[ironknee]

you remember the swift boat smear of john Kerry's reputation back in 2004 right?

if Obama gets the democratic nomination, how hard will the swift boaters attack him as a black man?

would they go to even using the n word?

if hillary gets the democratic nomination, how hard will the swiftboaters attack her as a female?

would they go to even using the c word?

[Cold Warrior]

It's already started for McCain. And the swift boaters are the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us.../21mccain.html

[ironknee]

how do you know it's not real? it's not fox or anything...

and if it's true, how do you deal with it? he's your front runner after all...

steve jobs/apple uses the ny times to demo the iphone...how do you deal with that?

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

steve jobs/apple uses the ny times to demo the iphone...how do you deal with that?

huh?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

It's already started for McCain. And the swift boaters are the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us.../21mccain.html

Obama will have much more ammunition, it seems.

[Kerrigan]

It's interesting how the "n-word" is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Obama's potential faults, ironknee.

Or how the "c-word" seems to have a place in your mind next to Hillary.

Originally Posted by ironknee 

steve jobs/apple uses the ny times to demo the iphone...how do you deal with that?

What are you talking about?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

It's interesting how the "n-word" is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Obama's potential faults, ironknee.

Or how the "c-word" seems to have a place in your mind next to Hillary.

nice try.... the conservative swift boat people will be back up against the wall and will do anything

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

What are you talking about?

if steve used foxnews.com to demo the iphone, i would not be such an apple fanboy

[Oversoul]

Towards Obama, it already began months ago.

A "viral" email has been making its way around the internet suggesting that Obama is a radical Muslim trained in a radical Islamic fundamentalist school in Indonesia, and that he is a sort of Manchurian candidate put forth by the world's terrorists to take over the United States. Unfounded conspiracy theories aside, Obama's already had his middle and last names used against him by anti-semitic innuendo to try and paint him as a Arab or Muslim sympathizer, or Muslim himself.

And in the last few days, a group of Hillary supporters have organized a "527" group, the same type as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, to get 100 wealthy donors to donate $100,000 each to raise $10 million to promote Hillary and attack Obama as policy- and experience-lite.

[placebo1969]

What exactly does "Swift-boating" mean? I'm sure people have very different definitions. Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing? Does swift-boating mean exposing the truth? Or does it mean smearing someone in a false manner?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

nice try.... the conservative swift boat people will be back up against the wall and will do anything

seems to me that the Dems are the ones willing to do anything this time around. Since McCain doesn't stoop to that level it makes him an easier target.

[Chongo]

"swift boating", is telling the truth , being "borked", which by the way, the left invented long before SBVFT exsisted, is smearing by false allegations.
bork - Definitions from Dictionary.com

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

"swift boating", is telling the truth , being "borked", which by the way, the left invented long before SBVFT exsisted, is smearing by false allegations.
bork - Definitions from Dictionary.com

telling the truth...ok...is the new york times swift boating then?

which way do you want it?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

telling the truth...ok...is the new york times swift boating then?

which way do you want it?

he is being Borked
Remember this guy? Those opposed to his nomination even went through is video store account to see if he was renting porno!

[tie]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

telling the truth...ok...is the new york times swift boating then?

which way do you want it?

Swiftboating is lying under the cover of 527s. Surprisingly, it isn't in the OS X dictionary.

The NY Times report combines an honest look at McCain's corrupt ties to lobbyists (many of which he does not dispute, but only claims to have changed his ways) with allegations/innuendo of a romantic relationship with a lobbyist (which are heavily disputed and which the Times has only weak evidence for).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

being "borked", which by the way, the left invented long before SBVFT exsisted, is smearing by false allegations.

You mean like alleging that the left invented being "borked"?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

he is being Borked
Remember this guy? Those opposed to his nomination even went through is video store account to see if he was renting porno!

yes yes we all remember the dolt...

so the nyt is borking mccain not swift boating him?

what is the difference, please tell.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

what is the difference, please tell.

Swiftboating is what Democrats call it when Republicans do it.
Borking appears to be what Republicans call it when Democrats are doing it.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Swiftboating is what Democrats call it when Republicans do it.
Borking appears to be what Republicans call it when Democrats are doing it.

sweet

[Shaddim]

I prefer the term "Borking", it sounds dirty.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by tie 

Swiftboating is lying under the cover of 527s. Surprisingly, it isn't in the OS X dictionary.

What lies did the Swift Boat Veterans tell?

[Apemanblues]

Originally Posted by placebo1969 

What exactly does "Swift-boating" mean?

I think it's a euphemism for some sort of messy sex act.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

you remember the swift boat smear of john Kerry's reputation back in 2004 right?

No. I remember an outlet using freedom of speech to call a fraud to the carpet. I do remember some fake endorsement piece about Bush though.

if Obama gets the democratic nomination, how hard will the swift boaters attack him as a black man?would they go to even using the n word?

Knowing the Church he attends is pastored by a racist, anti-semite, race may become an issue, but not for the reasons you seem to think.

if hillary gets the democratic nomination, how hard will the swiftboaters attack her as a female? Would they go to even using the c word?

The only one with an apparent problem using the "c word" is Hanoi Jane. If Hillary gets the democratic nomination, the best thing the swift boat veterans could do is remain silent and let her speak also.

The question is, If Condi is McCain's running mate will moveon.org et al. be able to avoid racism and sexism? Will these bleeding heart commie libs with their alleged monopoly on tolerance find themselves caught with their racism hanging out again? Amazing to me the amount of focus on race from the left. Honestly.

Project much?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

What are you talking about?

He tried this comment using "demo" in this thread, found it a little too confounding for the readership and used "promo" in another thread. Pretty much the same affect there.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

The NY Times report combines an honest look at McCain's corrupt ties to lobbyists (many of which he does not dispute, but only claims to have changed his ways) with allegations/innuendo of a romantic relationship with a lobbyist (which are heavily disputed and which the Times has only weak evidence for).

This will be interesting to watch. Obama has definitely been an anti-lobbyist champion and this may become a sticking point between he and McCain. The painful fact of the matter however is that PAC money constitutes less than 1% of a Presidential race. In reality, Obama is only foregoing approximately $320,000 by holding the line on registered "lobbyists" when compared to McCain, $500k compared to Hillary. Not included in the traditional "lobbyist" segment are in-house lobbyists who work solely for one company, union, trade association, or other group and while they can lobby, their funds are lumped in with the industries they represent. These industries collect from fellow employees, industry professionals, relatives, PAC money, etc... and have clout no different than traditional lobbyists.

For example; Obama has raised over $9 million from lawyers and law firms, $338,000 from pharmaceutical and related industries, and $1.7 million from health professionals. McCain and Huckabee have taken only a small fraction of this total from the above outlets. The deeper you dig into Obama's contributions the more you realize that his anti-lobbyist stance has symbolic merit, but little substance.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. I remember an outlet using freedom of speech to call a fraud to the carpet. I do remember some fake endorsement piece about Bush though.

right and bush skipped his tour of duty...you haven't learned a bit in the last 4 years...i bet you still think bush is great

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Knowing the Church he attends is pastored by a racist, anti-semite, race may become an issue, but not for the reasons you seem to think.

i don't know about said pastor...but i don't like any closed-minded religious people to begin with

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The only one with an apparent problem using the "c word" is Hanoi Jane. If Hillary gets the democratic nomination, the best thing the swift boat veterans could do is remain silent and let her speak also.

hanoi jane is the only one with a problem with the c-word? but would they remain silent? come on...

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The question is, If Condi is McCain's running mate will moveon.org et al. be able to avoid racism and sexism? Will these bleeding heart commie libs with their alleged monopoly on tolerance find themselves caught with their racism hanging out again? Amazing to me the amount of focus on race from the left. Honestly.

mccain isn't that stupid to have condi as the vice president...she's too close to bush...but if she were do you REALLY think the dems (who have a black and a female candidate) would be racist and sexist????

are you saying the conservatives are more open to equal rights for minorities and females???? are you for real???

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Project much?

my god man... denial is not a river in egypt!

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He tried this comment using "demo" in this thread, found it a little too confounding for the readership and used "promo" in another thread. Pretty much the same affect there.

i don't know why there are conservative mac owners..."The research also showed that Mac users are more likely to be liberals"

The Street: "Mac Owners Are Snobs" - The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

right and bush skipped his tour of duty...you haven't learned a bit in the last 4 years...i bet you still think bush is great

If you think this is my general view of Bush and this Administration, you've not been reading much here in the last 4 years. I am glad you're able to read bumper stickers though. As dissappointed as I am with you, there wouldn't even be this much substance to your arguments if you couldn't.

i don't know about said pastor...but i don't like any closed-minded religious people to begin with

Me neither. I wish Obama could find it within himself to agree with us.

hanoi jane is the only one with a problem with the c-word? but would they remain silent? come on...

Can someone please help me with the above? I don't get it.

mccain isn't that stupid to have condi as the vice president...she's too close to bush...but if she were do you REALLY think the dems (who have a black and a female candidate) would be racist and sexist????

You haven't been paying too much attention to the Democratic race have you?

are you saying the conservatives are more open to equal rights for minorities and females???? are you for real???

Absolutely. They authored and initiated policies giving them equal rights. You're welcome to provide some info to the contrary. They carry their platform to meet them where they are as opposed to exploiting them for a vote and perpetuating their problems.

my god man... denial is not a river in egypt!

like oh my god i cant believe you just said that youre kidding right like im not believing this

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This will be interesting to watch. Obama has definitely been an anti-lobbyist champion and this may become a sticking point between he and McCain. The painful fact of the matter however is that PAC money constitutes less than 1% of a Presidential race. In reality, Obama is only foregoing approximately $320,000 by holding the line on registered "lobbyists" when compared to McCain, $500k compared to Hillary. Not included in the traditional "lobbyist" segment are in-house lobbyists who work solely for one company, union, trade association, or other group and while they can lobby, their funds are lumped in with the industries they represent. These industries collect from fellow employees, industry professionals, relatives, PAC money, etc... and have clout no different than traditional lobbyists.

For example; Obama has raised over $9 million from lawyers and law firms, $338,000 from pharmaceutical and related industries, and $1.7 million from health professionals. McCain and Huckabee have taken only a small fraction of this total from the above outlets. The deeper you dig into Obama's contributions the more you realize that his anti-lobbyist stance has symbolic merit, but little substance.

Sentences starting with, "the painful fact of the matter is..." are bound to be full of excuses. I don't care how much Obama or McCain has raised from individuals regardless of those individuals' occupations. I don't agree that individual donations are equivalent to lobbying, even if organized as part of a company, union, etc.

Obama does have a clear advantage on lobbying because McCain has a dirty record. I'd like to see him pay us back the $600-odd million that we lost in '89 (his share of the $3.4 billion). McCain's record more recently, though, hasn't been nearly as bad, so Obama is benefiting from his lack of experience.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

hanoi jane is the only one with a problem with the c-word? but would they remain silent? come on...

Can someone please help me with the above? I don't get it.

YouTube - Jane Fonda Says Cunt (Live on theToday Show)

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If you think this is my general view of Bush and this Administration, you've not been reading much here in the last 4 years. I am glad you're able to read bumper stickers though. As dissappointed as I am with you, there wouldn't even be this much substance to your arguments if you couldn't.

you are right. i haven't been reading here that much lately. and i'm sorry i don't know everything about your views.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Me neither. I wish Obama could find it within himself to agree with us.

right on man

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Can someone please help me with the above? I don't get it.

you said:

The only one with an apparent problem using the "c word" is Hanoi Jane

i read:
Only hanoi jane has a problem with the c- word, apparently.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You haven't been paying too much attention to the Democratic race have you?

please inform!

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Absolutely. They authored and initiated policies giving them equal rights. You're welcome to provide some info to the contrary. They carry their platform to meet them where they are as opposed to exploiting them for a vote and perpetuating their problems.

i think when it comes to women's rights, "femanazi" says it all.
as far as minority rights are concerned, are you referring to lincoln?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

like oh my god i cant believe you just said that youre kidding right like im not believing this

did i? i didn't mean it... i am serious man

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

YouTube - Jane Fonda Says **** (Live on theToday Show)

ohhhh is that what you were referring to ebuddy?...

[davesimondotcom]

So when it comes to falsifying things to try to change the result of an election is a Republican thing? When did Dan Rather become a Republican?

Of course, he was a responsible journalist, not a group of individuals who just wanted to have their say.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom 

So when it comes to falsifying things to try to change the result of an election is a Republican thing? When did Dan Rather become a Republican?

Of course, he was a responsible journalist, not a group of individuals who just wanted to have their say.

no. i said, swift boating or borking is the same thing with 2 different points of view.

as it turns out swift boating is a right wing group smearing a fellow vet of the war in country.

why would dan rather risk his long career for bush? and btw, dan was part of the cbs corporation..

dan rather, walter cronkite, the new york times, cnn, abcnews, cbs new, nbc news, washington post, la times...are all in the real world of journalism ...check your sources twice...my god watch all the president's men....

happy days are here again...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

you are right. i haven't been reading here that much lately. and i'm sorry i don't know everything about your views.

"I bet" usually indicates some level of knowledge. For whatever reason people must compartmentalize all things (including computer usage) into left or right. The good news is you've managed to avoid the obligatory "Fox News" comment for at least two or three posts. I was beginning to think the grab-bag was running low.

please inform!

Bill Clinton upon Obama's win in South Carolina; "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here." What on earth do these two have in common?

Shaheen's shameless attempt to speculate on Obama's past by questioning nothing more than his very open admission of having used drugs.

i think when it comes to women's rights, "femanazi" says it all.

Susan B. Anthony was a feminist. A certain unnamed female poster on the NNs might be considered a femanazi. There's a difference. A feminazi is a female who always assumes men are simply no good. They are incapable of introspect and lack honesty regarding any issue they connect to a specific gender and political party. They may say something to the effect of; "all conservative men do is disrespect women, use women, and leave them in the gutter, face-down and pregnant with their child." as if conservative men cannot have consensual sex or something. I've yet to meet a conservative man or woman who felt that women shouldn't have equal rights, including Rush Limbaugh. * Ya know, there was a time when biting commentary like his was considered virtuous. Shame really.

as far as minority rights are concerned, are you referring to lincoln?

You didn't catch that thread either?

You can certainly go back to Lincoln if you wish and go through Grant, but I'll start at least a few years later. How about 1963 while Kennedy was in office, Republicans had authored a new civil rights bill. Lo and behold, Kennedy jumped on a new civil rights bill shortly thereafter for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The good news is most Republicans favored it anyway, voted for it in greater numbers than the democrats, and in fact Richard Nixon himself was instrumental. In spite of the fact that a former klansman, Robert Byrd was very much opposed and fought this bill for hours prior to final vote.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

"I bet" usually indicates some level of knowledge. For whatever reason people must compartmentalize all things (including computer usage) into left or right. The good news is you've managed to avoid the obligatory "Fox News" comment for at least two or three posts. I was beginning to think the grab-bag was running low.

agreed..."i bet" was assuming. thank you. i will not mention f-news here.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Bill Clinton upon Obama's win in South Carolina; "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here." What on earth do these two have in common?

LOL that is good....ok if bill said that bad for him (assuming it's that they are both black by inference)

Shaheen's shameless attempt to speculate on Obama's past by questioning nothing more than his very open admission of having used drugs.

agreed also...but obama did do drugs, he wrote about it....but for me, that is refreshing to hear....and, get ready, i never liked clinton's "i never inhaled" excuse... that really turned me off to him... be real man, right ebuddy?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Susan B. Anthony was a feminist. A certain unnamed female poster on the NNs might be considered a femanazi. There's a difference. A feminazi is a female who always assumes men are simply no good. They are incapable of introspect and lack honesty regarding any issue they connect to a specific gender and political party.

ok. so i imagine someone like hanoi jane is a femanazi...or(?) who?

also, is a woman who wants to choose her own path in life (a pro choice chick) is she a femenazi?


[QUOTE=ebuddy;3608520]They may say something to the effect of; "all conservative men do is disrespect women, use women, and leave them in the gutter, face-down and pregnant with their child." as if conservative men cannot have consensual sex or something.

well conservatives have a reputation of being, "squares" right?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've yet to meet a conservative man or woman who felt that women shouldn't have equal rights, including Rush Limbaugh. * Ya know, there was a time when biting commentary like his was considered virtuous. Shame really.

how do you you mean virtuous? also, why is there still a pay difference between men and women doing the same job? still in america!


[QUOTE=ebuddy;3608520You didn't catch that thread either?

You can certainly go back to Lincoln if you wish and go through Grant, but I'll start at least a few years later. How about 1963 while Kennedy was in office, Republicans had authored a new civil rights bill. Lo and behold, Kennedy jumped on a new civil rights bill shortly thereafter for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The good news is most Republicans favored it anyway, voted for it in greater numbers than the democrats, and in fact Richard Nixon himself was instrumental. In spite of the fact that a former klansman, Robert Byrd was very much opposed and fought this bill for hours prior to final vote.[/QUOTE]

forgive me but here is the entry in wiki
Origins

The bill had been introduced by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963,[1] in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments," as well as "greater protection for the right to vote."

please show me links to your sources...thank you

[Chongo]

There are only about 12 true Feminazis. They are concerned with one thing the most, abortion on demand for any reason at any time, including the 36th week

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. I remember an outlet using freedom of speech to call a fraud to the carpet.

Every statement made in those ads was true?

Seems to me that if some of the statements were lies (which it seems at least some of them were), then calling it a smear is an accurate assessment.

[subego]

I like my Bork to be shaggy.

What you gonna do? I'm old school.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

agreed also...but obama did do drugs, he wrote about it....but for me, that is refreshing to hear....and, get ready, i never liked clinton's "i never inhaled" excuse... that really turned me off to him... be real man, right ebuddy?

100% baby! In fact, I'll go one further; had Clinton not wagged his finger at the American people claiming he didn't have relations with that woman and just admitted it outright; it had already been some time since the incident and I strongly believe it would've blown over to a non-story. It blew into a story for going to court and lying under oath. After all, Republicans can't really claim some moral high ground with regard to sexual relations and Washington aides. Not with a straight face anyway. He handled this situation very poorly in my opinion.

ok. so i imagine someone like hanoi jane is a femanazi...or(?) who?

One example is someone who uses abortion as the central freedom of women when more women oppose it than men. Letting issues that truly marginalize women go, but railing exclusively on those who oppose abortion, framing it as conservative white cavemen VS women and failing to honestly look at how the American public in general feels about it. Rosie O'Donnell may be one for example. Another example would be the views of Sally Miller Gearhart, in an article; “The Future, If There is One, Is Female,” in which she writes: “At least three further requirements supplement the strategies of environmentalists if we were to create and preserve a less violent world. 1) Every culture must begin to affirm the female future. 2) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. 3) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race.” or Susan Brownmiller; “Man's discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to prehistoric times, along with the use of fire and the first crude stone axe. From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” The buzzwords of course are "all men" and "all women".

also, is a woman who wants to choose her own path in life (a pro choice chick) is she a femenazi?

I'd say generally, no. However, IMO it depends on whether or not she's genuinely considering women's views on pro-life/pro-choice. If their views go too far and do not align with the general female populace, she may be viewed as fringe in ideology. Beyond feminist, she may in fact be a feminazi. Driven not by noble ideology, but bitterness, hatred, and an agenda that perpetuates more of it. It is generally apparent in their verbiage.

well conservatives have a reputation of being, "squares" right?

Maybe so, but if this is true then the generalization would have to include that they are "the good guys" who can't get a girl.

how do you you mean virtuous?

It used to be considered a necessary function of freedom; a check and balance of power in a pure democracy. These days, it has no virtue unless it espouses the ideals of a single philosophy. All others must be tempered by including one of the proper philosophy or prohibited from speaking at all. (fairness doctrine)

also, why is there still a pay difference between men and women doing the same job? still in america!

There are jobs less desirable to women such as humping poles for the local utility, deep-sea drilling, coal-mining etc... When taken in context, men at entry-level here earn substantially more than a woman working a desk at the law firm entry-level. This is comparing apples to oranges. Men statistically work longer hours, hold more jobs that require social and physical risks, and a host of statistics show that women do not negotiate wages as openly, aggressively, and frequently as men. There are a wealth of resources on line specifically geared towards encouraging women to break this trend, but this is not male corporate America holding women down. Equal rights cannot ensure equal outcomes. Not to mention other instances of inequality that sway the other direction such as; family courts overwhelmingly favoring women, no scholarships specifically designed for men, the differences in view of sexual harassment and adult-child sex acts between men and women in the court of law. For example; are we as hard on adult women who have sex with young boys as we are adult men with young girls or do we just assume the young boy liked it? Are we as hard on women who subject men to sexual harassment as we are men or do we just assume that the man wanted it?

forgive me but here is the entry in wiki
Origins; The bill had been introduced by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963,[1] in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments," as well as "greater protection for the right to vote."

From reading the wiki article you're no doubt familiar with the fact that Kennedy's draft essentially mimics the Civil Rights Act of 1875 proposed by Republicans Charles Sumner and Benjamin Butler in 1870, signed into law by Grant, but let's get back to Kennedy's Act.

Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (Il Rep) drafted a comprehensive civil rights bill, but didn't have the votes to pass. Why? Southern Democrats. In fact, Republicans had been trying to pass civil rights legislation for over a century and Congress always saw the end of it.

- Preceding this however was Brown v. Board of Education. A 1954 Supreme Court decision that outlawed segregation in public schools written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, a three-term Republican governor of California appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. (I'm guessing you don't need a link for this, pretty common knowledge.)

- 1957 Civil Rights Act; in spite of the filibuster launched by southern Democrat Strom Thurmond against it, this voting rights bill was enacted by Republicans. 1957 Civil Rights Act

- 1960 Civil Rights Act; The Civil Rights Act of 1960 was a United States federal law that established federal inspection of local voter registration polls and introduced penalties for anyone who obstructed someone's attempt to register to vote or actually vote. Passed in spite of a "group of 18 Southern Democrats divided into three teams of six in order to be able to create a continuous filibuster wherein each member would only have to speak for four hours every three days. This system resulted in the longest filibuster in history, lasting over 43 hours from February 29 to March 2." 1960 Civil Rights Act

- Political scientist Robert D. Loevy has an extensive study on the history of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as well as activist Wayne Perryman; Robert Loevy, The Passage of Law that Ended Racial Segregation

Wayne Perryman, Unfounded Loyalty

National Leadership Network of Conservative African-Americans

Any honest look at the history of Civil Rights legislation in this country will admit that it was the Republicans who were the foundation, the spirit, the drive, and the sponsorship of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In case it is still less than clear, let the voting totals found in the wiki entry you cited speak for itself;

The original House version: (yes/no)
Democratic Party: 164-96 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version: (yes/no)
Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House: (yes/no)
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 186-35 (80%-20%)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

such as humping poles

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Any honest look at the history of Civil Rights legislation in this country will admit that it was the Republicans who were the foundation, the spirit, the drive, and the sponsorship of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

...And any honest look will also have to admit that the Republican role in civil rights advancement ended in the sixties. This was over forty years ago. Today's Republican party is the party of Reagan ("states rights"), of Trent Lott ("When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."), George Allen ("macaca"), etc.

McCain can't decide if he likes the Confederate flag or not because some Southern Republicans would like to refight the Civil War. The maverick Republican, Paul, would vote against the '64 Civil Rights Act and would rather Lincoln hadn't fought the Civil War at all (transcript).

There are zero black Republicans in the House or Senate. In contrast, the next Democratic presidential nominee is going to be either a woman or a black man. The difference between the parties is pretty stark now.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by tie 

...And any honest look will also have to admit that the Republican role in civil rights advancement ended in the sixties. This was over forty years ago. Today's Republican party is the party of Reagan ("states rights"), of Trent Lott ("When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."), George Allen ("macaca"), etc.

As opposed to the party who still to this day has a high ranking Senator who was a member of the KKK. And who had a President whose stated mentor was a southern racist.

Let's not get into the "your party is more racist" debate, because I am quite sure that the result would just be proving both have their share of asshats.

Originally Posted by tie 

There are zero black Republicans in the House or Senate. In contrast, the next Democratic presidential nominee is going to be either a woman or a black man. The difference between the parties is pretty stark now.

So the party that put a black woman in one of the most powerful positions in the world, following a black man in the same position is which one, again?

Like I said, the real truth is there are racists in both parties. It's become tradition for Democrats to point fingers and say "racist" at republicans, so much so that it's become mantra.

However, I ask you, after years of Democrats taking minorities votes for granted, how much progress has been made?

For the record, as of right now, I'm planning to vote for Obama, and I hope that everyone can keep the campaign on issues, not on the color of the candidate's skin. I don't plan to vote for him because of his skin, but because I think he shows the kind of leadership who can get our nation beyond the finger pointing and back to where we can pull together as countrymen.

I think it would serve neither party well, but I do think that some asshats within the right will make a big deal about Obama's middle name and so on. But I think these people are a minority and hopefully they will be completely marginalized.

And let's remember it was the Clintons who first brought up race in this campaign! Bill Clinton, the "first black President" himself was the one who did this...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

Every statement made in those ads was true?

Seems to me that if some of the statements were lies (which it seems at least some of them were), then calling it a smear is an accurate assessment.

What wasn't true? If it 'seems to you' that some were lies, then which ones?

Meanwhile, according to your definition, virtually everything that came out of John -Nixon Sent me to Cambodia before he was even elected- Kerry's mouth regarding Vietnam was a smear!

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

100% baby! In fact, I'll go one further; had Clinton not wagged his finger at the American people claiming he didn't have relations with that woman and just admitted it outright; it had already been some time since the incident and I strongly believe it would've blown over to a non-story. It blew into a story for going to court and lying under oath. After all, Republicans can't really claim some moral high ground with regard to sexual relations and Washington aides. Not with a straight face anyway. He handled this situation very poorly in my opinion.

yes bad on bill for even having a sexual relationship with an intern to begin with.

but ok he had a bj and he lied about it...how many of us would lie if it happened to us?

to me, the not inhaling was a suck up to the right and that was a slight to the baby boomers. didn't stevee jobs once asked a "square" potential employee, "how many times have you dropped acid?"

you forgot there was a crusader named kenneth star going after bill at full force...

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

One example is someone who uses abortion as the central freedom of women when more women oppose it than men. Letting issues that truly marginalize women go, but railing exclusively on those who oppose abortion, framing it as conservative white cavemen VS women and failing to honestly look at how the American public in general feels about it. Rosie O'Donnell may be one for example. Another example would be the views of Sally Miller Gearhart, in an article; “The Future, If There is One, Is Female,” in which she writes: “At least three further requirements supplement the strategies of environmentalists if we were to create and preserve a less violent world. 1) Every culture must begin to affirm the female future. 2) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. 3) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race.” or Susan Brownmiller; “Man's discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to prehistoric times, along with the use of fire and the first crude stone axe. From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” The buzzwords of course are "all men" and "all women".

so it seems these are extremes and are small in numbers...

rosie odonnall is is an example? what does she want us to do? I am not aware of her views

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'd say generally, no. However, IMO it depends on whether or not she's genuinely considering women's views on pro-life/pro-choice. If their views go too far and do not align with the general female populace, she may be viewed as fringe in ideology. Beyond feminist, she may in fact be a feminazi. Driven not by noble ideology, but bitterness, hatred, and an agenda that perpetuates more of it. It is generally apparent in their verbiage.

you mean the women who get pregnant just so they can abort it?

btw, what is your opinion on choice/life?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Maybe so, but if this is true then the generalization would have to include that they are "the good guys" who can't get a girl.

"i'm a good guy but the girls don't see it...meh...back to to d and d

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It used to be considered a necessary function of freedom; a check and balance of power in a pure democracy. These days, it has no virtue unless it espouses the ideals of a single philosophy. All others must be tempered by including one of the proper philosophy or prohibited from speaking at all. (fairness doctrine)

what about the nyt article on mccain?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are jobs less desirable to women such as humping poles for the local utility, deep-sea drilling, coal-mining etc... When taken in context, men at entry-level here earn substantially more than a woman working a desk at the law firm entry-level. This is comparing apples to oranges. Men statistically work longer hours, hold more jobs that require social and physical risks, and a host of statistics show that women do not negotiate wages as openly, aggressively, and frequently as men. There are a wealth of resources on line specifically geared towards encouraging women to break this trend, but this is not male corporate America holding women down. Equal rights cannot ensure equal outcomes. Not to mention other instances of inequality that sway the other direction such as; family courts overwhelmingly favoring women, no scholarships specifically designed for men, the differences in view of sexual harassment and adult-child sex acts between men and women in the court of law. For example; are we as hard on adult women who have sex with young boys as we are adult men with young girls or do we just assume the young boy liked it? Are we as hard on women who subject men to sexual harassment as we are men or do we just assume that the man wanted it?

let's start with basics...should a teacher (male for female) should have the same pay doing the same job?

do you think there is a problem or it's just the way it is?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

From reading the wiki article you're no doubt familiar with the fact that Kennedy's draft essentially mimics the Civil Rights Act of 1875 proposed by Republicans Charles Sumner and Benjamin Butler in 1870, signed into law by Grant, but let's get back to Kennedy's Act.

Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (Il Rep) drafted a comprehensive civil rights bill, but didn't have the votes to pass. Why? Southern Democrats. In fact, Republicans had been trying to pass civil rights legislation for over a century and Congress always saw the end of it.

- Preceding this however was Brown v. Board of Education. A 1954 Supreme Court decision that outlawed segregation in public schools written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, a three-term Republican governor of California appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. (I'm guessing you don't need a link for this, pretty common knowledge.)

- 1957 Civil Rights Act; in spite of the filibuster launched by southern Democrat Strom Thurmond against it, this voting rights bill was enacted by Republicans. 1957 Civil Rights Act

- 1960 Civil Rights Act; The Civil Rights Act of 1960 was a United States federal law that established federal inspection of local voter registration polls and introduced penalties for anyone who obstructed someone's attempt to register to vote or actually vote. Passed in spite of a "group of 18 Southern Democrats divided into three teams of six in order to be able to create a continuous filibuster wherein each member would only have to speak for four hours every three days. This system resulted in the longest filibuster in history, lasting over 43 hours from February 29 to March 2." 1960 Civil Rights Act

- Political scientist Robert D. Loevy has an extensive study on the history of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as well as activist Wayne Perryman; Robert Loevy, The Passage of Law that Ended Racial Segregation

Wayne Perryman, Unfounded Loyalty

National Leadership Network of Conservative African-Americans

Any honest look at the history of Civil Rights legislation in this country will admit that it was the Republicans who were the foundation, the spirit, the drive, and the sponsorship of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In case it is still less than clear, let the voting totals found in the wiki entry you cited speak for itself;

The original House version: (yes/no)
Democratic Party: 164-96 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version: (yes/no)
Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House: (yes/no)
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 186-35 (80%-20%)

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thank you for the info...

but i suppose the real test is if i go to harlem and ask blacks who they support for the president or what do they think of the last 7 years of bush...do you think blacks and minorities are more inclined to be a republican or a democrat?

my experience living here in nyc is that there are few if any minorities supporting the republican/conservative point of view.

i'd go on to venture it's not just in nyc....

my god that took me an hour to write this...ebuddy, let's both not write too much to consume in one sitting

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

to me, the not inhaling was a suck up to the right and that was a slight to the baby boomers. didn't stevee jobs once asked a "square" potential employee, "how many times have you dropped acid?"

I have no clue what Jobs once asked a "square potential employee" or why Steve Jobs is relevant at all. How many times have you dropped acid?

you forgot there was a crusader named kenneth star going after bill at full force...

There's always somebody going full force at you. Don't let the bastards drag you down. People on the right used to refer to Bill Clinton as 'teflon Bill' because nothing seemed to stick to him. Sex with an intern dragged him down? Again, he didn't need to appeal to the right who have a host of their own issues to cover. He felt he did and I believed he was mistaken.

so it seems these are extremes and are small in numbers...

absolutely. They usually are.

rosie odonnall is is an example? what does she want us to do? I am not aware of her views

I only mentioned that she might be. Many view her as such because of her almost militant "anti-Church" and "anti-Conservative" leanings and the bullying manner in which she delivers these. I don't think she goes far enough to be a feminazi, but the term is often connected with her.

you mean the women who get pregnant just so they can abort it?

I've not even heard of this before.

btw, what is your opinion on choice/life?

Personally, knowing that a significant number of abortions are repeat-abortions, using abortion as a means of birth control, knowing that there are long-term health risks with abortion, costing taxpayers money for something they oppose, was designed for social engineering at the core, and that the central argument against it seems to be rape and incest; I'd allow only one legal abortion for all, cutting the abortion rate basically in half.

what about the nyt article on mccain?

What of it? More of the same really.

let's start with basics...should a teacher (male for female) should have the same pay doing the same job?

No. Just as I work longer hours than my counterparts male and female, perform more conscientious work on the average, and am more passionate about the job than many; I earn more than most both male and female. I'd say it is unfair that one who isn't as good a steward of their employment as I gets equal pay because they have breasts.

do you think there is a problem or it's just the way it is?

There may be a problem, but there doesn't have to be. It certainly isn't a problem for my female boss who earns more than me. There are many women who've taken full advantage of the outlets available exclusively to them and giving them opportunities I didn't have. It is only a problem for those sitting around complaining about what a problem it is for them.

but i suppose the real test is if i go to harlem and ask blacks who they support for the president or what do they think of the last 7 years of bush...do you think blacks and minorities are more inclined to be a republican or a democrat?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why would you go to Harlem to find blacks? You can find blacks right down the street at the library, the bank, the grocery store... Honestly, this has got to be one of the more racist things I've seen here and reminds me of my earlier question to you; "project much?" So... blacks would be better represented by ideology that equates them with Harlem? I doubt it. Seriously brother, check yourself.

Generally, the views of African-Americans align more properly with the Conservative platform. There is nothing quite like a close black family. There is nothing quite like worship with blacks at Church. There is nothing quite like watching a young black entrepreneur pinch, save, and re-invest in his/her venture. Unfortunately, they are as guilty of voting with fashionable presuppositions not founded on facts and voting with their pocket-books as anyone else. In many cases, they are publicly ostracized from holding conservative ideology. It is not fashionable to be a black Republican and let one espouse conservative ideology; they are rendered Uncle Toms by the racist, militant left. This is changing. While blacks are clearly a minority in the Republican party today, this was not so historically and they are beginning to come back.

my experience living here in nyc is that there are few if any minorities supporting the republican/conservative point of view.

Approximately 11% of blacks voted for Bush in 2004. I'm thinking you'd have to talk to at least 5 blacks to get an honest take on this. Since most people don't vote, it'd be good to first ask if they're registered. After all, if they aren't, you'd have to question how passionate their "support" is. *FYI; you don't have to go to Harlem to do this. Trust me.

i'd go on to venture it's not just in nyc....

It's not just nyc for sure. Look, the problem here is that Republicans have caste off the black vote assuming they've lost that segment of the public. It's not that their platform or their views do not work for minorities because they most definitely do. When their vote is not assumed (for or against) great things can happen. Republicans have not changed their platform, but have begun bringing their message to black communities in greater numbers. This will have a profound effect in future elections.

[Chongo]

you mean the women who get pregnant just so they can abort it?

There are numerous methods to prevent getting pregnant. Using it as a form of after the fact birth control is wrong, incest and rape account for a small percentage, the rest are for convenience (mental health). None should be performed in the 3rd trimester. My sister lost her baby in utero and she chose to induce labor. Most have problems afterwards, some severe. Young artist hanged herself after grief of aborting her twins | the Daily Mail There is no such thing as a "safe" abortion

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. Just as I work longer hours than my counterparts male and female, perform more conscientious work on the average, and am more passionate about the job than many; I earn more than most both male and female. I'd say it is unfair that one who isn't as good a steward of their employment as I gets equal pay because they have breasts.

The poorly-worded question was "should men and women working the same job (e.g. teaching) get the same pay?"

Your answer was "no." Then you started talking about how you're a good worker and don't think a woman should get the same pay as you. I don't see how that has any relevance to the question. Could you please explain your "no" position further?

greg

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

What wasn't true? If it 'seems to you' that some were lies, then which ones?

I can't know which ones are lies any more than you know which ones are the truth. This is the reason I used the term "seems".

The reasons it seems this way, is because all the people still alive (with one exception) who "served with John Kerry", actually served with him on the same boat, think he's a stand-up guy and have gone on the record saying so.

The most obvious shadiness however is the guy in the first spot who admitted that he didn't know Kerry lied about his record, friends had just told him that.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

I can't know which ones are lies any more than you know which ones are the truth. This is the reason I used the term "seems".

That just seems a pretty weak argument for labeling something a 'smear'. The swift boaters just told another side of the story, counter to a lot of the fiction Kerry obviously floated over his war record.

The reasons it seems this way, is because all the people still alive (with one exception) who "served with John Kerry", actually served with him on the same boat, think he's a stand-up guy and have gone on the record saying so.

It wasn't about Kerry being a 'stand up guy' with his buddies. I would think even the worst f-up would have the support of their direct friends in any group. But what your other co-workers, superiors, etc. think about a person counts for a lot also.

For the life of me, I don't know why anyone feels the need to defend John Kerry on any of this, or to put down the swift boat vets for calling him out on many of his deceptions. The Democrats thought they had a winner with a 'war record' and it turned out he'd been fabricating a lot of stuff, embellishing his own record while outright lying about other troops (most this is well documented, without a thing to do with the swift boat vets) and a group of his peers (frankly, too numerous to dismiss easily) finally got the chance to speak out about it.

People should just face facts- Kerry was an awful candidate. There's no reason to defend him as anything other. He personally came off as a detestable human being, and the more people got a look at him (swift boat details and all) the worse the smell got.

Democrats should just drop it with defending losers like Kerry- they could actually pick a winner in someone like Obama this go around. People certainly disagree with him on many things, but the man himself is likable. He seems genuine. I've seen nothing to indicate he's a hopeless liar, let alone made a career out of being one like Kerry had. Many Republicans have expressed a willingness to vote for him over McCain, if it comes to that.

That's called getting at least something right. Kerry, was getting it 1000% wrong. Blaming the swift boat vets for merely using their freedom of speech to tell their side of a story Kerry had been lying about and abusing for 40 years, is just weak. Kerry should have gotten a lifetime purple heart for shooting himself in the ass, and taking down his party with him.

[Shaddim]

How difficult is it for everyone to understand that both sides were fabricating stories? Perhaps, if Kerry hadn't been touting his manufactured war hero status, someone else wouldn't have come along and smeared him.