1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

They lied! They lied! They lied!

Discussion in 'The OT' started by jonstad, Sep 15, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sep 16, 2005 #41 of 122
    Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    So if one doesn't address the ravings of a lunitic, they must necessarily agree with it?
     
  2. Sep 16, 2005 #42 of 122
    bobsupra

    bobsupra Work In Progress DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,295
    0
    Jul 12, 2002
    I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat. --Will Rogers
     
  3. Sep 16, 2005 #43 of 122
    mainedish

    mainedish Hall Of Fame

    2,196
    0
    Mar 25, 2003

    They know what he's doing . Look at his past and tell me how many democrats have said anything negative about him. They might have and I invite anyone to post it.

    Jesse Jackson is almost as bad as he is .

    Oh, and are these Democrats or Republicans pictured with this racist jew hater?

    Marion Berry-Democrat
    John Conyers-Democrat
     

    Attached Files:

  4. Sep 16, 2005 #44 of 122
    Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Check the Senate record for June 28, 1984

    Senator Don Nickles put together a bipartisan coalition of senators to condemn racially insensitive statements made Farrakhan. Nickles was joined by senators Carl Levin (Democrat), Joe Biden (Democrat), Frank Lautenberg (Democrat) and Bill Bradley (Democrat) as well as a host of Republicans as co-sponsors. The entire Senate vote 95-0 to condemn Farrakhan. That means all Republicans AND Democrats. That good enough, or did you want more?
     
  5. Sep 16, 2005 #45 of 122
    mainedish

    mainedish Hall Of Fame

    2,196
    0
    Mar 25, 2003

    And yet who has no problem with him.
    See the photo. These are not republicans here.
    This was taken years after that vote.
    I guess they forgot about it. :lol:
    Hilter and Farrakhan both hate jews.
    And don't forget what Jesse Jackson said.
    The Washington Post reports that Jesse Jackson refers to Jews as "Hymies" and New York City as "Hymietown" in private conversations with journalists.
    When Jackson finally met with Arafat in Lebanon, he gave him a big kiss (captured by news photographers) and declared the terrorist big "my friend and the friend of justice and humanity."

    So come on you Jackson fans. Defend this guy. He wants me to vote for democrats. He was at the DNC Convention last year.
     

    Attached Files:

  6. Sep 16, 2005 #46 of 122
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    So Democrats think white people intentionally blew up the levies, and Republicans think God did it. ;)
     
  7. Sep 16, 2005 #47 of 122
    vurbano

    vurbano Godfather

    295
    0
    May 15, 2004
    More importantly, that is more than enough to have saved the lives of those who died. Too bad Nagin and Blanco murdered all of those people by not following the written evacuation plan. This wasnt a case of "oh I didnt think of it"

    They sure get those buses rolling during an election to buss the poor to the polls though.
     
  8. Sep 19, 2005 #48 of 122
    BobMurdoch

    BobMurdoch Hall Of Fame

    4,009
    0
    Apr 24, 2002
    Bush screwed up by not responding faster (press conferences don't count)/ The governor screwed up by not asking for help sooner, or sending in enough help afterwards from their available resources, and the Mayor screwed up by not forcing people onto buses sooner. He shouldn't have lost ANY buses since they should have been driving away loaded with people.
     
  9. Sep 19, 2005 #49 of 122
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Do you have any sources that state that public buses brought the poor to polls in the last election?

    In accordance with "the plan", 80% of New Orleans residents evacuated. Of the remainder, many of whom COULD NOT evacuate for a number of reasons, a large number followed directions and went to the convention center and superdome as directed. Others, particularly those with health problems, went to the hospital as they have done when previous storms hit. They brought with them enough food and water to last the expected duration of the storm. Most people expected that by the next day they would be back home, inspecting water and wind damage as they had after previous storms, but with access to the food they had at home. Others, like the white photographer of another link, rode out the storm at home, figuring it was just another opportunity for a "hurricane party." What local, state and federal officials did not believe would happen, and didn't want to believe was happening, was that the levee would break and flood 80-85% of the city. We have talked before about how on Tuesday morning the reports were that New Orleans had once again dodged the bullet. Then things went downhill fast, as the lake drained into the city. The resources that lasted the duration of the storm, as they were supposed to, quickly ran out and no replacements came. The hospitals quickly filled with the injured, and with people seeking shelter. So did the convention center and dome, where people gathered and stood in line to be taken away on frequently promised buses which time after time didn't come. While in hindsight it would have made sense to have bused all the people out of the city, it also would have been a logistical nightmare. Just where do you bring 100,000 people when there is no disaster that has already occurred. AFTER the disaster cities were willing to take the escapees. How many cities do you think would have welcomed 100,000 poor people coming with the clothes on their backs, arriving in school buses, because a storm was MAYBE going to destroy their homes?

    In the Superdome and Convention Center it was the gangstas keeping order for the people from their neighborhoods. Yes, there were rapes, fights and killings. There all to often are in cities of 25,000+. The gangstas patrolled halls, and kept the old, the sick, and the babies safe. They did loot. They went out to the neighborhood stores and brought back food, water, soda, juice for the babies, and beer for the old people. There wasn't anyone else providing it.

    Yes, there were rumours that whites had blown up the levee, leaving the black people to die. Why shouldn't there have been? It happened before.

    Where the blacks were/are wrong is that it wasn't about race, it was about poverty. The current administration is not racist. They are just totally out of touch with what it is to be poor.

    Another liberal today said I was cynical. I am. I am afraid that the billions that are now being promised and voted for will never be allocated. But I am sure that billions of cuts for the poor and children WILL be cut for the money that never gets spent to help the poor and the children.
     
  10. Sep 19, 2005 #50 of 122
    Tom in TX

    Tom in TX Icon

    714
    0
    Jan 22, 2004
    Uhmm..Didn't we recently have 8 years of the Clinton Administration? Why wasn't poverty eliminated under him? Why weren't the levees reinforced under him. Why weren't the impoverished black people of New Orleans moved into safer housing/neighborhoods? Why was the enormous murder rate of NO not eliminated under him? Why wasn't FEMA ordered to come up with a comprehensive plan of evacuation? Why didn't Gore eliminate Global Warming, so this Hurricane would never have happened? What have the Democrats done lately to help any of these situations? They promise the poor/disadvantaged all sorts of things, but never deliver. Clinton was good about "feeling their pain", but not too good about solving it! Maybe Hillary, and her "It takes a village" philosophy will solve all the country's woes!
    Tom in TX
     
  11. Sep 19, 2005 #51 of 122
    RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Actually the poverty rate dropped significantly during the last six years of the Clinton Presidency. Look up the Census data.

    It was probably due to the economic boom during the 90s rather than anything Clinton did directly, but the end result was that poverty was receding. Lets hope the next boom will do the same. However, with an increasing national debt, boom times will be harder to come by.
     
  12. Sep 19, 2005 #52 of 122
    Tom in TX

    Tom in TX Icon

    714
    0
    Jan 22, 2004
    I also heard President Clinton lamenting that he got a tax cut under the Bush Administration. Funny, I don't see where he refused to take it. Or Hilllary,either. Or Barbara Streisand, or Rosie O'Donnel, or any of the other wealthy libs! Either put up, or shut up. Hell - Hillary took a $5 deduction for each pair of her donated used underwear! They make millions, yet hire accountants to "minimize" their tax liability! I they are so against the tax cuts, why don't they just pay over and above the minimum that they owe? Why don't they donate more of the millions that they make?
    If you took the earnings of the top liberals in the nation, and had them donate it, we maybe could've helped erase the poverty in New Orleans. Or rebuilt the levees.
    How much did they each receive on their respective books? Could've fed alot of people. But I don't think Rosie is starving!
    Actually, I would do the exact same thing. But I would not say the poverty-ridden need more money, while pocketing millions! What hypocrites!
    Tom in TX
     
  13. Sep 19, 2005 #53 of 122
    Tom in TX

    Tom in TX Icon

    714
    0
    Jan 22, 2004
    Give us the link so we can be educated.
    Aslo, why wasn't it ELIMINATED, not just "significantly" reduced, as you claim? I thought Clinton was the best thing since sliced bread. Why is there still poverty after his 8 years? Couldn't he get get the job done?
    And what about the other issues I raised? Why wasn't global warming eliminated, so we wouldn't even have hurricanes? Why weren't the poor of New Orleans given new housing in Upstate New York? I'm sure Bill/Hillary have a spare room or two!
    I'm sure you'll find some way to blame it on Bush!
    Tom in TX
     
  14. Sep 19, 2005 #54 of 122
    Tom in TX

    Tom in TX Icon

    714
    0
    Jan 22, 2004
    A sampling of the "caring, feel your pain" leadership of the Democrats:
    "Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, stirred by the city and the state's out-of-control poverty, urged anti-poverty activists to come up with a plan for poverty reduction. The plan was piecemeal and sketchy, and did not spell out what or how the state would pay for a program to reduce poverty. It was yet another paper promise by officials to do something about poverty that was not kept."

    Why did she not come up with a plan? Or the mayor? Or the champion of blacks, Jesse Jackson. Or Clinton/Gore? Where were they?

    And the link: http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/25277/
     
  15. Sep 19, 2005 #55 of 122
    Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    http://www.snarkbait.com/archives.php?ID=1697

    The economy was booming in 1995. It dropped when Welfare reform went into effect.
     
  16. Sep 19, 2005 #56 of 122
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    See, far left liberals were right, welfare reform was a huge mistake. :lol:

    Tom in TX, get a grip. I made a statement that the current administration is not racist. That they are not in touch with what it is to be poor. This was one small part of a fairly lengthy post, but this is the bit you have been obsessing over. I never said the Clintons were perfectly in touch with the poor, I never said they had all the answers. Bill Clinton is not currently president, so criticizing him is now meaningless.

    As far as TOTALLY solving ANY problems we face, there are very few goals that will be accomplished in eight years. Certainly none that are very serious. I wouldn't expect ANY administration to solve in eight years a problem that Jesus said would always be with us. That statement of Jesus does NOT mean we don't try to mitigate the problem, but to be so arrogant as to think poverty is an easily solved problem is ignorant. In the same way, to think that a global climatological problem is going to be solved by a vice president, in 8 years, when most of congress and industry still refuse to believe in global warming, or believe that we have the responsibility to do anything about it. We probably can do no more to eliminate global warming than we can eliminate poverty. That, however, does not remove the need to mitigate global warming as much as we can.

    You may find this hard to believe, but solving the problem of poverty is not as easy as providing tax cuts for the wealthy. And Bush isn't being as successful on achieving his much easier agenda as he had hoped to be. He can't even achieve the goal of more realistic attitudes toward illegal immigrants, which I support.
     
  17. Sep 20, 2005 #57 of 122
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    This is such a phony straw man argument. By this logic elderly Republicans should refuse their Social Security and Medicare benefits. Or if you're opposed to say the home mortgage deduction, you shouldn't avail yourself out of principle!:lol: Get real man!

    You play by the rules that are there. You don't have to agree with a benefit or tax deduction in order to take it, just like you're not allowed to NOT pay a tax you disagree with.

    Not taking a legal deduction or reduced tax rate simply because you question it is just plain stupid. Ask any CPA, Republican or Democrat. The Clintons have been accused of many things, half of them with probably a grain of truth. But about the last thing anyone accuses them of is being stupid. More then can be said for the current first family!:grin:
     
  18. Sep 20, 2005 #58 of 122
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/perindex.html

    As mind numbing as these stats can be, click on nearly any of the tables. There is a clear trend of the poverty levels going down starting in 1993 when Clinton took office, right up to 2001 when they start to rise again, in some cases rather steeply. I guess it's just a coincidence this is when Bush took office?

    I'll leave it up to you who to "blame". If you want to go back even further, you'll see a steady decline during Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter, but under Reagan/1st Bush rising to a peak again not seen since the late 50's early 60's. Coincidence again? You tell me!

    Believe me Tom, this is not an issue you want to bet the bank on. I fear you are a victim(once more?) of the spin of the GOP propaganda machine.
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200509160002

    You see what they've done Tom is take Clinton's figure from 1996, which had been on a steady decline since the celestial heights of the first Bush Presidency and continued to fall for the last four years of Clinton's Presidency. The rate GWB inherited from Clinton was the lowest in the last 20 years(since Carter). And the rate has been steadlily climbing since then.

    The real story is Bush has not QUITE erased the reductions in poverty realized by Clinton in his last four years. Of course Bush has still three years to go.:nono::bang
     
  19. Sep 20, 2005 #59 of 122
    Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Heh. I wrote a bad sentence. I meant that the economy was doing well prior to the drop in poverty, but that it wasn't until welfare reform that we saw drops in proverty of a significant nature.

    There were tax RATE cuts to everyone, across the board. To say that they were only to the wealthy is to lie. To say that the wealthy got a higher rate cut is wrong. If you want to say they got to keep more of their own money--fine. And also, DUH. It's a rate cut. Those who paid more, kept more.
     
  20. Sep 20, 2005 #60 of 122
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Well, I believe Cap is so open-minded:sure:, he has me on his "ignore list" so he can't see the Census Bureau stats, but virtually EVERY chart shows a steady decline starting in 1993 and ending in 2001. And a steady rise since. I'm not sure what he means by "of a significant nature"? I guess it's only "significant" if it can somehow be attributed to the GOP?:shrug::lol:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page