Wednesday, June 04, 2008

It's offical The black guy vs John McCain in November Part 1

6-4-2008

People ask me why do I oppose affirmative action since I'm black. I always say I wouldn't want to be hired or promoted for a job based on the pigmentation of my skin. I'm a person by nature that takes pride in my accomplishments. Obama supporters really get unhinged when I refer to Barack Obama as the "affirmative action candidate". The truth hurts because in essence thats really what he is. Think of it this way. When you apply for a job, you send the potential employer your resume. Your resume lists your work history, education, accomplishments etc. The potential employer uses the information on your resume as a basis to determine if your are "qualified" for the job. Obama doesn't have a voting record as a state senator in Illinios, and he doesn't have one as a U.S Senator. Barack Obama beat an emergency stand in candidate in Allan Keyes to win his U.S Senate seat, then after a few hours after being sworn in he decided that was enough experience to run for President. There are a lot of people in the country that have done the research on Obama, and they have come to the same conclusion I have. Barack Obama based on the facts presented is an inexperienced, unqualified, opportunist. Would Obama be receiving all this attention if he was a white guy? I seriously doubt it. I'm once again just stating the obvious. The media can't stop talking about hows this election is "historic", because Barack Obama is the "first black man to win the nomination of a major political party". At least the media is honest with why they love Obama. It's not just because he's a liberal, it's because he is a "black" liberal. I guess race is the only qualification needed for higher office these days. That says a lot about our political process in a sad way.

48 Comments:

Blogger matt said...

I am Canadian but live in America. I dont really care who wins, but what baffles me is that many complain about baracks lack of qualifications. I didnt know you have to be qualified for anything, i just thought that you must be a good leader. The American people voted in Bush, so I dont think the American people know what is best for them.
Because he is black he needs these useless qualification. If he was white, people simply vote them in because the like them. (Thats the reason I get why these idiots voted in Bush...Because he is such a cool guy)

ps
i dont spell check

2:13 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

RB says;"I'm a person by nature that takes pride in my accomplishments...Barack Obama as the "affirmative action candidate". The truth hurts because in essence thats really what he is."

I believe that anyone, white, black, brown or yellow, liberal or conservative, would and should be proud to have been elected (by the people) to any government post. Our government is essentially made up "of the people and by the people." How is possible "not" to be proud to serve the people that elected you????

RB says; "Barack Obama based on the facts presented is an inexperienced, unqualified, opportunist. Would Obama be receiving all this attention if he was a white guy?"

What you're saying is that Obama should not be proud of his accomplishments "because he's Black." With all due respect Tyrone, thats just plain ignorant... you speak as if no whites supported and voted for Obama.

I would never say that a white politician should not take pride in being elected. I may not agree with his politics, yet I could never say that he would not take "pride" in serving the people that elected him.

Even the like's of David Duke should be proud that enough people believed in his message to elect him to the Louisiana State House. Do you really believe those same people who voted for Duke would have voted for Obama if Obama were running for the same seat?

I read liberal and conservative blogs. On both sides I have found writers who disagree with Senator McCains views and/or politics, but I have yet to find "one" (particularly a white blogger) that says "John McCain won the nomination because he was "White", even among those conservatives that "hate" he's the presumptive nominee!

I must say that I had a feeling you would inject a kind of "it's only because he Black" racial viewpoint to your essays. Yet, I never thought you would call into question his personal pride, self esteem and ridicule his accomplishments simply because he's Black!

I wonder where you'll stand if some start using the "N"-word to discribe him...

3:38 PM  
Anonymous Dr. Milan said...

You hit the nail on the head on your blogstop. As a conservative american of indian descent, I admire Bobby Jindal. As an ethnic group in America, we are the most academically accomplished and financially successful community, much more than "angry conservative whites". Imagine that - in a so-called racist country. We did it without affirmative action or social services. We are "over-representated" in law schools and medical schools. Why is that? If you have the culture of hard work and respect of education, you can accomplish it all in the greatest country on Earth - USA. Don't get me wrong, I am proud of my indian heritage and hindu religion, but there was a reason why my ancestors moved to the USA. BTW, I am third generation indian born in Africa. Thank GOD we don't have indian Jesse Jacksons, Al Sharptons, or Charles Rangel ---we would be in welfare or prisons with the victimhood crap they propogate.

10:03 PM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

matt"i just thought that you must be a good leader"

Good point matt. That is why most of our presidents have been governors instead of congress people. Governors are leaders of their states. So when they run for president, they normally refer back to their leadership experience.

matt"The American people voted in Bush, so I dont think the American people know what is best for them"

You don't think the American people know whats is best for them? The reason we have elections is for our citizens to decide. The reason we have more then one candidate in an election is for our citizens to have the freedom of choice matt. Every country since its conception has picked good leaders and bad leaders. I'm sure Canada is no exception. Only Americans can determine what is best for them, not the U.N, not Europe, and even you. Americans think as individuals not as a collective matt.

matt"Because he is black he needs these useless qualification"

That's funny matt. I don't know how long you been in America, but you might want to do some research. Four years ago when John Kerry ran for president, his short four months military service in Vietnam was brought into question. Oh by the way matt, John Kerry is white not black. Bush has obvious flaws, but he is still better then John Kerry or Al Gore. So the obvious choice was made by Americans for America.

2:58 PM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

P Allen"I believe that anyone, white, black, brown or yellow, liberal or conservative, would and should be proud to have been elected (by the people) to any government post. Our government is essentially made up "of the people and by the people." How is possible "not" to be proud to serve the people that elected you????"

Pride is one thing and accomplishments is something else Allen.

P Allen"What you're saying is that Obama should not be proud of his accomplishments "because he's Black."

Thats not what I'm saying at all Allen. Barack has no major accomplishments in which to list Allen regardless of race. Four years ago Obama came to Maryland and campaigned for Ben Cardin who was running against Michael Steele. At Bowie State University in Prince Georges County Maryland, Barack Obama said that

"Michael Steele's resume is kind of thin".

In reality Michael Steele's resume was much more credible then Barack Obama's. Reread the first five lines of my original story Allen. I rather be hired because I am best qualified for the job, not the best skin color for the job. That is what it all boils down to Allen.

P Allen" Iwould never say that a white politician should not take pride in being elected. I may not agree with his politics, yet I could never say that he would not take "pride" in serving the people that elected him."


White politicians aren't championed by the media because they are white Allen. The supporters of white politicians tend to vote for them based on their political views not because they are white. Obama is a grown man, and he can take pride in whatever he wants. If I was Barack Obama, I would count myself as being extremely lucky that I fortunate enough to face two weak candidates in Allen Keyes and Hillary Clinton. Put it like this Allen. If the New York Yankees beat a little league baseball team in an exhibition game, should they feel proud of their accomplishment?

P Allen"Even the like's of David Duke should be proud that enough people believed in his message to elect him to the Louisiana State House. Do you really believe those same people who voted for Duke would have voted for Obama if Obama were running for the same seat?"

I guess your right to an extent Allen. Hate filled people bought in to a like minded candidate in David Duke, and the same scenario has happened with Barack Obama. The only difference is that the skin color is different. I don't believe David Duke supporters would vote for Obama if he was running for his seat and vice versa.

P Allen"read liberal and conservative blogs. On both sides I have found writers who disagree with Senator McCains views and/or politics, but I have yet to find "one" (particularly a white blogger) that says "John McCain won the nomination because he was "White", even among those conservatives that "hate" he's the presumptive nominee!"

How many "non whites" were running for the Republican Nomination Allen? If you were trying to make a point, you have to do better then that lol. Obama's race has been an issue ever since he won his senate seat Allen. When he decided to run for president, blacks were asking is Obama "black enough", then stories by the media asked "can Obama appeal to whites". You want to talk about bloggers, here is a question. How many bloggers either liberal or conservative has mentioned anything related to Obama's accomplishments prior to winning his Senate seat, or as a State Senator?

P Allen" I must say that I had a feeling you would inject a kind of "it's only because he Black" racial viewpoint to your essays. Yet, I never thought you would call into question his personal pride, self esteem and ridicule his accomplishments simply because he's Black!"

Correct me if I am wrong Allen, but its Barack supporters that call whites racist if they dare criticize one thing about Obama that has nothing to do with race at all. So what does that say Allen?
Why can't Obama's won supporters defend him on his merits and his political positions Allen? Once again, I just stated the obvious. If Bobby Jinhahl run for the Republican nomination in 2012, you will not caught me writing that if he gets the nomination that "it's historic" like the media as done with Obama. You won't caught me defending him based on race either, because unlike Obama, Jindahl actually has accomplishments that easily trump race. Obama can't say that, his supporters can's\t say that, and the media definitely can't say that. You should know me by now that I don't bite my tongue or subscribe to political correctness. The facts are what they are. If Michael Steele won the Republican Nomination for President, liberals both black and white would make his race the primary issue. When he ran with Robert Ehrlich for Lt. Governor seat the editor for the Baltimore Sun wrote "the only thing he brings to the ticket is the color of his skin". Steele actually had accomplishments to totally discredit that statement.

4:20 PM  
Blogger FJ said...

Do you think the Michigan and Florida debacle was an affirmative action lowering of the bar?

I would have let the candidates slug it out at the convention, and not disenfranchise a million voter just so Obama could be called the nominee before the Superdelgates would have been forced to weigh in.

I'm for putting an asterix next to his name as the 1st black presidential nominee...

9:21 PM  
Blogger FJ said...

beamish had some interesting stats...

Electoral College value of states won in Democratic Party primaries and caucuses by Barack Hussein Obama: 180

Electoral College value of states won in Democratic Party primaries and caucuses by Hillary Diane Rodham-Clinton: 355

Number of Electoral College votes needed to be elected President: 270

=====

Total number of votes cast for Barack Hussein Obama: 17,869,542 (47.4%)

Total number of votes cast for Hillary Diane Rodham-Clinton: 18,046,007 (47.9%)

9:23 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

"Imagine that - in a so-called racist country. We did it without affirmative action or social services. We are "over-representated" in law schools and medical schools. Why is that? If you have the culture of hard work and respect of education, you can accomplish it all in the greatest country on Earth - USA. Don't get me wrong, I am proud of my indian heritage and hindu religion, but there was a reason why my ancestors moved to the USA." (Dr Milan)
<
<
In fact, affirmative action has been used AGAINST Asians, because they are so academically successful.

Another thing that Asian culture has maintained is a "sense of shame."

That was ONCE part of a better America, but the "entitlement culture" that began in earnest under FDR and reached its crescendo under LBJ and Jimmy Carter has made that a forgotten concept.

Instead of using affirmative action and "disparate impact" to hold various Asians and Indians back, the rest of us should emulate the best characteristics of those groups.

12:19 AM  
Blogger JMK said...

"Do you think the Michigan and Florida debacle was an affirmative action lowering of the bar?" (fj)
<
<
That was more a factor of the Democrat's own rules committee.

They told Florida and Michigan not to move their Primary dates up and both states did so, under threat (by Howard Dean and Co) that their delegates wouldn't be seated (their vots not counted)...in doing that, they put the Democratic party in the position of having to follow through with their initial threat, or lose any authority it had.

It may have been foolish and shortsighted for the Dems to threaten that, but that's what they did and once FL and MI went ahead, they had to follow through with that threat, though in the process they may have alienated a lot of voters in those two major swing states.

I suppose Dean is counting on the fact that only Democrtatic Primary voters would be "disenfranchised, and in the Fall they really won't sit home or bolt the Party.

10:47 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

RB says: "Thats not what I'm saying at all Allen. Barack has no major accomplishments in which to list Allen regardless of race"

Forget anything else, likes talk about The U.S. Senate!! U.S. Senator is "no major accomplishment?" Only 100 of these jobs are available. Yet, hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) aspire, dream, hope to become a U.S. Senator, and you say it's no great accomplishment???? Likes strike it from McCains resume also...Don't need no stinkin' Senators seat!

JMK states; "If I was Barack Obama, I would count myself as being extremely lucky that I fortunate enough to face two weak candidates in Allen Keyes and Hillary Clinton."
and....
"I rather be hired because I am best qualified for the job, not the best skin color for the job. That is what it all boils down to Allen."
and....
"How many "non whites" were running for the Republican Nomination Allen?"


It's funny you should mention Alan Keyes... He's "non-white"... He's run for quite a few political offices, an has never been elected to ANYTHING!

He's just as Black as the Black people in Maryland and Illinois, (who by the way, DID NOT vote for him). So, why would you even "fathom" that Black people are voting for Obama just because he's black? Alan Keyes is just as Black as you and me, yet he can't "catch a cold" from the Black community, let alone a vote. If it was all about being black, Michael Steele, Lynn Swan, Ken Blackwell, Thomas Stith and Keyes, would all being holding elected seats today!!

So why the mantra that blacks are only voting for Obama because he's Black?

I don't know about you, but I'm voting for the "Black Guy" in the presidential race!

http://www.americasrevival.com/

RB; "If Bobby Jinhahl run for the Republican nomination in 2012, you will not caught me writing that if he gets the nomination that "it's historic"

Maybe you wont', but those Americans of Indian descent will certainly "toot their horns." Hey, you'll get to call them racist too!!!

RB says; "Correct me if I am wrong Allen, but its Barack supporters that call whites racist if they dare criticize one thing about Obama that has nothing to do with race at all."

correcting.... Although "some" might, most Obama supporters do no such thing. You see what happened with Rev. Wright and Father Phleger. Did, or did not the media and conservative pundits critisize their rhetoric? Wright and Phleger were have been ostracized by voters and pundits on both sides of the political spectrum.

RB;"The supporters of white politicians tend to vote for them based on their political views not because they are white."

Two words.... David Duke...

8:42 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

fj says; "and not disenfranchise a million voter just so Obama could be called the nominee before the Superdelgates would have been forced to weigh in.
I'm for putting an asterix next to his name as the 1st black presidential nominee..."


No problem fj! The disenfranchised should be recognized.

Thus, every white male elected official after ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment up to...lets say 1964, shall bear an "asterix" by his or her name!

But why stop there... How about an asterix for every professional sport's record prior to blacks being allowed to participate? Why not an asterix for "anything" that non-whites and/or women were disenfranchised from after reconstruction!!!

9:12 AM  
Anonymous Dana said...

This was a demographically-driven campaign the whole way. Mr Obama was receiving upwards of 90% of the black vote, while Mrs Clinton was doing disproportionately well among white women. In South Carolina, the last primary with a while male candidate in it, John Edwards won the white male vote, Hillary Clinton won the white female vote, and Barack Obama won the black vote (male and female).

That's not Affirmative Action (a government program), but people voting in the manner which seems most in their interests.

Thing is, as our friends on the left have justified voting for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman, or Barack Obama because he's black, they have also justified white people voting for white candidates because they are white. And in the 2004 presidential election, 77% of the electorate was non-Hispanic white.

I still think back to the 1989 Virginia gubernatorial race. The three statewide Democrats (for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general) all had huge leads, approaching 20%, in the polls. Don Breyer and Mary Sue Terry won the latter two contests by just about the margin predicted, but Doug Wilder, the first elected black governor in the United States, wion by ½ of 1%, against a Republican who was so bad that even I couldn't vote for him.

It's real simple: a lot of Virginia Democrats were unwilling to say in public or tell the pollsters that they wouldn't vote for a black candidate, but once in the privacy of the voting booth, their beliefs came out.

My guess is that the same thing will happen here, though perhaps to a lesser extent: any state in which Mr Obama isn't leading by more than 5% stands a very good chance of being carried by John McCain.

9:58 AM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

P Allen"Forget anything else, likes talk about The U.S. Senate!! U.S. Senator is "no major accomplishment?" Only 100 of these jobs are available"


If Barack Obama would have beaten Jack Ryan for that Senate seat, we would have earned that seat and that would have been an accomplishment do doubt Allen. Obama was basically handed that Senate seat due to him facing an emergency out of town candidate in Allen Keyes who's name wasn't even on the ballots in the percents in Illinois to begin with. You can try to fluff it up all you like Allen. Obama's "win" was one step above him running for the senate against an uncontested opponent.

P Allen"
It's funny you should mention Alan Keyes... He's "non-white"... He's run for quite a few political offices, an has never been elected to ANYTHING!"

Thank You Allen, you just proved my point!!! Allen Keyes ran for several offices and never won any off them. That makes him a weak candidate. Yet Obama beat a proven weak candidate from another state. So Obama should put down as an "accomplishment" that he beaten a proven weak candidate from another state? In sports, a team is expected to win against weaker opponents, but they are judged on how good they are by beating the top notch opponents. Thats something obviously Obama has never done.

Obama"So, why would you even "fathom" that Black people are voting for Obama just because he's black"

Seeing the huge numbers of black Obama supporters don't even know where Obama stands on any issue, what does that say? Either they are overwhelmingly supporting Obama because of his race or because of his race. Remember Allen, I'm not making this up. I've seen it first hand. Black Obama supporters are saying that if non blacks don't vote for Obama, its because they are racists. So what does that say about black Obama supporters? They are saying that whites SHOULD VOTE FOR OBAMA to prove they AREN'T racists. Their own words prove my argument Allen.Race has overshadowed this election cycle from the media and Obama supporters. It's odd that Obama supporters can make race an issue against people who won't vote for Obama, yet when someone confronts them, then that person is labeled a racists for stating the obvious.

P Allen" Maybe you wont', but those Americans of Indian descent will certainly "toot their horns." Hey, you'll get to call them racist too!!!"

lol, you just don't get it Allen. If blacks want to "toot their horns" over obama, they are welcome to do it. The same people that toot their horn are going to vote for that candidate be it Jindahl or Obama for the obvious reason duh Allen. I base my support on the candidate, and his or her positions on the issues. I'm not a "race based" voter.

P Allen"So why the mantra that blacks are only voting for Obama because he's Black? "

Why would a so called educated black voter vote for a black candidate that they don't know anything on which he or she stands for Allen? Why can't black Obama supporters say what Obama's positin is on the issues Allen? I'm not a big fan of McCain, but even I know his positions on most if not all the issues. You just answered your own question with your Bobby Jindahl question. Blacks aren't "tooten their own horns" because of Obama's positions on the issues, so what is the other remaining factor in the equation Allen?

P Allen"The supporters of white politicians tend to vote for them based on their political views not because they are white."
Two words.... David Duke...

And the same can be said for supporters of black politicians allen. Let a white candidate try and run for mayor Detroit against a black candidate and see what the percentage of blacks will vote for the black candidate over the white candidate allen. Oh I forgot, race wouldn't have played a part in the white candidate losing 90% to 10% lol lol lol right allen ;-)

P Allen"correcting.... Although "some" might, most Obama supporters do no such thing. You see what happened with Rev. Wright and Father Phleger. Did, or did not the media and conservative pundits criticize their rhetoric"

Yes they did and rightfully so. They fools are suppose to represent rightousnes, they are disgraces to the christian faith. Funny how the congregation of Trinity was standing and cheering for a white guy trying to preach like he was black. I remember when Hillary, Bill and Al Gore went into black churches and their voices underwent a mysterious alteration and all of a sudden sounded black. The reall criticism should be directed towards the fools at Trinity and churches like them. Matter of fact, I'm going to do story on that in a few days. As for Phleger, he knew before he opened his mouth that what he said was being streamed on the internet for the world to see, yet he did it anyways. The same for Jerimiah Wright and the new pastor Otis Moss. Pundits didn't have to go out of their way to criticize the trash spew coming out of that so called church, all anyone had to do was type in the churches web address and hit live stream. I also recall that Phlegers disgraceful antics weren't about what Obama stands for but was about Hillary and Obama on "RACE"!! I also recall that the cult congregation was standing and cheering Phleger on. I'm sure the congregation of Trinity is going to vote for Obama because of his positions on stagflation and foreign policy intervention lol lol lol lol.

10:30 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

RB says;"You can try to fluff it up all you like Allen. Obama's "win" was one step above him running for the senate against an uncontested opponent."

Well "fluff" my pillow with a seat in the U.S. Senate...I'll take it! Even if it's a win by one vote, casted by a blind, cripple and crazy person voting for the first time in his life! I'll celebrate the "accomplishment" with pride and represent the state that elected me....WITH PRIDE!!!

RB; "Thank You Allen, you just proved my point!!! Allen Keyes ran for several offices and never won any off them. That makes him a weak candidate."

No, thank you!! Of course you're right, that's exactly the point. Keyes is not a weak candidate because he's Black. He's a weak candidate because...well, he's just weak! So you should agree then, that both Obama and Keyes, as politicians, stand on the merits of their candidacy and political views.

So that goes directly to my point that, Blacks don't vote for Black candidates simply on the merits of race. I'll grant you that race can be a factor, but that happens from all sides... black, white, Asian, Hispanic, whatever...

RB;"Either they are overwhelmingly supporting Obama because of his race or because of his race."
and....
"They are saying that whites SHOULD VOTE FOR OBAMA to prove they AREN'T racists. Their own words prove my argument Allen."


Question: "Are Whites voting for Obama to prove that they aren't racist?"

If THIER own words prove an argument, then YOUR own words apply to to answer the same exact question!!!

If whites were voting for Obama to "prove they aren't racists", epso-facto, the same would apply for ALAN KEYES!!! (weak candidate or not)

You've got more than just that one question to answer. Perhaps you should ask the question; "why do Black republicans tend to lose most elections they enter"? 2006 was supposedly the "Year of The Black Republican", yet they lost every statewide election that year.

I can only think of two Black republicans, in the last fifty years, who have been elected to congress (Watts and Franks). Both of them came from majority "white" districts.

Now, lets take off the "partisan" hats, and voice an unbiased opinion.

Question: Should we assume (according to your analysis) that Watts and Franks were elected by Whites that wanted to prove they weren't racists?

RB:,"It's odd that Obama supporters can make race an issue against people who won't vote for Obama, yet when someone confronts them, then that person is labeled a racists for stating the obvious."

Once again, in raw numbers more whites voted for Obama than blacks. In the J.C. Watts campaign the White vote was the only impetus for him to win. Just as you yourself cast your vote according to a candidates platform, ideals and principles, the vast majority of Whites, Democrat or Republican, do the exact same.

Thus, if "YOU" believe white Democrats are voting for a black candidate with the idea that they don't want to be called racist, the same applies to "all" whites who vote for black candidates.

Is there some "genetic" difference between White Democrats and White Republicans? No!! They vote their conscience like every other American. If the candidate addresses and espouses to your concerns, you vote for them.

Really Tyrone, the more you try to push that "talking-point" the more it appears to be saying; "White Democrats are literally stupid because they're voting for a Black man!"

RB says; "Let a white candidate try and run for mayor Detroit against a black candidate and see what the percentage of blacks will vote for the black candidate over the white candidate allen. Oh I forgot, race wouldn't have played a part in the white candidate losing 90% to 10% lol lol lol right allen ;-)"

Geoffrey Fieger had a good chance of winning the mayoral race in Detroit back in 1996. He had some personal family problems and chose not to enter the race. However, in 1998 he got 87% of the Detroit vote in the governors race.

http://www.fansoffieger.com/mayor.htm

RB; "In sports, a team is expected to win against weaker opponents, but they are judged on how good they are by beating the top notch opponents."

I typically ignore your "sporting team" analogies, yet I shoot this idea down once and for all....

Tyrone, in sport, two teams or individuals engage in a physical encounter, an encounter of strength, mental and physical stamina and endurance. Simply put...NO ONE "VOTES" FOR THE WINNER!!

Hell, if athletic events were decided by voters, the Detroit Lions would have a Super Bowl trophy...(at least one...)

1:03 PM  
Blogger Not2shabbe said...

'The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true, given the source, right?

The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, and 69 percent of the Country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In Essence, 2/3's of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.

So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ''What are we so unhappy about?''

Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7
Days a week?
& Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the
summer and heating in the winter?

Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?
Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time, and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the
Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?

Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?

I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough.

Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all, and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings.

Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.

This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?

Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the
world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most Blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

I know, I know. What about the President who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The President who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same President who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The President that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks?

The Commander-In Chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad?

Think about it...are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the 'Media' told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.

Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your Freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go.

They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general''
discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case
scenario, a''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.

So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want, but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds, it leads; and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by 'justifying' them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O. J. Simpson to write a book about 'how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way'...Insane!

Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.

We are among the most blessed people on Earth, and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative.

'With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides,
flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, 'Are we sure this is a good time to take God out
of the Pledge of Allegiance?'

Liberals it seems are good @ making some people believe that they're the one great hope for improving their lives, they use someone thats down
by putting them into the media and saying they understand what their going through, and that they will save them with more government policy's, all the liberal politicians care about is their power and their retirement ,because they don't live in the same day to dat world
God Bless all of America

2:45 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

JMK states; "If I was Barack Obama, I would count myself as being extremely lucky that I fortunate enough to face two weak candidates in Allen Keyes and Hillary Clinton."
and....
"I rather be hired because I am best qualified for the job, not the best skin color for the job. That is what it all boils down to Allen."
and....
"How many "non whites" were running for the Republican Nomination Allen?"
(PAA)
<
<
Actually I can't take credit for saying that....Tyronne said that...and winning a popularity contest/election isn't an accomplishment.

There is little turnover in Congress because of the districts are laregly drawn to make so many Democratic districts and so many Republican districts.

That's true even locally. In NYC it's hard to lose if you get the Democratic nomination, just as it's the reverse in many Upstate and Long Island communities.

Obama's legislative "achievements" are few and far between and his ideas are Carteresque.

Tax hikes always result in lower tax revenues for a very simple reason - People respond to incentives."

When across the board tax rates go up, those with higher incomes and more disposable income (that top 10% of income earners that already pay nearly 80% of all income taxes) DEFER more of their income.

Lower income people, with LESS disposable income CAN'T do that, so they pay all of those higher taxes and just have to suck it up.

Those with higher incomes and more disposable income simply DEFER more of that income in various tax deferred vehicles....and that's the RIGHT thing to do, both for themselves and their families and for the Country. So those higher income tax deferrers are actually being extremely patriotic when they defer more of their income tax deferred!

9:56 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

not2shabbe asks; "What are we so unhappy about?"

Ah…I think they answered that question…

The poll you cited asked specific questions. People were asked about "the direction" of the country, and the way the country was being ran.

Now, if they were asked if they liked their running water, air-conditioning, cell phones, supermarkets, and freedom of passage through out the country,ect.., and said they were unhappy about having such comforts and conveniences...then, I would say there was indeed a problem...

Do you have a family? Have you ever had your spouse or kids say they were "unhappy" or complain about something they did not like within the household? Were you willing to hear the complaint, discuss the situation, and attempt to quell the matter in a peaceful and/or democratic manner?

Basically, that's the way our country works!

Or, are you stead-fast in your views that complaints aren't warranted, and that the family should thank you for a roof, food and clothing and keep their mouths shut...

That's the way a "dictatorship" works!

I make no bones about it, I LOVE LIVING IN THE GOOD OLE' USA!! I wouldn't trade my citizenship for no other country in the world!

It's a wonderful thing that we can voice our "displeasure" with government, and then exercise the right to promote "CHANGE". Isn't it just wonderful how we can do it in a peacefully and orderly manner?

not2shabbe;"Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks?"

Whoa.... I hear this "talking-point" way to much. It's okay to say you support the president and his policies, but to claim that "he" alone is responsible for preventing a terrorist attack is just plain dumb. If you believe Bush, as the commander and chief, is responsible for preventing a terrorist attack, then who should be held responsible for not preventing 9/11?

The Bush supporters constantly revel in the idea that Clinton had a chance to "knock-off" Bin-Laden and blew the opportunity. So, the Bush administration "KNEW" that the terrorist were out there plotting.

The fact is, Bush learned a lesson. It's no different than if you went into a neighborhood that "you" knew was known for assaults. You venture off into the area, and get assaulted! The smartest thing you can do is DONT GO THERE AGAIN! Now, how much credit should I give you for not getting your butt kicked a second time?

not2shabbe; "Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your Freedom."

Oh boy...

Afghanistan is where the terrorist were living. Thus, attack em' where they live. Kick ass and take names! I hold those who serve in the military with the highest regard.

Yet, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or the terrorist attacks on America. Prior to the Iraq invasion, not one Iraqi had set foot on American soil and terrorized one American. NEITHER YOURS, NOR MY "FREEDOM" HAS EVER BEEN THREATENED BY AN IRAQI!

Furthermore, Americans, by and large, are not oblivious to what "ails" them. An unnecessary war has caused huge increases in oil prices, which in turn has caused huge increases in the cost of living.

not2shabbe;"Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad."

Burn all the books!!! Report un-American activities to your inquisitorial officers!!! Whats next, an autocratic America?? State controlled press???

11:47 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

"The fact is, Bush learned a lesson. It's no different than if you went into a neighborhood that "you" knew was known for assaults. You venture off into the area, and get assaulted! The smartest thing you can do is DONT GO THERE AGAIN! Now, how much credit should I give you for not getting your butt kicked a second time?" (PAA)
<
<
Yikes! This isn't only an invidious, but an absolutely idiotic analogy!

G W Bush was NOT like some private citizen who COULD decide not to go to a given "bad area," though THAT's NOT the anwer anyway....even on an individual basis, but he was, if you were to use such an analogy, the Mayor of a city like NY, who has had a cop killed in a given area.

Did America abandon or "NOT GO THERE" in relation to downtown Manhattan?

Is that NOW A-rab territory?

Of course not! Tens of thousands of firefighters, police and automatic weapons carrying National Guardsmen swarmed that are post-9/11.

Did we abandon the Mid-East, or "NOT GO THERE?"

Of course NOT!

We "broke bad on them! As soon as Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded, Pakistan threw in with the U.S., Libya dismantled its budding nuclear program and made clear its non-aggression stance, Syria quaked.

In short, the Bush administration acted like any good Mayor of a city were a cop was killed, that is, he acted more like an EFFECTIVE Mayor (a Guiliani) and less like an INEFFECTIVE Mayor (a Dinkins).

When a cop was attacked in NYC, Dinkins would seek to TALK with the people, focus on "root causes" and trying to move on to a better relationship between the police and the residents, as opposed to focusing on LOCKING DOWN that neighborhood, finding the perps and bringing them to justice to "make examples out of them."

I don't know how familiar you are with NYC, but I worked in the South Bronx for two decades (1985 -2005) and the general consensus in virtually EVERY neighborhood in that city is that Rudy Guiliani SAVED countless minority lives by aggressively handling crime.

Guiliani and Bratton knew that inner city thugs are cowards, these are not folks like those organized crime figures devoted to criminal ENTERPRISE, these are merely dipshits who engage in random, senseless acts of violence, simple "crimes of opportunity," almost always perpetrated upon the residents of their own communities, although it would be as bad or worse IF they had the forethought to focus on attacking those from "outside those areas."

Crime dropped drastically under Giuliani, in response to his show of force, just as it had risen precipitously under Dinkins due to his showing "respect"/deference.

Giuliani's and Bratton's methods WORKED, while David Dinkins' methods did not.

It's the same with a bank. I used to repossess cars before I got on the FDNY and did it for awhile when I first got on. It's actually a good way to make some decent money.

Do banks write off, or "NOT GO THERE" when a large number of people default on car loans, etc?

Of course NOT!

They send in a slew of repossessors who take back that property. It's supposed to be taken back "under stealth and without confrontation," but I can attest that's rarely done. Most of the cars that my partner and I "ripped" were right out of the hands of the people who defaulted and you know what I found?

Yeah, the same thing Bill Bratton found out early on, that 99% of the people aren't going to fight you, they don't want a physical confrontation of any kind, so all you have to do is present yourself as WANTING that confrontation, of WANTING a physical fight and 99% of the people will back down.

That's why Bill Bratton is a superlative Police Chief, Rudy Guiliani perhaps NYC's greatest 20th Century Mayor and why the Bush administration DOES get credit for the fact that there have been NO/ZERO attacks on American soil since 2001.

The Patriot Act, NSA eavesdropping and increased surveillance by various policing agencies, helped by information sharing between agencies like the CIA and FBI are largely what has kept America safe from terrorist attack.

Ironically enough it's the Liberal Dems who've opposed the Patriot Act, the NSA wiretaps, and other such measures that have proven effective in the War on Terror.

11:36 AM  
Blogger FJ said...

P. anthony.

Learn what the word "dis-enfranchised" means next time before trying to call cases of "enfranchisement" dis-enfranchisement.

Nobody EVER attempted to disenfranchise African American voters except through intimidation.

America has always been a case of "expanding enfranchisement". After the American Revolution, un-propertied white men could NOT vote in NYC. They weren't "enfranchised until the 1830's. African-American males got the vote a mere 35 years later. And all females got it in the 20's.

Disenfranchisement means to TAKE AWAY the right to vote.

That means that the Democratic Party no longer works to enfranchise the masses, it works to CUT THEM OFF. As such, it's moving in the wrong direction.

12:46 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

“If you believe Bush, as the commander and chief, is responsible for preventing a terrorist attack, then who should be held responsible for not preventing 9/11?” (PAA)


WE (the American people are)...in 1993, in the wake of the first WTC bombing, America’s MSM reported what James Fox (then head of the FBI’s NY Office) said, “America’s criminal justice system is inadequate to the task of dealing with state sponsored international terrorism.”

That was the official END of terrorism being treated as a “criminal justice” problem as James Fox (at the time, America’s leading domestic terror expert) effectively declared an UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER on the part of America’s criminal justice system. Yet, the American people not only didn’t clamor for “an all-out war against the jihadists,” we virtually INSISTED that they be ignored as so many of us were into the dot-com boom at the time. Not me, I wanted to re-enter Iraq right after the first WTC attacks in 1993!

Still, after that first WTC attack, TWO American embassies in Africa were bomber, the USS Cole was attacked, the Kobalt Towers in Saudi Arabia were bombed...each and every one of those were SINGULAR acts of war against the United States.

That’s what terrorism IS, “Unconventional warfare carried out by de facto “soldiers” without uniforms, directed against civilian populations.”

It wasn’t that the government WANTED to ignore this growing war against America and American interests, in fact, Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998. Both he and Hillary Clinton rightly supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003. They understood, as most people who read anything on the subject that (1) Saddam’s Iraq apparently had little if anything to do with 9/11, (2) Saddam Hussein was a rogue state terror supporter, and (3) Saddam’s Iraq had al Qaeda camps within its borders PRE-9/11 and cooperated WITH al Qaeda AGAINST a common enemy – the Kurds.

The fact is that 9/11/01 is NOT the basis for the War on Terror (WoT), if it were then the current WoT SHOULD’VE BEEN a criminal justice one and the Patriot Act COULD BE considered superfluous overkill...and the Liberal view would have some merit.

Of course, I’m aware of absolutely no valid opinions (that is, opinions from people who have any actual expertise in the matter – law enforcement, First Responders, military or Intelligence sources) that see 9/11/01 as the focus of the WoT. It was a mere “triggering event,” an incident so large that the American people took notice and the view that “the American criminal justice can not deal with state sponsored, international terrorism, making that terrorism a military matter going forward,” became overwhelmingly accepted by the folks.

The military WoT abroad was rightfully consigned to the U.S. military, while the domestic WoT was given over to law enforcement and the DHS. Dozens of domestic attacks have been stifled and most of the jihadists have been focused on fighting either in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Regardless, America has NOT been attacked since 9/11/01 and the credit for that goes to the DHS, the Patriot Act and the many other things the current administration has done.

3:00 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

fj responds;"Disenfranchisement means to TAKE AWAY the right to vote."

then fj explains;

"Disenfranchisement means to TAKE AWAY the right to vote."

but wait... fj asked, then stated;

"Do you think the Michigan and Florida debacle was an affirmative action lowering of the bar? I would have let the candidates slug it out at the convention, and not disenfranchise a million voter, ect..."

Because I live in Michigan, I'll ask "YOU", who's "right to vote" was taken away in Michigan? I voted during in the presidential primary in Michigan...

Did you, or did you not say, that a "million voters should NOT" be disenfranchised? Seeing that you said it, perhaps both of us don't know what the word means...

I'll explain...

First off, the Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that no government in the United States may prevent a male citizen from voting based on that citizen's race, color, or previous condition of servitude (former slaves)and ratified on February 3, 1870.

Yet, blacks in many parts of this country were denied to vote. Jim Crow Laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, Eight Box Law, Grandfather clause...what ever!!! It's all disfranchisement!!!

fj OXYMORA;"Nobody EVER attempted to disenfranchise African American voters except through intimidation

Duuuhhhhhhh?

Oh, oh, I get what you mean... thats a "open secrect", right? Did it take "two people working together alone" to come up with that one? No, better still, I'm going to make some "original copies" of that statement and take it "down to that place on the upper-east side." Oh, wait I forgot, "no one goes there anymore, it’s always too crowded!"

Nobody attempted, but yet "sombody" did through..-add any verb or transitive verb here ?????? I bet you did'nt even realize what you said/wrote...

2:30 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

"Because I live in Michigan, I'll ask "YOU", who's "right to vote" was taken away in Michigan?" (PAA)
<
<
Try and think out some of your points before you make them PAA!

Florida's and Michigan's delgates were not going to be seated, according to DNC rules and that means those votes wouldn't COUNT, or to be precise, were "taken away FROM those voters."

The Democratic Party has since, allowed the Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated with HALF VOTES, meaning that HALF the votes of those states were NOT COUNTED...or taken away.

Sad, but true.

11:37 AM  
Blogger FJ said...

Yet, blacks in many parts of this country were denied to vote. Jim Crow Laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, Eight Box Law, Grandfather clause...what ever!!! It's all disfranchisement!!!

Those laws were in place before blacks started voting. WHITE PEOPLE COULDN"T VOTE for those VERY SAME REASONS in 1830's New York and beyond. That's what Tammany Hall was all about, registering property-less white men on property deeds as hundreds of co-owners until they'd qualified enough voters to get the damn "property requirements" repealled so that EVERYONE could vote. Access to the vote has been widened and widened ever since to the point that they only limit now is that children and metics can't vote.

And yes, the Florida and Michigan people voted, but the vote results did NOT translate into the "representation" voted FOR. They took away the votes of a million people (disenfranchised them) and substituted Howard Dean and a committee for them.

Nobody ever EXCEPT... LOL! Learn to read. Now we can add the DNC to the exceptions list and thievery to the previous charge of intimidation. At least before now, if you voted, your vote counted for something. Now they just throw out your vote, and give you what THEY want. So why vote in the first place? That's not democracy. That's tyranny.

11:51 AM  
Blogger JMK said...

"First off, the Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that no government in the United States may prevent a male citizen from voting based on that citizen's race, color, or previous condition of servitude (former slaves)and ratified on February 3, 1870.

"Yet, blacks in many parts of this country were denied to vote. Jim Crow Laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, Eight Box Law, Grandfather clause...what ever!!! It's all disfranchisement!!!" (PAA)
<
<
Actually, fj's point is correct in that no one was denied the vote by statute (law).

Moreover, voter intimidation was widespred and used against most groups in teh United States.

In the, what I call "the good'ole days" when Tammany Hall ran NYC like a fiefdom, my Dad had an uncle, who was a 6'8" dock foreman (at a time when you became foreman by throwing the reigning foreman off the pier) and a "District Boss" for Tammany.

When election day came, one of his and other "District Bosses" was to "make sure the people voted the right (Tammany) way and that was done by both making sure none of the Tammany voters would stay home and none of the opposition voters made it to the polls. That was generally accomplished on both ends with some degree of physical intimidation.

As James Walker ("Gentleman Jimmy Walker", NYC's Mayor from 1926 - 1932) was fond of saying. "Democracy is highly overrated."

As corrupt as the Tammany Hall system was, it worked...at keeping the people working, and both employees (workers) and employers) business paid "tribute" to the Democratic Party through its Tammany Hall HQ.

America is a REPUBLIC NOT a democracy.

In a democracy, 51% of the people could (theoretically) vote to enslave, expell or exterminate the other 49%....or even worse, the majority (the poor, the less educated and the less successful) COULD vote to redistribute the wealth of, say, the "richest" 10% of Americans.

Thankfully, in a Republic, a Constitution (like ours) makes that impossible. In short, the Constitution serves to thwart the democratic will of the people by limiting government powers.

12:45 PM  
Blogger Forty_Two said...

The unspoken paradox here is that few who possess the intelligence to be a good president want anything to do with the job.

8:39 PM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

I remember hearing from "second hand" account of blacks that were suppositely "intimidate" from voting in Florida back in 2000. The odd thing is that I don't ever recall a single black person that ever came forward and said it actually happened. Even the NAACP couldn't no no voter intimidate, and they are a major flunky group for the Democrat Party.

1:14 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

JMK babbles; "Try and think out some of your points before you make them PAA!"

Perhaps you should read "everything" before saying "anything" JMK!

fj said, "Disenfranchisement means to TAKE AWAY the right to vote."

Which is correct.

I countered his "adding an asterix to Obama's name" comment by saying that, if Obama's candidacy was flawed by disenfranchised voters, then any elected official where poll taxes, literacy tests, Eight Box Laws, Grandfather clauses, intimidation or what ever prevented people from voting, an asterix should apply there also!

fj replied; "Learn what the word "dis-enfranchised" means next time before trying to call cases of "enfranchisement" dis-enfranchisement.

Nobody EVER attempted to disenfranchise African American voters except through intimidation"


Just so happens that the 15th amendement granted all men the "right to vote." After the Civil war it was made clear that federal law overrides state law.

Question: At any time "post" the 15th amendment, were blacks denied the right to due to Jim Crow, poll taxes, literacy tests, Eight Box Laws, Grandfather clauses or intimidation? If so, would you consider it disenfranchisement?

What he's attempting to do is prove a moot point by selectively applying the meaning, and parsing the term.

Simply put, my analogy was correct. People were disenfranchised after the 15th amendment, as those who were by the Democratic party's decision. Albeit in a different manner, disenfranchised just the same.

Bottom line, fj made an utterly ridiculous oxymora statement. It appears he just said it for the sake of arguing a moot point. Nobody did except the somebody's who did????

Alright then... Nobody was disenfranchised in Michigan, except those who did'nt have their votes counted...

Gimmme a break...

12:58 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

You just contradicted yourself...and the statement of YOURS I responded to.

Now you say; "fj said, "Disenfranchisement means to TAKE AWAY the right to vote."

"Which is correct." (PAA)

BUT, FIRST you said;

"Because I live in Michigan, I'll ask "YOU", who's "right to vote" was taken away in Michigan?"

The answer to that remains;

"Try and think out some of your points before you make them PAA!

"Florida's and Michigan's delgates were not going to be seated, according to DNC rules and that means those votes wouldn't COUNT, or to be precise, were "taken away FROM those voters."

"The Democratic Party has since, allowed the Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated with HALF VOTES, meaning that HALF the votes of those states were NOT COUNTED...or taken away."

"Sad, but true."

Yup...by NOT counting the votes and seating the MI and FL delegates, the Democratic Party DID INDEED disenfranchise (take away) the votes of all those people.

FJ is correct on that point.

11:50 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

JMK, are you angry about something, or do you actually think you're making a point?

READ THE "ENTIRE" POST!!!!

If you read the entire post you'll notice the primary issues!

First, the post and question, was addressed to fj. Second, the entire post was meant (as stated repeatedly) to address the "OXYMORON" and the idea that his statement made no sense. Third, my "ENTIRE" question is as stated;

"Because I live in Michigan, I'll ask "YOU", who's "right to vote" was taken away in Michigan? I voted during in the presidential primary in Michigan..."

which in fact is what I posed as a "BAITED" question. I further baited the question by telling him I voted. Every one here knows that I am a Democrat, so who else would I vote for.

If you would have allowed fj to answer for himself, i'm 100% sure he would have stated "the Democrats" or something to that effect.

My responce would have been;

Alright then, "SOMEBODY", actually was disenfranchised, any many were African American, contrary to his belief that "NOBODY EVER" attempted to disenfranchise African American voters, and no "intimidation" was necessary!

This entire conversation started because I questioned his idea about adding an "asterix" to Obama's candidacy. I made a simple analogy to Blacks who had been previously disenfranchised, further adding that they had their right to vote taken away also.

JMK mutters;"You just contradicted yourself...and the statement of YOURS I responded to."

and

"Try and think out some of your points before you make them PAA!"

JMK, if you read the entire post, I'm sure that you (being the "smart" guy you are) you would have known exactly what I was saying."


Instead you're attempting to "one up" me for some reason. You know damn well my question does not contradict the statement. If the statement is true, (which I acknowledged) how can a question of "who did" contradict the statement? It can't, all I did was ask WHO???

You should read and think before attempting to make "this" point!!

2:11 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Something is really strange here...

I said; "Yet, blacks in many parts of this country were denied to vote. Jim Crow Laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, Eight Box Law, Grandfather clause...what ever!!! It's all disfranchisement!!!"

fj replied; "Those laws were in place before blacks started voting."

There's two ways to interpret his statement. That statement, at face value and for the way it is phrased, is ambiguous at best. Therefore, the statement;

1. Does not address my comment in any way, thus, it makes no sense!

Sure the blacks had not "started" voting, because THE LAWS PROHIBITED THEM TO VOTE!

2. If it was meant to say that; "Jim Crow Laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, The Eight Box Law and Grandfather clauses, were in place "before" blacks were granted the constitutional (1870 XV amendment)right to vote, HE'S DEAD WRONG!

The first Jim Crow Law was enacted in Tennessee in 1875.

fj says; "WHITE PEOPLE COULDN"T VOTE for those VERY SAME REASONS in 1830's New York and beyond. That's what Tammany Hall was all about"

Oh my....

It's now about 4:35am, and I'm not up to doing any research on the antics of Tammany Hall politicians. Off the cuff, I do know that Aaron Burr, vice-president under Jefferson, was a Tammany Hall leader. I believe that was in 1801, almost 30 years before.

Perhaps you can enlightened me to these "white" people that were disfranchised?

5:38 AM  
Blogger JMK said...

I'm not angery at all.

It seems YOU'RE a might confused.

You asserted that NO ONE was "disenfranchised in MI and FL.

You said that in response to fj saying that they were disenfranchised.

In FACT fj is RIGHT!

The Democratic Party initially refused to seat the delegates from those two states...meaning those votes from those two states didn't count.

Howard Dean and the Dems have since agreed to sit HALF the delegates from those two states...AGAIN, only half the votes of those two states COUNTED.

That's a fact.

There's really no other way of looking at that.

12:11 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

"fj says; "WHITE PEOPLE COULDN"T VOTE for those VERY SAME REASONS in 1830's New York and beyond. That's what Tammany Hall was all about" (fj)
<
<
"I'm not up to doing any research on the antics of Tammany Hall politicians. Off the cuff, I do know that Aaron Burr, vice-president under Jefferson, was a Tammany Hall leader. I believe that was in 1801, almost 30 years before.

"Perhaps you can enlightened me to these "white" people that were disfranchised?"
<
<
Once AGAIN fj is RIGHT!

Tammany Hall (the HQ of the NY Democratic Party) had a long and very checkered history that stretched well into the middle of the 20th Century, in that city.

As I noted above, "Moreover, voter intimidation was widespred and used against most groups in the United States.

"In the, what I call "the BAD'ole days" (I'd previously used the tongue-in cheek "good'ole days") when Tammany Hall ran NYC like a fiefdom, my Dad had an uncle, who was a 6'8" dock foreman (at a time when you became foreman by throwing the reigning foreman off the pier) and a "District Boss" for Tammany.

"When election day came, one of his and other "District Bosses" DUTIES was to "make sure the people voted the right (Tammany) way and that was done by both making sure none of the Tammany voters would stay home and none of the opposition voters made it to the polls. That was generally accomplished on both ends with some degree of physical intimidation.

"As James Walker ("Gentleman Jimmy Walker", NYC's Mayor from 1926 - 1932 and a notorious Tammany leader) was fond of saying. "Democracy is highly overrated."

I also said that "as corrupt as the Tammany Hall system was, it worked...at keeping the people working, and both employees (workers) and employers) business paid "tribute" to the Democratic Party through its Tammany Hall HQ," and it DID "work," in so far as it kept an "established order, but it was incredibly correct and horrifically brutal in its applications.

12:26 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

I noted above what Mayor Walker said about democracy, "Democracy is highly overrated."

That probably sounded like a blanket criticism, but Walker was basically correct BECAUSE, America is a REPUBLIC NOT a democracy.

In a democracy, 51% of the people could (theoretically) vote to enslave, expell or exterminate the other 49%....or even worse, the majority (the poor, the less educated and the less successful) COULD vote to redistribute the wealth of, say, the "richest" 10% of Americans....same thing, the majority (poor and less educated) COULD vote to enslave the wealthy and well-educated.

Thankfully, in a Republic, a Constitution (like ours) makes that impossible. In short, the Constitution serves to thwart the democratic will of the people by limiting government powers.

12:30 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

TYPO:

"and it DID "work," in so far as it kept an "established order, but it was incredibly corrupt and horrifically brutal in its applications.

7:45 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

JMK;"You asserted that NO ONE was "disenfranchised in MI and FL."

ASSERTED????

assert: transitive verb- to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively.

Now you're calling me a "liar"!!

Find a sentence, any sentence where I "asserted" and posted that NO ONE was disenfranchised in MI and FL.

Once again.... My question was
(which by the way was posed to "fj", NOT "JMK")

"Because I live in Michigan, I'll ask "YOU", who's "right to vote" was taken away in Michigan? I voted during in the presidential primary in Michigan... "

(take notice I put the word "YOU" in quotation marks in the original post question! Furthermore, I intentionally did not use Florida in the question. So how could I have "asserted" MI and FL?)

If I believed, thought, had the opinion or were "asserting" that NO ONE was disenfranchised in MI and FL, I would have SAID IT!

If you read the entire post, use common sense, read it in it's correct context, there's no way you could come up with that idea.

Earlier on this thread I posted this comment to RB;

P Allen;"What you're saying is that Obama should not be proud of his accomplishments "because he's Black."

to which Tyrone replied;

"Thats not what I'm saying at all Allen."

Did I claim Tyrone "asserted" the idea? Or, did I "assume" what he was saying? When he clarified his position, I accepted it as that. I might still have my own beliefs, as he has his. Either way, I did'nt "assert" or "accuse" him of saying something he did not!

I've been posting here for some time now. JMK, you have been reading my post's and have commented, opined, disagreed and in some instances, attempt to refute my allegations and opinions with long-winded diatribes.

At no time on this blog have I EVER made a statement and then turned away from it as though I did not say it. I even took the time to look at some of my previous post's from past threads, to see if I implied, or even "joked" about disenfranchisement. The only thing I could come up is a question that Eric asked on Tyrone's essay from January 9, 2008 entitled;
"The untold reason for Barack Obama's win in Iowa Part 2."

Frankly, I do think that you're an intelligent person.

Yet, what you're doing at this point is very disrepectful, if not, very telling of your personality, a very childish personality.

I typically dont call people "liar's" on weblogs.

JMK, your claim that I "asserted" something along that line is a LIE! It's a LIE because you know I did not make that claim.

You're angry because I caught you in a lie. You lied about Carter enacting deinstitutionalization in the 1970's. When I "proved" to you that the policy was not "enacted" by Carter, you obviously could'nt take being caught in your lie. Instead of admitting you were wrong and moving on, you've chose to accuse me of saying something I did not say.

Any responce other than proof that I "asserted that MI and FL were disenfranchised" is not necessary.

12:02 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Ohhhh. I just noticed something. In my first posted reponse to fj, I accidently pasted his statement, "Disenfranchisement means to TAKE AWAY the right to vote", twice. Excuse the error, because I don't typically re-read what I've posted unless someone "accuses" me of lying...

It should read as follows;

fj responds;"Disenfranchisement means to TAKE AWAY the right to vote."

then fj explains;

"Nobody EVER attempted to disenfranchise African American voters except through intimidation"

but wait... fj asked, then stated;

"Do you think the Michigan and Florida debacle was an affirmative action lowering of the bar? I would have let the candidates slug it out at the convention, and not disenfranchise a million voter, ect..."

Because I live in Michigan, I'll ask "YOU", who's "right to vote" was taken away in Michigan? I voted during in the presidential primary in Michigan...

Did you, or did you not say, that a "million voters should NOT" be disenfranchised? Seeing that you said it, perhaps both of us don't know what the word means...

I'll explain...

First off, the Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that no government in the United States may prevent a male citizen from voting based on that citizen's race, color, or previous condition of servitude (former slaves)and ratified on February 3, 1870.

Yet, blacks in many parts of this country were denied to vote. Jim Crow Laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, Eight Box Law, Grandfather clause...what ever!!! It's all disfranchisement!!!

fj OXYMORA;"Nobody EVER attempted to disenfranchise African American voters except through intimidation

Duuuhhhhhhh?

Oh, oh, I get what you mean... thats a "open secrect", right? Did it take "two people working together alone" to come up with that one? No, better still, I'm going to make some "original copies" of that statement and take it "down to that place on the upper-east side." Oh, wait I forgot, "no one goes there anymore, it’s always too crowded!"

Nobody attempted, but yet "sombody" did through..-add any verb or transitive verb here ?????? I bet you did'nt even realize what you said/wrote...

9:10 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

"Find a sentence, any sentence where I "asserted" and posted that NO ONE was disenfranchised in MI and FL." (PAA)
<
<
OK, how's this..."Because I live in Michigan, I'll ask "YOU", who's "right to vote" was taken away in Michigan? I voted during in the presidential primary in Michigan..." (PAA)....Yup, with that you asserted/implied that no one's vote was taken away in Michigan and you said attempting to refute fj's assertion that the voters in BOTH MI and FL were indeed disenfranchised by Howard Dean and the Dems, which of course, they were.

The Democratic votes in BOTH FL and MI weren't counted until Dean arranged a half-assed "compromise" that counted HALF the votes!
<
<
"I've been posting here for some time now. JMK, you have been reading my post's and have commented, opined, disagreed and in some instances, attempt to refute my allegations and opinions with long-winded diatribes." (PAA)
<
<
Actually, I've refuted every one of the opinions of yours that I've disagreed with. I'm sorry if the copious amounts of information and links to outside proofs were tough on your eyes, but I suspect that it's not eye strain you're really complaining about...it's the ego-deflating reality of having the falsehoods that are the foundation of many of your arguments revealed.
<
<
I showed you numerous reports that proved the acceleration of DEINSTITUIONALIZATIOn under Carter...I also showed you quite clearly that it was the a LIBERAL cause and that the ACLU sued for it in many states.

I also asserted the Conservative viewpoint that Reagan was right to sign onto the deinstituionalization legislation passed by California's Democratic Congress and then NOT deliver the additional funding for all the outpatient care and treatment.

Reagan told that legislature that he would ONLY pass the cost-cutting aspects of those Bills and would NOT burden the already beleagured California taxpayers with additional expenses that would require tax hikes.

Reagan was RIGHT to do that, in my and many Conservative's view.

Why is that at all difficult for you to understand?

12:13 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Liars never cease to amaze me!

JMK hangs on;"Yup, with that you asserted/implied that no one's vote was taken away in Michigan and you said attempting to refute fj's assertion"

So now its "asserted/implied"????

"Assert" and "imply" aren't even synonyms!! Is this some kind of new brand of deception, where words are now interchangeable?? How much more ridiculous are you going to get?? Okay, whats the new word for "LIAR"? How about JMK!

George Bush "JMK'ed" to the UN about WMD's to get the USA into a WoT!!

JMK changes his own wording;"I showed you numerous reports that proved the acceleration of DEINSTITUIONALIZATIOn under Carter."

And now it's "acceleration" instead of "enacted". Grasping for that last bit of credibility JMK? Much to late ole' man. Any one can read what you've already said.
Sad but true...

(I can see that "huge" lump in your throat from here...lol)

The only thing you've proved is that you're a "bad liar"....lol

I told you to read my reponse to a question that Eric asked on Tyrone's essay from January 9, 2008entitled; "The untold reason for Barack Obama's win in Iowa Part 2."
Eric asked me specifically would I be staying home because I was disenfranchised by the DNC. I could have easily stated at that time that I was not being disenfranchised!! Instead, I joked about voting non-committed Republican.

I explained why I asked the question, yet you insist upon calling me a liar by saying that I was "asserting" something else.

I stand by my "assertion" that I never stated MI and FL were not disenfranchised, which anyone with good sense can see and read for themselves. I am not the liar JMK, you are!

You know whats so good about debating liars on a weblog? It's the fact that "everyone" can read, and then re-read, what was said.

It has become obvious to me that your decadence of principle and self-rightousness does not permit you to acquiesce. It's really a shame you live your life in such a manner...

1:49 AM  
Blogger JMK said...

"Assert" and "imply" aren't even synonyms!!" (PAA)
<
<
Actually, they ARE.

Whether asserted in a declarative sentence or implied via a rhetorical question (""Because I live in Michigan, I'll ask "YOU", who's "right to vote" was taken away in Michigan? I voted during in the presidential primary in Michigan...") YOU stated (asserted) that there was no voter disenfranchisement in either FL or MI...and that's UNTRUE.

The FACTS say that the delegates of those states weren't to be counted, thus those votes DIDN'T count.

The last minute deal by Howard Dean that seated only HALF those delegates, still disenfranchised the voters in those two states.

The facts say fj was RIGHT and YOU were wrong on that point.

Every time you're caugh in a position counter to the facts you retreat to a lame semantic argument.

10:42 AM  
Blogger JMK said...

“I would have let the candidates slug it out at the convention, and not disenfranchise a million voters…” (fj)
<
<
“Because I live in Michigan, I'll ask "YOU", who's "right to vote" was taken away in Michigan? I voted during in the presidential primary in Michigan...” (PAA)

With that rhetorical question, you, in fact asserted that you believed no voters were disenfranchised in MI. That’s what “I voted during in the presidential primary in Michigan,” clearly asserts by implication.
<
<
“I stand by my "assertion" that I never stated MI and FL were not disenfranchised…” (PAA)

So now you’re retreating to a lame semantic argument that goes, “I didn’t ASSERT it, I merely IMPLIED it?”

Same difference. You said the above to counter fj’s assertion that about a million voters in FL and MI were indeed disenfranchised.
<
<
“You know whats so good about debating liars on a weblog? It's the fact that "everyone" can read, and then re-read, what was said.” (PAA)

Now that’s very true.

I’m very interested in ANY actual facts you might present, sadly you seem to specialize in innuendo, conjecture and semantics in lieu of actual facts.

In one post you erroneously asserted that Friedrich Nietzsche was a “socialist,” which is demonstrably untrue and I offered a number of quotes that showed that.

I also offered articles and links that showed that Reagan signed into law a Bill passed by CA’s state legislature and he did so restricting it to a cost-cutting measure. Deinstitutionalization was opposed by Conservatives and fought by Liberal groups like the ACLU which sued many state governments for that.

Although you’ve failed to take issue with ANY of those facts, you certainly seem to have a problem with them as “angry” facts.

Facts are inanimate things PAA, and as such don’t have emotions, so there’s really no such thing as an “angry fact.” Unless you object to the way I offer them???

I’d have to leave that to others, but I don’t perceive any anger, or even annoyance in my delivery...

1:27 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Unbelievable; "Assert" and "imply" aren't even synonyms!!" (PAA)

Actually, they ARE"


This is scary... I truly believe I'm debating a mad-man...

This is how I replied to fj from the outset of this entire debacle;

"No problem fj! The disenfranchised should be recognized."

I "asserted" that the disenfranchised of MI and FL be recognized. Why would I change my position just a couple of post's later?

Damn shame that you could lose a debate, and then lose your mind...

10:18 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

"I "asserted" that the disenfranchised of MI and FL be recognized. Why would I change my position just a couple of post's later?" (PAA)
<
<
Uhhhh, I don't know. That's what I initially asked.

After all, I'm not the one who said, "Because I live in Michigan, I'll ask "YOU", who's "right to vote" was taken away in Michigan? I voted during in the presidential primary in Michigan...”

I do know that the answer to the above rhetorical question is, "Everyone's vote in MI was disenfranchised by Howard Dean and the Democrats who'd refused to seat those delegates."

Counting half the votes/seating half the delegates is a very weak half-measure...no pun intended.

All I've done is asked you to explain that particular curious statement (rhetorical question). You first used an erroneous semantic argument ("I never asserted...") then you erroneously claimed that assert and imply "aren't even synonyms,"...Well, how's this;

From Merriam Webster’s Dictionary:

IMPLY:

2) to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement (ie. rights imply obligations).

3) to contain potentially

4) to assert indirectly (ie. his silence implied consent).

Now you retreat even further....but why?

You DID respond to fj with that very odd rhetorical question; "Because I live in Michigan, I'll ask "YOU", who's "right to vote" was taken away in Michigan? I voted during in the presidential primary in Michigan?”

I didn't realize that defending that statement would prove so embarrassingly difficult for you.

That was clearly not my intention.

8:10 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Adding "your own words" to a Merriam Webster definition further proves my point. It's not funny or cute anymore...honestly, it's scary...

Here is the actual definition in it's entirety, "copied and pasted", directly from Merriam Websters web site.

For those who would like to see for themselves;

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imply

imply
One entry found.

imply

Main Entry: im·ply
Pronunciation: \im-ˈplī\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): im·plied; im·ply·ing
Etymology: Middle English emplien, from Anglo-French emplier to entangle — more at employ
Date: 14th century
1obsolete : enfold, entwine
2: to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement -rights imply obligations-
3: to contain potentially
4: to express indirectly -his silence implied consent-

JMK changed the wording in the #4 entry, from "express" indirectly, to "assert" indirectly.

This is has become the sickest debate I have had on this site as of this date. A Machiavellian attempt by a man who's become so disheartened by mere conversation that would stoop so low that he actually "changes" the wording of Merriam Webster's dictionary... is just pitiful...

Yet, I look forward to commenting here and further debate with everyone else during this election season. Gear up Tyrone, it's Obama vs. McCain til November!!

12:21 AM  
Blogger JMK said...

"This is has become the sickest debate I have had on this site as of this date." (PAA)
<
<
There hasn't been any debate, PAA.

I initially called you on your curious rhetorical question to fj, "Because I live in Michigan, I'll ask "YOU", who's "right to vote" was taken away in Michigan,"....a rhetorical question that clearly asserts that, Since I (PAA) voted in the MI Primary, no one's vote there was disenfranchised."

If that's not what you meant, just say it.

Don't try to use a sheer, sexy see-through semantic argument to let it stand as though you "can make an argument either way."

I just showed you that you can't.

For the life of me, I don't know why it's been so hard for you to simply defend that statement. YOU made it.

But as for "debate," there's been none coming from your end.

Although, to be honest, there rarely is.

For instance, THIS was NOT contested by you at all; "JMK states; "If I was Barack Obama, I would count myself as being extremely lucky that I fortunate enough to face two weak candidates in Allen Keyes and Hillary Clinton."
and....
"I rather be hired because I am best qualified for the job, not the best skin color for the job. That is what it all boils down to Allen."
and....
"How many "non whites" were running for the Republican Nomination Allen?"
(PAA)
<
<
Actually I can't take credit for saying that....Tyronne said that...and winning a popularity contest/election isn't an accomplishment. (JMK)
<
<
Nor was this challenged even slightly; "The fact is, Bush learned a lesson. It's no different than if you went into a neighborhood that "you" knew was known for assaults. You venture off into the area, and get assaulted! The smartest thing you can do is DONT GO THERE AGAIN! Now, how much credit should I give you for not getting your butt kicked a second time?" (PAA)
<
<
"Yikes! This isn't only an invidious, but an absolutely idiotic analogy!

G W Bush was NOT like some private citizen who COULD decide not to go to a given "bad area," though THAT's NOT the anwer anyway....even on an individual basis, but he was, if you were to use such an analogy, the Mayor of a city like NY, who has had a cop killed in a given area.

"Did America abandon or "NOT GO THERE" in relation to downtown Manhattan?

"Is that NOW A-rab territory?

"Of course not! Tens of thousands of firefighters, police and automatic weapons carrying National Guardsmen swarmed that are post-9/11.

"Did we abandon the Mid-East, or "NOT GO THERE?"

"Of course NOT!...

"...In short, the Bush administration acted like any good Mayor of a city were a cop was killed, that is, he acted more like an EFFECTIVE Mayor (a Guiliani) and less like an INEFFECTIVE Mayor (a Dinkins).

"When a cop was attacked in NYC, Dinkins would seek to TALK with the people, focus on "root causes" and trying to move on to a better relationship between the police and the residents, as opposed to focusing on LOCKING DOWN that neighborhood, finding the perps and bringing them to justice to "make examples out of them." (JMK)

I wouldn't mind a "debate" or better still, a discussion PAA, but neither seems to be your strong suit.

Instead of "debating" or better still discussing things with fj and not2shabbe, you got snide and arrogantly offensive with both of them....and that was OK with you.

Now I treat you the same way....and you have some kind of problem with that?!

I don't think so!

Your current problem is that you can't seem to defend what you yourself said and you can't make a rational argument against what I've said to you...see the (unchallenged) above.

8:05 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

Yikes! I'd skimmed over this;

"JMK changed the wording in the #4 entry, from "express" indirectly, to "assert" indirectly." (PAA)
<
<
I used a print version that has "asserts indirectly" in that phrase....and yet again, assert, express and imply all INFER the same thing, that the "EXPRESSOR" (that would be you) asserted, expressed, implied that since you voted in the MI Primary, no one's vote was actually 'disenfrachised,'

You've evaded defending that statement (“Because I live in Michigan, I'll ask "YOU", who's "right to vote" was taken away in Michigan? I voted during in the presidential primary in Michigan...”), first by engaging in absurd semantic arguments, and now by asking me to explain why you'd contradict yourself (The short ANSWER: I don't know).

You COULD'VE said, "I didn't mean to imply that," but since you haven't I've presumed that you DID indeed mean to imply precisely that and then simply sought to divert attention away from that obvious self-contradiction when brought up.

No Good....Besides that's NOT "debate," PAA, it's kinda like "debate" only slimier, sillier and far more dishonest....hmmmm, that is to say, perfectly Liberal.

12:06 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
- Mark Twain -

8:49 AM  
Blogger JMK said...

Well, this is probably as good a place as any to leave this, given your woeful inability &/or arrogant unwillingness to defend/explain that statement of yours that claimed since you voted in the MI Primary, no one's vote was actually 'disenfrachised.'

You’re too proud to say you were attempting to use an ill-conceived semantic argument against fj?

A pride based on what?

Turns out you were wrong on even THAT semantic argument. Not allowing eligible, registered voters to vote is called voter suppression, not counting certain votes, or gerrymandering groups so that their impact is lessened is commonly referred to as voter disenfranchisement.

You were challenged to explain or defend that statement. You’ve apparently been unable to.

Fair enough. I can’t account for possessed you to make it either.

7:37 PM  
Anonymous not2shabbe@comcast.net said...

I was stationed on the West Virginia on the morning of December 7 1941 when the Japanese attacked saved many of my shipmates lives before i too was blown overboard and strifed with schrapnal knocked unconcious and picked up by the hospital ship solace after my recovery i was transfered to admiral nimitz flag in charge of top secret comm. we did go back to that neighborhood again and let them know under no uncertain terms that we are a nation that will defend our freedom @ all cost that was the Doolittle Raid April 18,1942 and yes i do know first hand what a dictatorship is,I have fought for this nations freedom against them along with several of my brothers.
Peace through Strength! Keep AMERICA Safe , Remember PEARL HARBOR!!!
God Bless AMERICA
S.O.S.

2:20 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home