0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 06:04 pm
ah, george...I know you are like...a non-fibber sort of guy and so I just wanted to inquire as to a couple of things re PBS...if you don't mind of course.

In the last five years, say, what PBS shows have you actually watched?

In those shows, what incidents of biased reporting did you see?

The more specific the better, as they have a wonderful site and I can probably go find the particular shows you have in mind, to back up your memory.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 06:32 pm
For real ruckus see jesus encounter the neo-cons as he climbs down off the mount.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 08:39 pm
"The Lord has given unto me these fifteen - SMASH! - oops...these ten commandments..."
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 11:22 pm
jpinMilwaukee wrote:
I just talked to a co-worker who is upset at the results... she said she doesn't like how Bush is so close with the Saudis and big oil.
I know that it's now six months on, but wouldnt it be a good idea to slightly edit this, and replace "big" with "Iraqi", given the recent developments?

Just a suggestion.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 05:07 am
Quote:
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.


--President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954 (source: Eisenhower Presidential Papers, Document #1147; November 8, 1954 The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower, Volume XV - The Presidency: The Middle Way Part VI: Crises Abroad, Party Problems at Home; September 1954 to December 1954,) Chapter 13: "A new phase of political experience"
(thanks to Eric Alterman)
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 05:35 am
This is non-political so I can post from here - Blatham, the absurdity of picking snippets of political data without the corresponding economic data will become apparent to you when you see that the government ran a budget surplus during several years of the Eisenhower administration, i.e. the national debt was decreasing. Not exactly our situation, half a century down the road; in fact unless all those "social" programs go by the wayside we're facing national bankruptcy soon.

Please educate yourself before making policy prescriptions: arithmetic is all that's needed here Smile

____________________________________________________________

12/31/1958 282,922,423,583.87
12/31/1957 274,897,784,290.72
12/31/1956 276,627,527,996.11
12/30/1955 280,768,553,188.96
12/31/1954 278,749,814,391.33
12/31/1953 275,168,120,129.39
06/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57
06/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43
06/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93
06/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04


http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
____________________________________________________________
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 05:40 am
P.S. The much-vaunted "surpluses" during the Clinton administration were smoke-and-mirrors, as is easily proven by the fact that the national debt kept increasing relentlessly year-in year-out.

For detailed numbers refer to above link at publicdebt.treas.gov

Any more historical ideas with numbers to back them up, please post here Smile
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 06:53 am
Economics I cannot argue with you, helen. But I trust that others can and do.

As to prescriptions, did I make one? I suppose it might seem an implication that I think something ought to be done, perhaps a vitamin supplement regimin, for Texas oil people, well, yes, that implication might be drawn from the Eisenhower quote.

Or, perhaps one might extricate out from this post, or from others you've heard rumor of, that my dull suspicions lead me towards the notion that great alarums on SS to be, possibly, brummagem fakeries layered over greed and desires for control, I could see that too.

Kiss.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 06:55 am
ps...'brummagem' I stole from this fellow...though he uses it much more deliciously than I. Note also his first sentence...it's brilliant.
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley.asp
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 06:07 am
Thomas Sowell's politics are way outside the expected box and, given any thought at all, are fascinating and provocative. While certainly opposed to slavery or involuntary servitude and while a strong proponent of civil rights, he isn't afraid to say how the liberal agenda has kept blacks 'in a lesser place'; i.e. a place that liberals have designed for them.

I think if those right of center continue to give all qualified Americans an equal shot, it is inevitable that more and more black Americans will start to see things the way Sowell, Cosby, Williams, Steele, et al see them. And when they do, there will finally be no more black Americans, white Americans, etc. There will just be Americans.

Don't you find it fascinating the vitriolic scorn the Democrats heap on any qualified black appointee who happens to be conservative? I think once minority groups see that it is actually the conservatives who have their best interests at heart, the GOP or other more conservative parties will be winning all or most elections all the way into the next millenia.

Thursday, May 26, 2005
May 24, 2005
Liberals, Race & History
By Thomas Sowell

If the share of the black vote that goes to the Democrats ever falls to 70 percent, it may be virtually impossible for the Democrats to win the White House or Congress, because they have long ago lost the white male vote and their support among other groups is eroding. Against that background, it is possible to understand their desperate efforts to keep blacks paranoid, not only about Republicans but about American society in general.

Liberal Democrats, especially, must keep blacks fearful of racism everywhere, including in an administration whose Cabinet includes people of Chinese, Japanese, Hispanic, and Jewish ancestry, and two consecutive black Secretaries of State. Blacks must be kept believing that their only hope lies with liberals.

Not only must the present be distorted, so must the past -- and any alternative view of the future must be nipped in the bud. That is why prominent minority figures who stray from the liberal plantation must be discredited, debased and, above all, kept from becoming federal judges.

A thoughtful and highly intelligent member of the California supreme court like Justice Janice Rogers Brown must be smeared as a right-wing extremist, even though she received 76 percent of the vote in California, hardly a right-wing extremist state. But desperate politicians cannot let facts stand in their way.

Least of all can they afford to let Janice Rogers Brown become a national figure on the federal bench. The things she says and does could lead other blacks to begin to think independently -- and that in turn threatens the whole liberal house of cards. If a smear is what it takes to stop her, that is what liberal politicians and the liberal media will use.

It's "not personal" as they say when they smear someone. It doesn't matter how outstanding or upstanding Justice Brown is. She is a threat to the power that means everything to liberal politicians. The Democrats' dependence on blacks for votes means that they must keep blacks dependent on them.

Black self-reliance would be almost as bad as blacks becoming Republicans, as far as liberal Democrats are concerned. All black progress in the past must be depicted as the result of liberal government programs and all hope of future progress must be depicted as dependent on the same liberalism.

In reality, reductions in poverty among blacks and the rise of blacks into higher level occupations were both more pronounced in the years leading up to the civil rights legislation and welfare state policies of the 1960s than in the years that followed.

Moreover, contrary to political myth, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But facts have never stopped politicians or ideologues before and show no signs of stopping them now.

What blacks have achieved for themselves, without the help of liberals, is of no interest to liberals. Nothing illustrates this better than political reactions to academically successful black schools.

Despite widespread concerns expressed about the abysmal educational performances of most black schools, there is remarkably little interest in those relatively few black schools which have met or exceeded national standards.

Anyone who is serious about the advancement of blacks would want to know what is going on in those ghetto schools whose students have reading and math scores above the national average, when so many other ghetto schools are miles behind in both subjects. But virtually all the studies of such schools have been done by conservatives, while liberals have been strangely silent.

Achievement is not what liberalism is about. Victimhood and dependency are.

Black educational achievements are a special inconvenience for liberals because those achievements have usually been a result of methods and practices that go directly counter to prevailing theories in liberal educational circles and are anathema to the teachers' unions that are key supporters of the Democratic Party.

Many things that would advance blacks would not advance the liberal agenda. That is why the time is long overdue for the two to come to a parting of the ways.

Copyright 2005 Creators Syndicate
http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-5_24_05_TS.html
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 07:11 am
Sowell, quoted by Foxfyre wrote:
Against that background, it is possible to understand their [Democrats'] desperate efforts to keep blacks paranoid....


Please note the following post by Gungasnake, one of Able2Know's leading conservatives, in the following thread:
Quote
gungasnake wrote:
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050519-110607-1836r.htm

Quote:

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's chief of staff yesterday acknowledged that scandals involving Iraq, peacekeeping and human rights have hurt the world body, but said any move to freeze or cut U.S. dues would set back the cause of reform.

"The option of withholding money immediately sets you off from all of your allies in this fight," Mark Malloch Brown, Mr. Annan's recently appointed chief of staff, told a House International Relations Committee hearing.

"It would be seen as the United States once again acting alone," he said. ...



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/kelticwizard100/amos_n_andy.jpg

Kofi Anan and top UN aides discussing the oil4food operation...


This picture was selected because Kofi Annan's skin color is black.

Despite the cosmetics of Powell, Rice, etc and the scribblings of Thomas Sowell, the Republican party remains largely, though not exclusively, composed of people who would reinstate the laws that blacks have to go to the back of the bus. As Gungasnake has illustrated here.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 07:17 am
KW writes
Quote:
Despite the cosmetics of Powell, Rice, etc and the scribblings of Thomas Sowell, the Republican party remains largely, though not exclusively, composed of people who would reinstate the laws that blacks have to go to the back of the bus. As Gungasnake has illustrated here.


Okay KW, I'm going to have to ask you to back that up. Are you basing your opinion purely on a photo, obviously posted as humor? If so, would not all of Pdiddie's offensive cartoons, etc. re Powell, Rice, et al not offset one photo spoofing the other side?

To what specific laws do you refer and who do you think are proposing them? And why wouldn't my heroes (Sowell, Cosby, Williams, Steele et al) who happen to be black be commenting on that?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 08:32 am
KW wrote:
Despite the cosmetics of Powell, Rice, etc and the scribblings of Thomas Sowell, the Republican party remains largely, though not exclusively, composed of people who would reinstate the laws that blacks have to go to the back of the bus. As Gungasnake has illustrated here.


Had Gunga used a photo depicting some bumbling white guys -- let's say the three stooges -- would that have been preferred? Which one would Kofi be: Larry, Moe, or Curly? What about Laurel and Hardy? Is it racist, in your estimation, that Gunga selected a photo depicting Kofi as a black man? Would it have been less racist, in your view, for him to have depicted him as a white man?

Or is it the three-piece suits and bow ties that you object to? The wearing of the pocket watch? The extreme tilt of the bowler? Please enucleate this for us.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 08:40 am
Quote:
Don't you find it fascinating the vitriolic scorn the Democrats heap on any qualified black appointee who happens to be conservative?


What's far more fascinating is that you'd totally ignore/forget/deny the history of the last half century (the Republican rejection of civil rights legistlation and the liberal ideological push for inclusion of minorities ). The implication you make here, a contemporary propaganda line from your party to attempt to foster hatreds, is not simply ahistorical, it is despicable.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 08:52 am
blatham wrote:
Quote:
Don't you find it fascinating the vitriolic scorn the Democrats heap on any qualified black appointee who happens to be conservative?


What's far more fascinating is that you'd totally ignore/forget/deny the history of the last half century (the Republican rejection of civil rights legistlation and the liberal ideological push for inclusion of minorities ). The implication you make here, a contemporary propaganda line from your party to attempt to foster hatreds, is not simply ahistorical, it is despicable.



Tell me Blatham, is it also despicable that the chief obstructionist and hate spewing critic of Bush, was also a past grand dragon of the KKK..........I give you.........Senator ROBERT BYRD.

Your post above would rate as the pinnacle of HYPOCRISY.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 08:54 am
Considering that it was a Republican who wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, that it was mostly Southern Democrats who held on to the right to own, buy, sell slaves, that it was only the GOP support that segregation was ended and critical civil rights legislation was passed, Blatham again distorts and twists history to fit his own narrow and distorted point of view.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 09:07 am
rayban

Would you like me to begin listing all the Republicans who were members of the KKK? There were a lot of guilty people, but your side wins.

Fox

Try to focus, dearie. I said the last half of the century, that is, the modern period. As the recent filibuster debate reminded us, it was the Republicans who used the filibuster on many occasions in order to stop civil rights legislation.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 09:11 am
Blatham writes
Quote:
Try to focus, dearie. I said the last half of the century, that is, the modern period. As the recent filibuster debate reminded us, it was the Republicans who used the filibuster on many occasions in order to stop civil rights legislation.


That is utter nonsense Blatham. Back to the history books for you.

Quote:
Kennedy's Civil Rights bill was still being debated by Congress when he was assassinated in November, 1963. The new president, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who had a poor record on civil rights issues, took up the cause. His main opponent was his long-time friend and mentor, Richard B. Russell, who told the Senate: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states." Russell organized 18 Southern Democratic senators in filibustering this bill.

However, on the 15th June, 1964, Richard B. Russell privately told Mike Mansfield and Hubert Humphrey, the two leading supporters of the Civil Rights Act, that he would bring an end to the filibuster that was blocking the vote on the bill. This resulted in a vote being taken and it was passed by 73 votes to 27.http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivil64.htm


Quote:
The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley's Democratic opponent). Surely young Bradley must have flunked his internship because ostensibly he did not learn that the Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster. In addition, he did not know that 21 is over three times as much as six, otherwise he would have become - according to the logic of his statement - a Republican. http://www.nationalcenter.org/NVDavisBradley1299.html


P.S. John Kennedy was to the right of most of the GOP in congress now. The only reason LBJ went along with JFK's civil rights initiative is he knew he knew Robert Kennedy would oppose him and he was vulnerable in the next election. As it turned out, he didn't run due to his Vietnam problem, but there is no way an old racist like Johnson would have supported that legislation otherwise.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 09:25 am
foxfyre

You are right on this point. My apologies. Another source
Quote:
All of the major legislation that today bars racial discrimination in voting, employment and housing was passed after filibusters, requiring cloture to obtain the necessary votes. Racial filibusters continued in the 1970s, even for extensions of the Voting Rights Act and of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Southern Democrats almost always led the racial filibusters, but they were always joined by some conservative Republicans. We recite this history to emphasize that minority rights in the Senate are no less important today than they were when the Senate insisted on the rights of the minority that delayed each and every attempt to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments for a century.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 09:28 am
Funny.. I don't remember to many people complaining when a leading liberal posted racist pictures of Condi Rice.

In case you were wondering they start here:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1034305#1034305
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 04/19/2025 at 10:20:36