2006."

The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,001 adults was taken June 6-8 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

It looks like the US people realize that hot air isn´t enough to guide a country in a responsible way.

While there are calls for an investigation on the doctored White House reports on global warming and climate change:

Lawmakers want probe in charge White House doctored climate change reports

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (AFP) - Two senior US lawmakers called for a congressional probe into charges the White House altered government documents to cast doubt on the generally-accepted scientific consensus about the causes and effects of global warming.

Representative Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record) and Senator

John Kerry asked the General Accountability Office (GAO) -- Congress' investigative arm -- to look into a recent whistleblower report that a former oil industry lobbyist altered government reports on global warming.

The allegations were reported Wednesday in the New York Times.

"We request that the Government Accountability Office investigate the extent to which White House officials and political appointees at federal agencies have interfered with federally funded science on global warming," said Kerry and Waxman.

"Unfortunately, the incidents reported by the Times are simply the latest in a pattern of interference with climate science by the Bush Administration," the Democratic lawmakers said.

The Times reported that a White House official with no scientific training edited government climate reports to play down the links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, according to internal documents obtained by the daily.

Philip Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, allegedly subtly altered documents, adding qualifiers like "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties" to give the impression of considerable doubt about the findings.

On one document, Cooney added the work "extremely" to the sentence: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."

The alterations Cooney made on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003 often appeared in the final reports, said the daily.

Cooney is a lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics and lacks scientific training, the daily said.

Before working at the White House in 2001, he was a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute and led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases, according to the Times report.

Rick Piltz, who resigned in March as a senior associate in the office that coordinates government climate research, said in a memorandum sent to top US officials last week that editing of scientific reports tainted official efforts to establish the causes of climate change.

"Each administration has a policy position on climate change," Piltz wrote, according to The New York Times. "But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program."

You just can´t rely on scientists these days. Why do they insist on their findings that much ? Why do they hate the US that much ?

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]

There is no race to see advance minorities faster.

So then how did we get to the issue the advancement of civil rights from Deans statement about the GOP?

[Balschoiw 0]

Dang !

I guess the days of the original US citizens (whites) are somehow counted:

Census: Latinos one-seventh of U.S. population

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hispanics accounted for half of the 2.9 million U.S. population growth from 2003 to 2004 and now constitute one-seventh of all people in the United States.

A Census Bureau report issued Thursday said that trend probably will continue because of immigration and a Hispanic birth rate outstripping non-Hispanic blacks and whites.

The agency estimated there are 41.3 million Hispanics in the United States. The bureau does not ask about legal status so its numbers are intended to include everyone.

The population growth for Asians ran a close second. Increases in both groups are due largely to immigration, but also higher birth rates, said Lewis W. Goodman, an American University expert on U.S.-Latin American relations.

"If we didn't have those elements, we would be moving into a situation like Japan and Europe ... where the populations are graying in a way that is very alarming and endangering their productivity and endangering even their social security systems," he said.

Most immigrants to the United States tend to arrive in their 20s, when many people have children. A far greater percentage of non-Hispanic whites than Hispanics is 65 or older; the opposite is true of those under 18.

Immigration has become a volatile issue in Congress and border states, as well as in Georgia and other places where there has been a surge in new arrivals. Critics say lax enforcement of immigration laws has allowed millions of people to enter the U.S. illegally, take jobs from legal residents and drain social services.

The Hispanic growth rate for the 12 months starting July 2003 was 3.6 percent compared with the overall population growth of 1 percent.

The growth rate was 3.4 percent for Asians, 1.7 percent for native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders, 1.3 percent for blacks, 1 percent for American Indians and Alaska natives, and 0.8 percent for whites.

That meant that at the beginning of July last year, the population was an estimated 294 million with the following racial and ethnic breakdown: 240 million whites, 39.2 million blacks, 14 million Asians, 4.4 million native Indians and Alaskans, and 980,000 native Hawaiians and other islanders.

The numbers for all races and ethnic groups do not add up to the total because 4.4 million people listed themselves as having more than one race.

The Census Bureau counts "Hispanic" or "Latino" as an ethnicity rather than a race, so Hispanics can be of any race. The population of non-Hispanic whites indicating no other race increased just 0.3 percent in the past year, to 197.8 million.

"Looking toward the future, we see a different face of the U.S. population," said Audrey Singer, an immigration and census specialist at the Brookings Institution. "But I don't think that's necessarily new. It's a confirmation that this hasn't stopped or changed much."

The size of the Hispanic population and, to a lesser extent, the Asian population, rose in nearly every state over the 1990s. Also, the Census Bureau projected last year that whites and minority groups overall would be roughly equal in size by 2050.

"Sometimes this is portrayed as a problem for the United States -- that the ethnic composition of the country is changing and that new people are coming to take jobs," said Goodman, dean of American University's School of International Service.

"My view is just the opposite: increased fertility of young people makes the (social) structure one that is more sustaining of economic production and enables older people to be in a culture where their retirements can be financed."

The Census Bureau estimates population change using annual data on births, deaths and international migration.

Time to run for a body surgery

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]...by trusting everything you hear makes very immature

You think I believe that the half of Africa is enslaved? I just heard that. Do you think I believe that? Do you think that we invaded Iraq because of WMD BS? You think the US is in a liberating mood? You think that 9/11 Has nothing to do with Iraq? You think we invded Iraq because of big Bush's unfinnished buisness? You think we invaded Iraq because of oil? My God, kid, you have some hell of a head to be beiliving about all of that Biggest BS of the BS world. Open your ****ing eyes and look around you. If you have all the information (which I know you do!) then you would be able to connect the dots.

You starting off beliving Bush when he said "Iraq has WMD's" makes you look like a little baby. Its sad to think a 19 yr old doesn't check the news every once in a while. You should know from the start that that was BS. He had to get the American public to think it was all right to invade Iraq. Going off and saying "We need to clean our record so we can make ourselves look good" would make us look like battle-hungry jokers. And were do you get your ****ing ideas were off to liberate the world, because were not off to do it! Also, this Oil buisness is getting really annoying. Yes the oil was a factor in invading, but it was on the "Rebuilding" part. Who gets controll of those oil fields? who gets the profit off that oil when its sold? why do you think taxes hasn't jumped up even though were paying out the *** to get Iraq back to normal? Think!!!

Right now were setting ourselves up for another invasion, North Korea. You know that story of "America and Veitnam building millitary ties?" Guess were our communications and supply depots are going to be when things get really tuff? Guess were our ships are going to refuel thats in the Persian Gulf right now? Think about that? Think! Why did the North Koreans suddenly agree to come back to the 6 country talks about the nukes after it was released to the public? Were's Russia in all of this, did you forget about that. there could be something else in the deal we made to get bases north of Afgahnistan. What about China? What about Aulstrailia that had thier October 12th (like our September 11th). They also sent troops to Iraq. They might even help us with NK. Think!!! Connect the dots!!!

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]...by trusting everything you hear makes very immature

You think I believe that the half of Africa is enslaved? I just heard that. Do you think I believe that? Do you think that we invaded Iraq because of WMD BS? You think the US is in a liberating mood? You think that 9/11 Has nothing to do with Iraq? You think we invded Iraq because of big Bush's unfinnished buisness? You think we invaded Iraq because of oil? My God, kid, you have some hell of a head to be beiliving about all of that Biggest BS of the BS world. Open your ****ing eyes and look around you. If you have all the information (which I know you do!) then you would be able to connect the dots.

You starting off beliving Bush when he said "Iraq has WMD's" makes you look like a little baby. Its sad to think a 19 yr old doesn't check the news every once in a while. You should know from the start that that was BS. He had to get the American public to think it was all right to invade Iraq. Going off and saying "We need to clean our record so we can make ourselves look good" would make us look like battle-hungry jokers. And were do you get your ****ing ideas were off to liberate the world, because were not off to do it! Also, this Oil buisness is getting really annoying. Yes the oil was a factor in invading, but it was on the "Rebuilding" part. Who gets controll of those oil fields? who gets the profit off that oil when its sold? why do you think taxes hasn't jumped up even though were paying out the *** to get Iraq back to normal? Think!!!

Right now were setting ourselves up for another invasion, North Korea. You know that story of "America and Veitnam building millitary ties?" Guess were our communications and supply depots are going to be when things get really tuff? Guess were our ships are going to refuel thats in the Persian Gulf right now? Think about that? Think! Why did the North Koreans suddenly agree to come back to the 6 country talks about the nukes after it was released to the public? Were's Russia in all of this, did you forget about that. there could be something else in the deal we made to get bases north of Afgahnistan. What about China? What about Aulstrailia that had thier October 12th (like our September 11th). They also sent troops to Iraq. They might even help us with NK. Think!!! Connect the dots!!!

Okay thats the biggest load of BS I've ever heard. Also I watch more news and read more newspapers (both bias and non-bias) than I'm sure you ever knew exsited. Also to all those questions that I have answered before with a yes I'll say again yes. About NK we are not setting ourselves up for another invasion that is another one of your wet dreams. We wont invade china because it would ruin our country because almost all our shit comes from china so please stop sharing your wet dreams with us. Last but not least your the immature kid who doesnt know the anything about debating and doesnt know jack about whats going on in the world so please go back to school and learn something for a change.

[miles teg 1]

Eh...hispanics are just taking back what was theirs originally. The RE-Conquista!!! Viva La Rasa!!!

lol

Its funny how areas of the US that a few years ago had never seen a hispanic person, now are getting tons of Mexicans moving and settling in traditional hardcore redneck parts of the South in places like South Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia, and Alabama.

But from my experience, rednecks love Mexican food, Mexican women, and both cultures like to drink alot so usually the cultures blend together fairly well. lol

They probably have a tougher time integrating with traditionally white only towns up in the middle Northern states like in Iowa, Nebraska, North/South Dakota, ect...

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[SFWanabe 0]

I've worked with mexicans before and they are some damn hard workers and I dont know why certain people in this nation have to be ragging on them for doing the dirty work that needs to be done.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]So then how did we get to the issue the advancement of civil rights from Deans statement about the GOP?  

Your original post:

Quote[/b] ]The GOP has little history with minorities like the Democrats do, and that is the main reason.

They do have history..:/ Without the GOP, the civil rights act(s) would not had passed and etc.

[Sophion-Black 0]

1) What hapened on October 12?

2) Bias is the kind news you want to stay away from, it fills you head with junk. you should know that.

3) This talking buisness is nothing but delay tactics, kid, you should know that. Theres no way they'll disarm.

4) Nowere did i say "Now to invade China". if you read you would only see "what about China?" Also I put Russia in there, are you going to say were going to invade them too?

5) There is an invasion plan for every country held in Washington. we're just following the plan set up no actual militaty mobilisation has happened though. We might not go completeley through with it, but its enought to get NK to slow down.

6)

Quote[/b] ] Last but not least your the immature kid who doesnt know the anything about debating and doesnt know jack about whats going on in the world so please go back to school and learn something for a change.

Taking shots like that can only make you look more inmature

[SFWanabe 0]

Well I've ended this dispute for now.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Quote

The GOP has little history with minorities like the Democrats do, and that is the main reason.

They do have history..:/ Without the GOP, the civil rights act(s) would not had passed and etc.

---------->little<----------

I didn't say they had "no history." And the Democrats have been traditionally the party of the minority groups, where as the GOP hasn't. That is fact, as you like to say. I'm not talking about civil rights or any of that superfulous crap. I'm talking within their own party.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I didn't say they had "no history." And the Democrats have been traditionally the party of the minority groups, where as the GOP hasn't. That is fact, as you like to say

Again, the Republican party was traditionally the party of minority group(s) (minority group(s) id with) until FDR and when the Reps. adopted the Southern strategy in the 1960s. Blacks (major minority group for the longest) started to migrate to the Democrats in the 1940s and before that, they were a Republican bloc. Also, all blacks elected to Congress before 1935 were all Republican. Furthermore, in 1884, John R. Lynch was the first minority to chair over a national convention of a major U. S. political party. The last 60 or so years, over time, the Democrats have become the party of the minority groups but before that they were not. Also, the new major minority (:/), hispanics, are more split in terms of voting and id compared to others.

:/

[miles teg 1]

Yeah...Billybob is correct.   The liberalized democratic party is a recent thing...although the US isn't exactly an old country so relatively speaking its not all that recent of a change...

Many Texas democrats were some of the last conservative democrats up until even the 80's, but gradually they followed the national trends and became more liberal.

Also Billybob is correct that hispanics tend to be split between Republicans and Democrats. One thing that doesn't change however is how ill informed the average American is about political matters. Americans vote based on emotion in general. Who seems more Christian? Who seems more American? Who seems more family values oriented? Who promises jobs and seems more believable? Who is more conservative? Who is more liberal?

Its all rather disgusting to me how voters ignore facts about candidates and just swallow what the political campaigns spew out rather then doing their own research on the records of the candidates. But oh well...its the same problem all over the world I guess.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>