Redstate

call someone a racist again and wave bye bye.

Read the article carefully.

He says the voters he shepherded were attracted to pubs and ice cream parlors.

He doesn't talk about pizza for the hood, he refers to people who'd rather have a pizza than vote.

He refers to obesity in the 'hood and among senior citizens, you may disagree but you'd have to ignore a ton of empirical data to make your case.

What creeps a lot of us out are those who see racism everywhere leaving one to ponder if this isn't mere transference.

But, yes, some of the apathetic sheep were Black, who also live in neighborhoods. 'Hood is short for neighborhood. My county, and especially my precincts were over 70% white, and until the late 90s the Dem party reflected same.

Also, I became a Democrat in the 70s mainly to fight racism. My parents integrated Little league and Cub Scouts. I hired some of the first Black paralegals in my law firm in my county in SC. One of the main reasons I left the Dem Party was the increasing number of liberals I saw exhibit racist tendencies in their treatment of and attitude towards Blacks.

Ironically, the percentage of Blacks to whites in the Dem party in my former county now is closer to the percentage during slavery times, 70% Black. Interesting eh?

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

You aint nuthin in the conservative movement till you have been called a racist! Your in the tall cotton now!

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Well, GC, it looks possible that someone registered just to attack you. How does it feel?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

courthouse to file a paternity suit!

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

precisely, whites that have grown up without the advantage and pleasure of sharing space with a large percentage of Blacks, exhibit in their comments similar to yours, is ignorance of the melting pot culture in which ethnic communities adopt phrases and ways from each other. Young people especially exhibit this, and while i am a bit over 40, am still young at heart!

It would shock a lot of people to know just how close many black-white relationships are down here, even to the point where close freinds of both races laugh at such posts as yours that see racism where they want to find it. I have many Black friends that I grew up with that can discuss anything about anything racial in what many would consider raw terms, whether its the "n" word or the anti-confederate flag crowd or anything of the sort in totally non-politically correct terms.

In other words many of us have moved on from your fake world of assumptions and false taboos. We are human beings living life oblivious to pigmentation. But we have had a lot of practice and lot of trauma, most of it fairly long ago now, and mostly endured by our parents.

In many ways the most non-racial people on Earth are in Dixie. GC is one of them. America, look and learn. God bless!

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

The overwhelming majority of white Americans who live in neighborhoods that are 30% or more black, who frequent stores where their fellow shoppers are 30% or more black, who eat in restaurants where their fellow diners are 30% or more black, and whose kids go to schools where their fellow students are 30% or more black are Southern whites. And, while we still have not have achieved equality (yet), we are definitely done with "separate."

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

_______________________________
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so. - Will Rogers

I am the only whitey in my neighborhood.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

honestly it is the one assumption that bothers me a lot, because how do you defend yourself against an assumption based on your party preference.

I have a very racist cousin (he lives in Ohio, so he didn't actually grow up in the South) that I can't stand, because he is one of the most bigoted racists I have ever been around. He is a died in the wool democrat that would probably rather have a root canal than vote for a republican (mostly a big union guy). But if you stood me next to my cousin and pointed to me and said "southern girl and registered republican" and pointed to him and said "Northern boy and registered democrat" and asked them to choose the racist, I would get chosen more often.

Guess you have arrived lol.

charge my first day here nearly 2 yrs ago. I'll never fergit! Thanks gal.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

I can't speak for gamecock's Dems, but, in my neck of the woods, his description fits my impression of white Dems far better than black. Here, black Dems spoke little and turned out in huge numbers in 2004. And no one turned them out...they turned out themselves.

I agree that most Dems are motivated by their antipathy towards Republicans. Similarly, during the contest on why to vote Republican, I was struck by how many people said the main motivation to vote Republican was antipathy towards Democrats. Partisanship strikes me as the new bigotry. Before the 2004 election cycle, I had concluded that both parties have become little more than hate groups, in that they are both primarily defined by their antipathy toward another group. I can't count the number of times a partisan has told me, "Well, really, the only reason I'm a Democrat/Republican is that I can't stand Republicans/Democrats."

gamecock's observations on hate and emotion are quite astute, but his observations on hate and losing in a landslide don't fit 2004 very well, when Democratic hatred was never stronger, and the margin of Republican victory was fairly small. They would seem to be a better fit for the later Clinton years. Either way, the Democratic hatred of Bush strikes me as the perfect mirror image of the Republican hatred of Clinton...as it does most Americans, who are sick of all the hate. Lately I've started to suspect that this is the point...that partisan politics is designed to drive the emotionally driven (not thinking, therefore easily manipulated) voters to the polls and keep the rest away.

gamecock is also right that many Dems are frustrated that they can't vote against Bush. Or, more accurately, that they can't beat him. That is what fuels talk of impeachment...it is not even revenge...it is simply that they are still trying to Beat Bush. Many will feel quite bereft come 2008, especially if no one from the Bush administration ends up on the ballot. Republicans were lucky that Clinton had a VP prepared to run for President, so their hatred could be more easily transferred.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

Gore was defeated because his ideas were dumb (even if he did invent the internet). Pure and simple.

Clinton was a charismatic person who had the knack of seeming to promise everyone what they wanted (without actually promising anything).

My point was simply that, if you want to posit that partisan hatred results in landslide victories, you see little evidence to support this theory in 2004, and the Clinton years are a better fit. It was not my theory and I didn't say it had anything to do with any victory or defeat, landslide or otherwise. Nor did I argue that it didn't. I was just commenting on the recently available data at the presidential level.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

There was a lot of Clinton hatred in the 1990's, but except for Rush Limbaugh's nearly pathological obsession with the Clintons I did not see much of that among people with any sort of clout in the Republican party.

Contrast that to the Bush hatred which is in all areas of the Democratic party even among very high up officials and pundits.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

But I don't see that much legitimate Bush hatred among those with any sort of clout in the Democratic Party, either...although I can certainly understand why someone would get that impression. What have seen happen over the last year or two is that the higher ups have finally realized that their base is ready to lynch them, so they've suddenly gotten the anti-Bush religion and adopted the rhetoric that comes with it.

I think what they really hate is the idea of losing their positions of power.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

I think I agree, it is mostly bogus. The late Paul Wellstone once said 'how can you hate a guy who calls you Pablo?'. The tide started to turn with the Dean insurgency. Democrats in Congress - who actually know Bush and like him - could not tap into the feelings of the base the way Dean did. (You may recall that he was the only governor in the race). It started to turn against Dean when Kerry learnt to fake the hatred.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

power, primarily. It is primarily about the immaturity of narcissistic left and their inability to face the real world when it arrived on 911 and Bush's insistence upon facing the world as it is rather than enabling the Boomer Left to prolong their childhood. Bush is Daddy. The Left had been paying the bullies their lunch money and walking two blocks out of the way to school. Daddy found out and the children are mad. But they can't face the bully, so they transfer their anger to Daddy who won't hurt them. They long for Bill Clinton and the vacation from history. They are pathetic. We must take care of them. Its the Christian thing.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

The hatred from the kook base is real, the hatred from the pols in Washington, like their Outrage de Jour™ is feigned!

See The World In HinzSight!

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

It's far more complicated than that, of course, but I think you are very right when you place Dean at the center of this maelstorm.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

...Red Sox fans vs Yankees fans.

I would dearly love for the Democrats to give me a positive choice. I'm not a "joiner", and in fact some of the Republicans creep me out.

But experience has shown that the Democratic Party stands for ballot-box stuffing, union-thuggism, and special interest politics. They have no room for the likes of Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman. Pro-life advocates are unwelcome to speak at their conventions. Given their way, their leading politicians would take us down the road to socialism in a heartbeat.

The Republican Party unabashedly stands for individual responsibility and the American Dream, the Shining City on the Hill & all that. Sure, the individual politicians disappoint us at times, but we can't all be Ronald Reagan.

I think the point of gamecock's original post was that the positive nearly always trumps the negative in the long run. Optimism defeats pessimism, faith defeats nihilism, character defeats man's base instincts.

Thats exactly what my main point was that i couldn't quite say as powerfully in 700 words that you did in 20. (my math may be off)

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

IMO, whoever described politics as "bloodsport and religion" knew what they were talking about. It is yet another spectator sport, with huge crowds drunk on emotional adrenalin, cheering or booing wildly, and only a pitiful few actually in the game. When it is party-focused, it reminds me of a team sport such as football...baseball is by and large too civilized. When it is candidate-focused, as during presidential elections, it reminds me far more of boxing, or a cockfight, with each candidate's supporters tucked away safely on the sidelines, screaming at "their guy" to "rip 'em to pieces!" Looking back now, I can't figure out why I was ever surprised to discover that many elected officials don't like parties any more than I do, and often have a deep disdain, if not outright dislike, for the people who elected them.

I am not impressed with what parties "stand for." It think we as a species are drowning in symbolism and ideology and myth. The true danger of the media is not to be found in its bias or its incompetence or even in its greed, but in its ability to spin such convincing false realities for us to pretend to live in. "A man is the sum of his actions...nothing more, nothing less." I don't care what the party leaders "stand for," either. I only care about what they do or don't do. And I don't care much about that. I care about what we do or don't do, not what they do or don't do. One of the most striking phenomenons I first noticed when I took up with the partisans in 2004 is that they refer to themselves as "Democrats/Republicans" but to their party and the leaders as "the Democrats/Republicans," a construction that is both distancing and dehumanizing...bringing me back again to the cockfight.

Why should I care what either party "stands for"? It's obvious to me that, in the real word (ie, outside of people's heads), neither party encourages individual responsiblity...quite the contrary; both encourage relying on the party, its leaders, and elected officials. Whatever they "stand for," all parties are, in their behavior, the very antithesis of individual responsiblity. Individual responsiblity is the party's greatest enemy. And vice versa.

But it doesn't surprise me at all that a party would frame itself as "standing for" individual responsiblity. I also learned that, in politics, everything isn't merely a lie, it is typically the exact opposite of what it is called. Thus, the last thing progessives want is progress, and the last thing Democrats believe in is democracy. I can't speak that knowledgeably about Republicans yet, but I will not be shocked to discover that they don't believe in conservatism at all. Nor in a republic, for that matter.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

I am reading The Omnivore's Obsession right now, and thus remembering the times I spent among the rural farmers of Northwest Arkansas. One memory struck me as a good metaphor for how I see partisan politics.

In a discussion of the then-new "organic" versus agribusiness farming methods, I was surprised to learn that these (typically crusty ol conservative) farmers coming down on the side of the (typically young wide-eyed liberal) proponents of organic methods, though from a pragmatic, rather than idealogical, perspective. They explained that agribusiness took the approach that the way to protect crops from pests and weeds was to fight against the pests and weeds. (What I call "straight-line" thinking.) But they assured me that the best way to protect your crop was to take good care of it. Pests and weeds make little headway against a well-tended healthy crop, they said. The focus on fighting weeds and pests was inherently self-defeating, as the more you directed your efforts to that fight, the less you focused on tending your crops, and the weaker your crops became, and the more susceptible to pests and weeds.

I see partisan politics as taking the agribusiness approach...fighting against the "pests and weeds" rather than simply tending your own crops with care.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

I like pizza. In fact, I deliver pizza as a way to pay the bills until I graduate with a bachelors.

I deliver to black people, white people, brown people, poor people, rich people, old people, young people, baby boomers, fat people, and skinny people. Seems pizza knows no color.

Get the door. Its Mason617.

Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Now who are we voting against again?"

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

In the comment he was not writing about "think" he was writing about "feel". The "GOP like their guy the Dems like their guy. Actually his nonsensical comment proved your point of the diary of the mature thinking GOP voter versus the Dem motivated by feelings of like or dislike.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

And the same thing can be said of the mature-thinking Dem voter versus the GOP voter motivated by feelings of like or dislike.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

Where are they? I do not hear them on C-SPAN call-in programs or read them in internet comment posts. If they exist they must be hiding.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

C-SPAN's fallen victim to the invasion of the Bush-haters and the Bush-blew-up-the-WTC callers. I actually like the fact that they call out websites and implore C-SPAN to cover their crazy events. Catch some of those and you see what wackos they really are.

I've said elsewhere, I began watching C-SPAN in mid-nineties and continue w/coffee/paper most mornings and can only agree that mature dems have gotten to be a rare breed.

A lot of my attraction comes from the guests who are congressmen, journalists, represent various think tanks or organizations. Sometimes good debate, other times not.

But I'm not discouraged. I think Dems shoot themselves in the foot when they spout the "Blame America First" line and make good hard working citizens feel that this country is not a force for good in this world.

Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!

Huh. I always thought this was a liberal value. "We ain't got no business over there" is a comment I hear often from died-in-the-wool Republicans who are completely disgusted with their current leadership. They would be livid at the idear that hard-working Americans are such jello that anything politicians say could make a dent in how they feel about this country.

I think both parties blame America first. The Democrats blame Bush's America first and the Republicans blame Clinton's America first.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

I'm a "died-in-the-wool Repub" who does understand that we must lead in this world. I believe we are a force for good. If some liberal said that, too, I don't have a clue.

My family is hardworking and not jello and, while there may a criticism and frustration here and there of the administration , I think Bush understands the threat we are facing and has used all tools to protect this country. I don't think the Dems comprehend that threat and take it seriously.

I never get the sense that Repubs blame America first. Repubs don't need to be told as Harry Reid did in a memo several months ago instructing candidates to display the flag, say the pledge, etc. (it was written about on this site, but I wouldn't be able to find it now).

I think it is trite to say the Bush haters and Clinton haters are equal. We are at war. The stakes are much higher than when Clinton was president. We hadn't been attacked on our soil. Bush has been undermined by the NY Times exposing secrets and methods which risk our security.

And for the record, I don't hate Clinton.

Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!

“….the British, French, UN Secretary General and our West African partners are all calling on the U.S. to assist Liberia. I believe that the US must do its share. We must do this not only to defend our interests, but to act as a force for good in a country that has been an ally to the US for decades.”
--Howard Dean
http://interestingtimes.blogspot.com/archives/2003_06_29_interestingtime...

"...through our efforts, I believe we can once again, make America a force for good in the world."
--Cynthia McKinney
http://www.flybynews.com/cgi-local/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid1019753651...,

Secure in their own lives at home, Americans can be a great force for good in the world. That is the liberalism this country once heard from Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy - and it is the only form of liberalism that will give the Democratic Party back its majority.
-- From an article in the NYT by Paul Star, co-editor of The American Prospect
http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/Starr.NYT.oped.1-26-05.htm

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

talking about a force for good with anything approaching a straight face!

It was a joke post...right?

See The World In HinzSight!

My post was simple response to Kookie's doubt that America as a force for good in the world was a liberal value.

"I believe we are a force for good. If some liberal said that, too, I don't have a clue."

It was not presented as a commentary on McKinney, or on liberal values, or on the idea of America as a force for good in the world. It was offered simply as documentation that the concept has indeed been embraced by liberals and associated with liberalism for decades.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

that we ARE due to our exceptionalism in values, institutions, liberating military actions and killing of evil actors intent upon killing Americans. What those 3 deem good do not include the major good things we have done in the world or what we stand for and have stood for since the founding. I will say that I would probably agree with much of the humanitarian actions that some at the Prospect would endorse, some that even Dean would support, but McKinney's definition of good is derived from a warped mind.

I am, i guess, still a liberal on the projection of American power, ala Wilson, FDR, et al. I'm a neo-con. And post 911, the old "realism" is discredited. The real realism recognizes that we are the only hope for Liberty in the world and that our survival depends on our success in actively engaging in the world.

I can say that history shows that the world is usually better off for our military actions, and had the dems not abandoned Vietnam, that one would have been also.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

I didn't say that I thought liberals felt America is a force for good in the world. That conclusion is situational, and values are not. Values are what you aspire to. I always thought it was liberals that wanted America to be a force for good in the world. I always thought it was conservatives who valued minding our own business. In fact, I've always thought that was a pretty defining distinction between the two.

Until the day comes when we discover an alternate universe, so we can intervene and not intervene in the same siutation and then compare the two outcomes, it remains impossible to determine whether the world has been better off due to our military interventions. To say nothing of the fact that "better off" is often in the eye of the beholder.

I feel no need to abandon Iraq. I want us to stop dying and killing there. If that is abandoning a country, then it was Richard Nixon who abandoned Vietnam, not the Dems. And good for him, even if he waited for the security of a second term to do it.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

"that we ARE due to our exceptionalism in values, institutions, liberating military actions and killing of evil actors intent upon killing Americans. What those 3 deem good do not include the major good things we have done in the world or what we stand for and have stood for since the founding."

The dominent message I get from Dems is they don't think we PRESENTLY are a force for good in the world. I do. I don't think they have the conviction to do what is required post 911. I agree with you that realism recognizes that we are the hope for Liberty in the world. Most Dem rhetoric paints America today as a villain and if they talk of our greatness, it seems to be in selected past tense or that some vague idealism will make the bad guys "like us" and our enemies will just go away.

Sometimes the sacrifice is great. Over 6,000 Americans died on Iwo Jima in a 36 day battle before the important island was secured. Years ago in San Francisco, my husband and I met Joe Rosenthal, who took the iconic picture on Mt. Suribachi (who died at 94 last August). He was a humble man who didn't think his acclaim was as important as those men's bravery.

I write a little newpaper for my family, so I wrote about him from interviews on his passing. "The situation was impossible, Joe recalled years later. "No man who survived the beach can tell you how he did it. It was like walking through rain and not getting wet." And "I took the picture, the Marines took Iwo Jima."

I'm looking forward to the movie "Flags of our Fathers." Freedom wasn't free then, and it's not free today.

Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!

Everyone thinks their view of things it the "realistic" one. The reality is that no one has any way of knowing if their view is "realistic" or not.

I would agree that Dems don't think America is a force for good in terms of what it is doing in Iraq; but I don't think most Dems have such a unidimensional view of America that they think Iraq is the end-all be-all of America's impact on the world. When the Cynthia McKinneys and the Howard Deans start suggesting otherwise, they are simply engaging in election-year political rhetoric.

Speaking of reality, I have yet to meet a Dem who does not take the threat of terrorism seriously, nor imagine that the terrorists will "just go away" if we ignore them. By and large, they simply don't think that the Bush Administration's approach to dealing with this threat is an effective one, nor that the Bush Administration has been very effective at implementing that approach. Nor have I met any Dems who think the solution is to "make love not war." (The Sixties have been over for a long time now, in case you missed that reality.) On the contrary, a great many Dems were hopeful, if not wildly enthusiastic, about the Iraq intervention at the beginning. But they eventually soured on it because they concluded that the Bush Administration either had no plan to win the peace, lacked the ability to implement the plan, or whatever plan they had simply wasn't a good one.

My mother, a lifelong Southern Democrat, had never given any indication of having had an independent thought in her life until she voted, at the age of 87, for Ralph Nader, to express her deep disgust with the Democratic Party (although she dearly loved Bill Clinton). She was, on the other hand, an unwavering and enthusiastic fan of Cheney and Rumsfeld from 9/11 through Baghdad....although never much impressed with GW. Whenever either of them appeared on a news show, press conference, or briefing, she would drop everything and eagerly hang on every word. But before the summer of 2003 was over, every time either one popped up on her screen, she would snatch up the remote, hiss, "look at him, just sittin' there, lying through his teeth," and punch in another channel. Since then, she has become so alarmed at what she sees as an inept, if not outright counterproductive, effort to protect us from terrorism, that she has encouraged me to leave the country. An amazing thing from someone who, for my entire life, always held the firm opinion that stepping outside the borders of her native land was tantamount to stepping off the edge.

Your vision of "the Dems" as pacifists blind to the threat of terrorism is far from realistic, as is any vision that paints them...or any other group...as a monolith.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

Everyone thinks their view of things it the "realistic" one. The reality is that no one has any way of knowing if their view is "realistic" or not.

I would agree that Dems don't think America is a force for good in terms of what it is doing in Iraq; but I don't think most Dems have such a unidimensional view of America that they think Iraq is the end-all be-all of America's impact on the world. When the Cynthia McKinneys and the Howard Deans start suggesting otherwise, they are simply engaging in election-year rhetoric.

Speaking of reality, I have yet to meet a Dem who does not take the threat of terrorism seriously, nor imagine that the terrorists will "just go away" if we ignore them. By and large, they simply don't think that the Bush Administration's approach to dealing with this threat is an effective one, nor that the Bush Administration has been very effective at implementing that approach. Nor have I met any Dems who think the solution is to "make love not war." (The Sixties have been over for a long time now, in case you missed that reality.) On the contrary, a great many Dems were hopeful, if not wildly enthusiastic, about the Iraq intervention at the beginning. But they eventually soured on it because they concluded that the Bush Administration either had no plan to win the peace, lacked the ability to implement the plan, or whatever plan they had simply wasn't a good one.

My mother, a lifelong Southern Democrat, had never given any indication of having had an independent thought in her life until she voted, at the age of 87, for Ralph Nader, to express her deep disgust with the Democratic Party (although she dearly loved Bill Clinton). She was, on the other hand, an unwavering and enthusiastic fan of Cheney and Rumsfeld from 9/11 through Baghdad....although never much impressed with GW. Whenever either of them appeared on a news show, press conference, or briefing, she would drop everything and eagerly hang on every word. But before the summer of 2003 was over, every time either one popped up on her screen, she would snatch up the remote, hiss, "look at him, just sittin' there, lying through his teeth," and punch in another channel. Since then, she has become so alarmed at what she sees as an inept, if not outright counterproductive, effort to protect us from terrorism, that she has encouraged me to leave the country. An amazing thing from someone who, for my entire life, always held the firm opinion that stepping outside the borders of her native land was tantamount to stepping off the edge.

Your vision of "the Dems" as pacifists blind to the threat of terrorism is far from realistic, as is any vision that paints them...or any other group...as a monolith.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

"It is useful to remind people what [Democrats] said and what they do. I think they have given us here, especially in the last couple of weeks, a potent set of votes to talk about. You had 90 percent of House Democrats voting against the terrorist-surveillance program, nearly three-quarters of Senate Democrats and 80 percent of House Democrats voting against the terrorist-interrogation act. Something is fundamentally flawed." That's what Karl Rove said yesterday about the Dems record.

That is why I have no confidence Dems are serious about understanding the nature of the threat our country faces and could be trusted to defend this country against another attack.

Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!

You are talking about the people who have been elected to some political office running with a D next to their name. I was talking about the people in this country who consider themselves to be Democrats.

I have no confidence in politicians, period. Pretty much the same group of House and Senate Democrats also voted in favor of the show of force. Politicians vote whatever way (they think) the wind is blowing that day.

Regardless, I would not consider their vote on these specific bills to be a measure of whether they "understand" the threat that is facing this country or are prepared to defend it. I would take it as an indication that they understand it differently than you do and would defend it differently than you would. Nor would I take it as an indicator of whether or not they take the threat seriously. To find the Congressional politicians who don't take the threat seriously, I would look first at the list of those who didn't cast a vote one way or the other.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

Mature-thinking Dem Voter (n.
A now mythical creature once thought to inhabit the left side of the aisle in the Capitol. We now know that this creature, if it ever actually existed, became extinct sometime in the late 1950s/early 1960s.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

...with "Democrats." The voters do not inhabit either side of the aisle. They are out here with the rest of us.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

anything. The reference to "the left side of the aisle" is simply a tradionist's way of talking about liberals --- left-wingers you know.

The guys sitting on the left side of the aisle are supported by the voters on the left side of the issue both with votes and rhetoric.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

In my experience, 'the left side of the aisle' refers to all Democrats, as 'the aisle' is the aisle that's supposed to separate the two parties' seating arrangements in the House or Senate.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

CSPAN call-in shows are not the place I would look for mature-thinking voters of any stripe, and most internet forums consist of a little wheat and a lot of chaff.

I would look among the members of my non-fiction book club for mature-thinking voters. I know that none of them wants to read Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, or Al Franken.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

I note in your post that you left out the D word. Your book club probably does reflect maturity. Maybe they live your 'signature' Partisanship...so 20th Century.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

I left it out because I was not trying to persuade anyone that there are "mature-thinking" Dem voters...maturity is in the eye of the beholder...and I didn't want to muddy the waters. I was simply commenting on the likelihood of find such voters calling into CPAN or dominating political blogs.

I know some of those in my book club are registered as Democrats. I know one of these describes himself as a moderate. I know registered Dems outnumber registered GOPs in my county by a factor of 3:1. How they vote...that I do not know. But I rather doubt many of them are straight ticketers.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

is just that and only that and I can't imagine a worse way to spend time than with a bunch of people in a book club trying to discuss the realities of the world.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Yes, this is partisan politics as I see it...a conspiracy to divide and conquer. I think it may well be an unconscious conspiracy, but then, I think most conspiracies are unconscious, especially the successful ones, often disguised as a law of (human) nature. I'm also inclined to think that the two groups the powers that be most want to keep divided against each other are working class blacks and working-class whites. That theory accounts for a ton of data.

What to do, what to do? I admire you for starting with you. From there...I'm thinking about it. Education, education, education?

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

What? How can you have an "...unconscious conspiracy ..."? The very idea is a contradiction in terms.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

"to act in harmony toward a common end"

When there is a run on a bank, that is my idea of an unconscious conspiracy. The people involved do not gather in a back room the night before and plot to withdraw all of their money the next morning; yet they act in (natural) harmony when they do. The end they have in common is to get their money out safely, not to cause the bank to fold, but that end is often the result of their harmonious action, all the same.

I will not argue that this definition of "conspiracy" is the "right" one. But "unconscious conspiracy" seems to capture the meaning of the phenomenon of which I speak, so I use it.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

even if it is wrong I guess.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

That was one of the Clinton traits that did remind me of his supposed hero, JFK...a sense of optimism and the idea that positive things could be achieved. Reagan, too. On the other hand, I don't think either of them inspired ordinary citizens to roll up their sleeves and work to achieve things the way that Kennedy did.

I have to say, though, that I don't sense any real optimism about our country or a desire to take it anywhere positive from the GOP these days, either. The message I get is that they see the world as an unbroken landscape of perils...terrorists, immigrants, gays, humanists, pacifists, atheists, abortionists, deconstructionist judges. Lots of pests and weeds, against which they aim to wage an endless battle. If all of those threats were to disappear tomorrow, I haven't a clue what a GOP government would want to do with this country, except maybe some uninspiring things involving money.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

"get is that they see the world as an unbroken landscape of perils...terrorists, immigrants, gays, humanists, pacifists, atheists, abortionists, deconstructionist judges."

I see a call to arms! I see YOU are needed! I see great stakes! I see "Do you want a traditional upbringing for your kids?" The baseball and apple pie kind? I say get in there and do it! I think most parents can create a wonderful life!
Teach. Enjoy.

I tell my five kids, we did it without cell phones (amazing) and we only lost one child at a swim meet which made us frantic. All parents are frantic. Now they are parents and are frantic, but also get the laughs as well as the responsibility of preparing for their future.

Why do I say all of this? Because I have five "kids" (and spouses, probably of the ages that a lot of you are) that are raising my (as of last week) 10 grandkids. While my husband and I didn't know to fight terrorists and today's immigrant problems back then, we were aware that pacifists, atheists, abortionists and deconstructionists judges were on our scene -as well as our own personal injustices and business setbacks. We fought for what we believed in and still do. We forged ahead based upon our faith and principles. And they didn't always line up perfectly.

Don't get beaten down. Don't let secularists drown out your voice and make this a Godless country. Don't let the MSM make you second guess your faith, common sense and values. We talked back to the MSM back then as we do now. We loved it when sullen faced Tom Brokaw declared that Reagan had won re-election in all but one state in spite of the MSM dire/dumb characterizations of him.

As far as the endless battle . . . Well, I only know my perception, but I see all of life as a test of faith. That's another story line.

Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!

The message I get is that they see the world as an unbroken landscape of perils...terrorists, immigrants, gays, humanists, pacifists, atheists, abortionists, deconstructionist judges. Lots of pests and weeds, against which they aim to wage an endless battle. If all of those threats were to disappear tomorrow, I haven't a clue what a GOP government would want to do with this country, except maybe some uninspiring things involving money.

While I agree with you that the GOP message at the moment is all that "happy" an optimistic, they do at least recognize that there are threats from at least some of those quadrants at the moment, and at least the GOP message is we can fight and win, while the message I get from the dems is "we are going to lose anyway, so let's get out now, and besides just being nice will make the bad guys go away and like us."

The reality is that all those things won't go away tomorrow, I may not have the greenest thumb in the world, but one thing I know from experience is that there are always pests and weeds, and you can't fight them, by ignoring them, until they overtake the garden.

I don't know how to flip people out of the "fight" perspective. You are correct that you can't *fight* pests and weeds by ignoring them. What these farmers were saying is that fighting pests and weeds is not the way to a healthy crop. It is, by and large, just the way to more fighting.

They were saying stop fighting and start gardening. (An approach the fighters would denigrate as "blame your garden first.") Test your soil to see what its condition is, treat it as needed to achieve the soil and drainage that is suitable for the crop you want to grow, select varieties that do well in your climate and soil type and drainage conditions, plant them carefully...right depth and distance apart, then monitor and tend them carefully. Will you have pests and weeds? Sure. Will they "win"? No. Many of these farmers had gardens with weeds and with plants had been nibbled on by insects. And with wonderful fruits and vegetables growing in them. They had eaten well from such gardens for decades. They did not zealously pursue a fantasy of weed-free gardens and picture-perfect leaves. In the meantime, agribusiness pursued the fantasy with chemicals. They created stronger pests and more resistant weeds. They have created a world full of tigers and now have them firmly by the tail.

We have taken the same approach with antibiotics. In our zeal to wipe out every bug on the planet that poses a threat to us, we have created stronger and stronger bacteria and viruses and fungi. We have raised yet more tigers and grabbed firmly hold of their tails too. I think those farmers would say that we would have been much better off practicing sensible (not obsessive) health practices...a sensible diet (fresh meat, fruits and vegetables, not manufactured supplements), a sensible about of physical activity (not "exercise"), and sensible hygiene (washing your hands, not carrying germicides in your bag). An approach the fighters would no doubt denigrate as "blame your body first." Yes, we would still have those same pests. And people would still get sick and they would still die. But our species has thrived in cohabitation with those pests for millenia....not always peaceful, but...always. Whether we will survive those we have created (and will create) by fighting, remains to be seen.

Fighting is closely related to the reliably self-destructive "quick fix." Got weeds? Just blast 'em to smithereens. Got viruses? Just blast 'em to smithereens. Got terrorists? Just blast 'em to smithereens. "A failure of imagination" hardly does this mentality justice. Does this mean we should never fight a pest or a weed? Of course not. As I said, these farmers sided with the proponents of organic gardening from a pragmatic, not ideological, perspective. "A little Sevin dust never hurt anything." When a particularly insidious weed invades your garden, you pluck it out. Then you go back to tending your garden...you don't declare war on weeds and attack them in your neighbor's gardens. But fighters will never be satisfied with just a little Sevin dust or just tending their garden. They have to fight.

Fighting is fueled by the adrenalin producing emotions...hatred and anger and fear. It is addictive; people who get the habit don't want to give it up. And they are not mature thinkers. They are not thinkers at all. They can't be...strong emotions anesthetize the thinking centers of the brain. All of their reactions are base-of-the-brain knee jerks. Ask anyone who has ever been in the middle of a firefight. There is no thinking on a battlefield; only instinct. Which is why the guy next to you is the only thing that matters. Instinctively, he's got your back.

Bush Sr's administration nailed it with Desert Storm. A weed got out of hand. They routed it out, took some sensible steps to discourage it from coming back, made provisions for monitoring it in the future, and went back to tending our garden. Which is what I think most Americans want their government to do. GW's administration would have done well to route the Taliban from Afghanistan and then go back to tending our garden. But they decided to fight instead. To try to eradicate pests and weeds from the planet. To blast 'em to smithereens. To remake the world in their own image. To...in a very real sense...play God.

And the big irony in all of this? Tending your own garden is the conservative approach.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

in the first Gulf War and throughout history. In the eyes of Saddam, UBL and many other would be aggressors, Saddam won the 1991 war by staying in power and continuing to wage war against us daily by firing at our planes, trying to kill Bush41, OPENLY sponsoring terror and kicking the UN out.

Clinton tended the garden, navel hair and monica while threats gathered confident in the belief that we were a paper tiger tending a garden with blinders on oblivious to evil actors playing our God.

There is no "going back" post 911. The world is small today. We will stay continually vigilent or we will fall to those that are. Welcome back to history.

...continual vigilence. Quite the opposite, in fact.

So what is your endpoint? We will never, ever, rid the planet of would-be aggressors who would like to destroy us and our way of life. That was true before 9/11 and it is true now and will continue to be true for a long, long time to come, if not forever.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

There was no limited war in response to the Iran hostage-taking, any of the Beirut bombings, the Kenya/Tanzania embassy bombings, the first attack on the WTC, or the attack on the Cole.

Since Vietnam, Democratic and Republican presidents alike have lacked the courage to wage a war of any kind in defense of this country. They have happily waged wars in defense of everything and everybody else, from Grenada to the Panama Canal to Kuwait to Somalia to Haiti to Bosnia to Kosovo, but any significant direct attack on Americans has been met with the most anemic responses imaginable.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

Carter's appeasement led to the hostage taking. I do think Reagan should probably have bombed the Hezbos but that was a peacekeeping mission with no peace to keep. Clearly, UBL's words and actions prove he was emboldened to escalate his war against us due to Clinton's inaction.

What wars do you think we should have waged that we didn't other than Iran in 1979 and al qaida in the 90s? I have stated that I think it was a mistake to leave Saddam in power and betray the Iraqi people we encouraged to rise up. I favored all the actions you cited.

Clearly 911 has been met with aggressive force removing the regime in Afghanistan and removing a terror state in open defiance.

Who else do you want to fight? I'm game! (no pun intended)

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

There is a difference between waging a war and fighting.

If I'd had my choice post-9/11, we would have done an Entebbe-style raid and cleanly snatched up Osama and the other Al-Queda leaders in the middle of the night. Entebbe is my favorite military operation. Smart, clean, calculated, extremely efficient. Very mature thinking. Next favorite is the Six-Day War...still makes me smile. The Israelis were really something in those days. I used to say we should just hire them to handle all our military operations for us, they were so much better at it than we were. Long ago and far away.

What really steams me about the Bush Administration is that they almost had it all...had they only stayed the course in Afghanistan for another year before rushing frantically off to chase ghosts in the desert, things would be so different now. I think history will remember the first decade of the 21st century as The Decade of Lost Opportunities. Depends on how much history figures out.

If I were to have chosen a second target after Afghanistan? No question: Saudi Arabia. But I'm not sure that's my intelligence talking.

I rather wanted us to go all the way to Baghdad the first time also, but I'm not sure if that was my intelligence talking, either. In any case, easy for me to say. No chance my blood would have paved the way, nor that of anyone close to me. I wasn't passionately opposed to going there the second time. I could have even been supportive of it, had it been handled differently. Then or now, we should have done what we came to do and immediately packed up and gone home. I'm not an enthusiast of peacekeeping missions, either, because, as you say, there never seems to be any actual peace involved.

We need to stop pretending we're the good guys fighting the bad guys. "We're here to help you." Riiiight. Tell that to the South Vietnamese and the Kurds. Another thing I liked about Desert Storm is that Bush Sr's administration made relatively little effort to pretend we were there for any other reason than to protect our own interests. Good for them. We need to mind our own business. This time around, we should have said we were going into Iraq to get rid of Saddam for one reason and one reason only...because we thought that was good for us. We should have said that we didn't want to harm any Iraqi civilians in the process, but we were willing to kill civilians, too...as many as it took to get what we wanted. Because that was the truth.

We should have said that, once Saddam was gone, the Iraqi were on their own. Because that's the truth, too...it's their country, and no matter what we do there, in the end, they are on their own. And then we should have toppled Saddam's regime and gone home. Or, if anyone really thought that hanging around to draw all the terrorists in the Middle East to Iraq was a bright idear, then we should have told the Iraqi people (and ourselves) that we were there to turn their country into one big bloody trap, with American soldiers as the bait. A little honesty, for once. But that's not our style, either. We lie through our teeth every time.

Yes, abandoning the Kurds was deplorable. And the South Vietnamese and the Cambodians. We always abandon our allies, because we are never their allies. We are never there to help anybody but ourselves. Which, in war, is exactly the way it should be.

So that's my philosophy. And if you can find any hint of "make love not war" and "can't we all just get along?" in there, you gotta send me some of whatever it is you're indulging in this evening!

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

If we had that Star Trek transporter, we could just beam up all the terrorists being harbored in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere every few months nice and clean like. That would have come in handy in 1939 as well, if only we have your choice.

We don't.

We had a regime that harbored UBL and his terrorist army bases in a nation state. We didn't have intel to scoop up UBL. He wasn't conveniently hanging out at an airport ala Entebbe. the dems just never seem to understand that 911 wasn't a bank robbery. Its not primarily about getting one man to punish him, and then waiting for the next 911 and getting the man that directs that one. Its about preventing future 911s.

We did in weeks with less than 25,000 troops what the USSR couldn't do in years and 100,000s of thousands in Afghanistan and our Iraq operation was masterful. Israel can't play in our ballpark. No one can.

Bush could have had it all? You jest. Unless Bush could remove all the regimes of the axis of evil in one weekend with no casualties on either side or collateral damage, and even then, he wouldn't "have it all" in the eyes of the morally bankrupt left of the west or the tyrannical dictator club called the UN or the "international community."

Remember, we are the Great Satan. But then again, you obviously have a clue about that since you can't bring yourself to call our nation the good guys and Saddam, the Taliban, al qaida, Iran and North Korea the bad guys.

I guess only the non cease-fire violating, non-firing at our planes, non-trying to kill Bush41, non-openly sponsoring terrorists (I said Openly!), Saudis are equally as bad as us so as to deserve invasion by the Great Satan.

Yes, things would be different if we hadn't invaded Iraq. The left would be criticizing Bush for leaving him in power after 911.

BTW, we are still in Afghanistan, staying the course, in case you don't know.

And so since we abandoned the S Viets and Kurds once, what? We are forever barred from liberating the Kurds or anyone else after we remove a regime that threatens us?

Remove one man in Iraq and leave the nation in chaos to be an oil-rich version of Afghanistan, which it was under Saddam? That really would have been being the good guys wouldn't it.

Make up your mind man. I agree though, making love is clearly not part of your philosophy.

Your country liberated the world from Hitler, Imperial Japan and the USSR. It disgusts me when an American that has been blessed to live in this country doesn't appreciate our exceptionalism. I am baffled at the moral relativism. All from the comfort within these borders.

You are very confused. I pity you that you can't love this country like those in Eastern Europe do that were liberated from communist tyranny. Like the Iraqis that love us setting them free and empowering them to fight for their Liberty. Like the women no longer living under the Taliban.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

I wish I had written these things.

I think at the end of the day the failing is here

Your country liberated the world from Hitler, Imperial Japan and the USSR. It disgusts me when an American that has been blessed to live in this country doesn't appreciate our exceptionalism. I am baffled at the moral relativism. All from the comfort within these borders.

the inability to recognize the exceptionalism; the inability to see the good; all the left can see are the failings.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan

Rarely has so much bandwidth been consumed to shed so little light as in the case of Poopy Face. You are much more patient than I am.

"You are very confused." This hits the nail on the head. All his posts strike me as arguments, not for the sake of enlightenment, but for the sake of argument alone. Why else would someone write volumes on an unabashedly partisan website arguing against partisanship?

My fear is that there is a whole generation out there (younger than you & me by a generation) who have been conditioned by the popular culture (or whatever) to be totally unwilling or unable to make any kind of value judgment at all, in terms of right/wrong, good/evil, just/unjust.

I do believe you are still a Democrat at heart! Wanting to be the good guy, fight the bad guy, save the world, help people, get them to like you.

I agree that we did not have the intel to scoop up bin Laden...and we still don't. Whether he's been holed up in cave, hanging out at an airport, languishing in a hospital, relaxing in a Mediterreanan villa, running a dry cleaners in Miami, or dead...we don't know. Because we don't have the intel to scoop up bin Laden.

I think the Bush Administraton could very well have toppled any number of regimes in a few years with few American casualties had they stayed the course in Afghanistan. Yes, I know we are still there. Being there is not the same as staying the course. Staying the course means delivering on our promises, not just being there.

"My country" did not liberate the world from Hitler, Imperial Japan and the USSR. Countries don't liberate people; people liberate people.

Exceptionalism....I think the United States of America has more money and guns than any other country on earth. I have lived comfortably in a couple of other countries, also exceptional in their own way, as are all countries.

Do the Eastern Europeans, Iraqis, and women of Afghanistan love us? I don't know, and neither do you. No man can look into another man's heart. I would guess some love us and others hate us, some are ambivalent, others indifferent.

I am not sure what I have said that you consider an example of moral relativism, so I cannot speak to that.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

what the left said in 1968

Make Love Not War!

And now as leaders of the Dem party their thought patterns are set. As, apparently are your own.

See The World In HinzSight!

Can't we all just get along?

All this jibber-jabber about weeds and viruses and antibiotics is making my head hurt. The analogy does not work.

Islamacists are not about being pesky to us. They want to end our way of life. They will not be satisfied until they restore the caliphate and we are all dhimmis.

They attacked the USS Cole. They attacked the Khobar Towers. They attacked the World Trade Center. Twice. They attacked the Pentagon. They murdered 3,000 Americans on our soil. Their target was our economic system, and they intended to strike a fatal blow.

Desert Storm set the expectation that wars are relatively sanitary affairs that rightly can be resolved in a timeframe of a week, maybe two. Few flag-draped bodies come home, just enough for a few somber parades, no collateral damages, basically a really expensive video game.

A question for Poopy Person: What kind of "tending the garden" would have been more appropriate after Pearl Harbor?

...so I can't recommend anything more appropriate. WWII seems to have been handled fairly conservatively. We went to war against Japan, just as we went to war against the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11. We defeated Japan, just as we defeated the Taliban after 9/11. But in WWII, we then ceased hostilities. We did not continue to wage war until every last Japanese soldier who had taken up arms against us was dead or captured. We did not look for other countries that might be harboring Japanese soldiers or leaders and attack them too. We did not look for other countries that might be thinking about attacking us sometime in the foreseeable future and attack them, too. We routed the weed that got out of hand and then we went back to tending our garden.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

...with a pacifist.

_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.

Can't we get an IQ test or something before maroons can post here?

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

When launching your one-and-away post, it's a good idea to watch your spelling.

Rightwingers are flailing about in the press because their hypocrisy has been exposed by the the Foley affair.

Democrats are revealing theirs to gays. Funny world, yes?

Monday a book is coming out that details how Rove used the evangelist fools.

Tuesday a book is coming out about how the DNC is using the tools who populate the online Left.

Maybe this will make you feel better: Once again it will fall to the Democrats to clean up the republican mess just as we did after Nixon, Reagan/Bush.

Well, most people would be ashamed of leaving the South Vietnamese and Cambodians to fall into genocide, slave camps, and tyranny; and allowing radical Islam to believe that America is the weak horse; but not the Democrats! No sir!

Mature voter my *ss. Selfish, war-mongering, cowards are more like it.

It must really suck to keep losing Presidential elections to those selfish, war-mongering,(sic) cowards, huh?

By the way, I figured the repubs would pull out the race card as the election nears. That's always their ace-in-the-hole for pulling out a victory. The above articles with terms like 'hood' are just the beginning.

You're on to us. The next step is to talk about fried chickens and watermelon. Then we re-elect a Klansman to the Sen-- no, wait, that's your job. Sorry.

Pathetic. Just be glad the Dems will be here to clean up the poop left in the diapers of those "mature" voters.

Well, we know they'll eat it, anyway.

One more thing - I've worked with the sort of person (the author) who pats himself on the back because he's hired of black person. Trust me... he never forgets that hiree is black. "I'm not a racist, I have a black friend". ha ha!

I suppose one could say at least he hired them. Democrats just like to keep them on urban plantations.

By the way, I've left your account on for a little while. You look to be fun.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Now thats funny .

John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

Except that Malkin herself RETRACTED her hasty sit-it-out remark...
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.