I thought is was odd that he got the race card out of that... But I cannot deny the fact that there is still more racism in this country than there should be. I will add more sexism also.
*has flashback to Criminal Writing class where a professor went nuts over a student citing Wikipedia* heck, i edited something back in the day lol
I quoted the wrong person, I meant to quote Tani. My bad! Kinda fun huh?:lol: That is how I know it is not reliable!
I agree. One ounce is too much. But you can't legislate against being a jerk, can you? Racism sucks. It's immoral, arrogant, disdainful. But it's been all but crushed in our country and only prodded forward by a tiny fraction of the population...among whom are those who make their living off of the race card. Sexism could be a worse problem!:-k
okay, fair enough. but let's look at obama's "activism": After four years in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer for three years from June 1985 to May 1988 as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side.[12][14] During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens.[15] Obama also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute.[16] (from wiki, sorry). why in the world would palin (or padre) choose this from his extensive resume to compare to her experience as mayor of a town of 7000. i've been told by people who are more experienced in politics--on both sides--that "community activist" is republican code for a civil rights organizer, which of course is a bad thing. i/they might be wrong, but you have to admit-- it sure seemed out of place in her speech and she said it in a very condescending way. and got big laughs. :?: and if you don't think that racism is alive and well in this country, you must be living in a gated community and only reading the o.c. register. and haven't traveled much around the country. especially the south. i believe i read that 12% of people in one survey wouldn't vote for obama because of his race. i'll try to verify that one...
I'm speaking relatively. If you've traveled outside this country, it becomes very clear just how good things are, here.
See the post right before yours. Relatively, my friend. Neither of us expect a utopia of altruistic people. Are there racists in this country? Yes. Does this country have the least amount of the problem in the world? Arguably, yes.
Wow! I had to skip the middle ](*,)but this one sure seems to have gone off on an tangent... Sure racism... and sexism and religionism(?) and whatever-else-you-can-think-of-ism is still alive in America (that would be both continents) as well as the good-ole USofA... Wikipedia is created by and for the people and is constantly changing... you should take it for what it is - the bias of the author of the moment. You can learn something from it, but as with all media outlets, you should never take it as the gospel (sorry for the pun) truth. It is, however, another internet portal for (ir)rational debate among every...person...:?: My two cents... It all comes down to what you want. Do you want to make the most in the shortest amount of time and hope that it will last you to the grave? Or do you want to contribute what you are able... and willing... for what you need... or if you are more willing and able then for a bit more than what you need... that sounds almost Marxist8-[? My current political parable: it seems like many (I won't say a lot) people in the energy industry are begging for clear regulation. They are fully aware that the current path is not sustainable, yet the current administration (and the big shots behind the hopeful heir... is that subtle or not?) refuse to give them any direction. WHY? I guess that goes back to my first question in the paragraph above. anyway... gotta clean up before the wife gets back from her business trip so I can sleep off the two Port Brewing 22 ozers and go out to Daley in the morning and enjoy some trail time before my work responsibilities come back to haunt me Monday morning...:drunk: Anyone gonna be out there?
As much as I should care about the race for president, I don't. It is a joke. The electoral college is archaic,and the way money is used to get a vote takes the common man out of the whole picture. As you have seen in the past our vote really does not mean anything. Where on the ballot is the spot that you can pick neither/nor. Everybody is in bed with each other in this global economy, so "we" don't factor in.
Oh and did I mention you live in California, ALL your electoral college votes are going to the Dems:wave:.
from a PM I received... I was not given a source, shocking. I however ran across this right now which I found interesting... that must mean, "i'm rich bitch!" but i'm not. in word form in case anyone's interested - long/boring but informative
I'm going to try something new for this thread. I'm going to engage someone's point with a response that does not include "your guy's a #@#$%" or "your guy's a war criminal", and we'll see how this goes: DavidB: Obama's plan is more aggressive at the bottom end than McCain's. Whether that's appropriate or not is an interesting question, given that half of americans currently pay no federal income tax already (and a great number of the rest pay just 10% off the top of some of the money). What this means is that any cut in tax rates will go to the top half of earners. What Obama is proposing is not cut in tax rates, it is a handout to people who currently do not pay federal income tax. Not an increase to the Earned Income Tax Credit, or a cut in payroll tax rates, which I would support loudly, but just plain old handout. This will not change anyone's incentives to work, or create a job where there wasn't one before, as far as I can tell it will just cause inflation--if everyone has $10,000 & the government gives everyone $1000 more, nobody is better off, everything just costs 10% more. Remember those "stimulus" checks? Did you see inflation last month? A second point which bears mentioning: A lot of us remember Bill Clinton's promise of a "middle class tax cut" in 1992. About a month into his term, he says "golly, there's no money for that," and he raised taxes instead. So the Democrats' credibility on tax cut follow-through is widely doubted. Granted, the GOP credibility on spending restraint is zero, but we were talking about taxes. And while most folks remember the good times of the last couple Clinton years, what seems to be forgotten is the 1993-1995 time frame, which felt a lot like right now, with falling home prices & stubborn unemployment & such. Holy cow, it's 1:30 in the morning! What am I doing up?
g-dub, you're forgetting Bush Sr. and his "read my lips" quote. right before he raised taxes. Our country is in so much debt right now. China pretty much owns us. We have spent a disgusting amount of money on a war that never should have been. Our country has never been as poor as it is right now. It seems to me that raising taxes is the least we need to do. Personally, I don't understand why Republicans aren't more pissed off. The party that is supposed to be fiscally conservative and stand for less government has been completely hijacked by the Bush administration.
Thanks for reminding me. Bush Sr. had that '92 defeat coming to him. He should have realized that taking the blame for a government shutdown would be less damaging than taking the blame for hiking taxes at the beginning of a recession. Senator Mitchell played him.
so i got a bike shirt, and i saw this and was laughing my A$$ off http://www.zazzle.com/palin_gilf_i_can_get_behind_t_shirt-235927359752487805
So i can vote, but i got this and it makes sense to me.... You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after 143 days of experience. You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon. You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience. You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after 143 days of experience. You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience. BUT, from the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United States Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World .... 143 days. We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a start. AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public is okay with this and campaigning for him. We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are okay with this for the President of the United States of America.
well, brandon, it's not quite that simple. obama has been in the senate for three years. senators are working most of the time, even if they're not in session. also, obama has made numerous overseas trips, which doesn't show up in your total. obama was also a state senator for eight years, and has a long, impressive resume (google it). both sides will be using lots of propaganda to get your note. you need to educate yourself to make a good choice. i suggest: watching cspan, read a few different papers, read some blogs, look at the party platforms, watch the debates, watch the news--especially sunday morning shows like "meet the press". palin has only been governor two years. is that enough to be ready to "lead the free world" if anything happens to mccain? mccain has been in politics for decades, like biden. but that also means they're "insiders", who may have strong connections to lobbyists. each party has distinct views on everything from taxes and abortion to health insurance and the role of the military. it's a lot to sort out. so please don't base your vote on internet emails. good luck, doug
