[Orion27]

NBC Poll finds 34% of Blacks consider themselves to be Independants. Young voters
most likely to be alienated from the Democrat party. Is this a renaissance in black
political history? Interesting interview with a black businessman trying to look after his other family, 74 employees! I've always maintained, blacks are a lot more conservative than the nation gives them credit. Overwhelmingly Christian, hard working, family values, entreprenurial and aspiring to and embracing the great middle class. And more interesting, those interviewed did not slide into the stereotypical black argot when speaking. Take that Corrine Brown.

[Orion27]

i apologize, wrong forum. should be posted in the political/war lounge. My apologies
again.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Orion27:
i apologize, wrong forum. should be posted in the political/war lounge. My apologies
again.

We apologize for the previous apology. It was completely unnecessary and was due to a clerical error.

[docbud]

What about the other 66 percent?

[nonhuman]

You mean they don't all fit into our neat little stereotypes!

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Orion27:
Overwhelmingly Christian, hard working, family values, entreprenurial and aspiring to and embracing the great middle class. And more interesting, those interviewed did not slide into the stereotypical black argot when speaking. Take that Corrine Brown.

Yup. Statistically, African Americans attend church more, drink and do drugs less than white americans (yet are massively over-represented in our prisons ... hmmmm). However, it seems like you are making a pretty unfounded assumption that "Independent" = "somewhere between conservative and liberal". I'm a lifelong registered independent but consider myself to be a few steps more liberal than most Democrats. I'm not saying you're wrong ... but what makes you think that the statistic you cite means what you say it means ??

Originally posted by Orion27:
I've always maintained, blacks are a lot more conservative than the nation gives them credit.

I agree. Urban blacks vote more liberal (just like urban whites). Suburban and rural blacks vote more conservatively (just like their white counterparts). Outside the deep south, blacks are overwhelmingly urban and tend to vote liberal. No surprises here. However, most blacks do, in fact, live in the south (more than all other parts of the country combined -- and the gap is getting larger *) and are spread much more evenly across the urban/suburban/rural spectrum than other parts of the nation.

*Note: African Americans have been migrating back to the south in big way for the last 4 censuses. According to 2000 census, the South was the only region of the country that had a net migration in of African Americans -- every single other region experienced a net migration out

[djohnson]

I tell you, there is no difference between white and black. One has more skin pigmentation and that is all. Humans is be humans

[BRussell]

It's interesting that blacks are often seen as strange because they vote Democratic. In reality, no demographic group but whites vote Republican. And even among Whites, it's only white males that vote Republican - women are more likely to vote Democratic, and white women are evenly split between Dems and Republicans.

[Xeo]

Humans is be humans

Eh?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by BRussell:
It's interesting that blacks are often seen as strange because they vote Democratic. In reality, no demographic group but whites vote Republican. And even among Whites, it's only white males that vote Republican - women are more likely to vote Democratic, and white women are evenly split between Dems and Republicans.

The Latino community will be surprised to find this out, particularly the 35% (estimated) of them who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000.

[DigitalEl]

Originally posted by Orion27:
Take that Corrine Brown.

What's my daughter have to do with this? Seriously, who is this Corrine* Brown you speak of?


My daughter's name is spelled Corinne.

[saranwarp]

Who cares how they consider themselves? Voting patterns are what matter. Close to 90% of blacks vote Democratic, and until that number starts going down this is all hot air. I bet a lot of gays say they are independent, too, but they have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in the past and almost certainly will continue to do so. Additionally, the trend among all younger voters is toward "independent"; as a group, we are far less likely to pigeon-hole ourselves in one of the two major parties.

[Orion27]

Just read some of the posts in this thread. " ,,,,90% of blacks vote Democrat..."
"....only white males vote republican...."
The assumption is blacks vote as a block, which is largely true. I've lived in the South
and I understand the power of the church in blacks lives. And I understand the legacy of segregation and the group think of voting in a block for protection. And this fear has been exploited by the Democrat party to the detriment of blacks. I think we are finally seeing the unshackling of the black political mind. I don't think third parties
will be the answer. Three party elections elect minority candidates in the sense there is hardly ever a candidate elected by the majority . The only viable alternative to the business class, the investor and entrepreneur is the Republican party. One doesn't have to join but it is a very attractive alternative to blacks in general. After all, when social security starts to privatize, who are you going to trust to look after your investments? The socialists?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
It's interesting that blacks are often seen as strange because they vote Democratic. In reality, no demographic group but whites vote Republican. And even among Whites, it's only white males that vote Republican - women are more likely to vote Democratic, and white women are evenly split between Dems and Republicans.

There is no noticable difference between the Dems and GOP. Colin Powell could jsut as well been a Dem and Joe Lieberman could well have been a republican.

[Orion27]

"There is no noticable difference between the Dems and GOP. Colin Powell could jsut as well been a Dem and Joe Lieberman could well have been a republican"

When it come to tax policy, there is a huge difference. The republican base favors less government and more libertine attitudes. The democrat base favors bigger government and are less libertine and certainly urge more government control over
personal choices and private property.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Orion27:
"There is no noticable difference between the Dems and GOP. Colin Powell could jsut as well been a Dem and Joe Lieberman could well have been a republican"

When it come to tax policy, there is a huge difference. The republican base favors less government and more libertine attitudes. The democrat base favors bigger government and are less libertine and certainly urge more government control over
personal choices and private property.

I see the US government getting bigger and more influencial over people's lives. Yet the government is Republican. I don't know much about the taxes actually, there is no denying that the GOP is doing exactly what the Dems would do. => Same difference.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Orion27:

When it come to tax policy, there is a huge difference. The republican base favors less government and more libertine attitudes. The democrat base favors bigger government and are less libertine and certainly urge more government control over
personal choices and private property.

Actually, this ground has been tread before in other threads. The current administration, with a "conservative" president and congress (a first in quite a while) are growing the government (both in military and non-military expenditures) at a faster rate than under Bill Clinton. All while cutting taxes (i.e. not paying for it). This is still "bigger government" despite overt rhetoric to the contrary. Also, I can't in my wildest imagination figure out how you consider an administration that is supporting a constitutional amendment to control personal choice (banning gay marriage) and that has opened the doors for government spying on all Americans (Patriot Act) to be "libertine".

[Spliffdaddy]

Better than being a liberal..


edited:

34% of EVERYONE claim to be independants.

It sounds better than admitting you actually vote Democrat.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Better than being a liberal..


edited:

34% of EVERYONE claim to be independants.

It sounds better than admitting you actually vote Democrat.

as if being a liberal or a democrat were a bad thing.

[Spliffdaddy]

It's exceedingly rare that anybody admits to being a liberal.

There's a stigma attached to it.

[Orion27]

"constitutional amendment to control personal choice (banning gay marriage) and that has opened the doors for government spying on all Americans (Patriot Act) to be "libertine"."

I am not in favor of an amendment to the constitution. My view is the current administration is not conservative enough. We should be balancing the budget with
cuts in spending. The American people's sense of entitlement is insatiable. As far as security goes, we do need to be more vigilant. Hopefully, an conservative, strict constructionist court would balance out government excess. That's why it's so important to appoint conservatives to the court.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
It's exceedingly rare that anybody admits to being a liberal.

There's a stigma attached to it.

Yes, and you are the ones doing the attaching, and unfairly. You are the ones doing the character assasination, the personal attacks, and the mudslinging which has resulted in that stigma.

There is no reason for the stigma except for your own bigotry, just as there is no reason being black has a stigma, unless your'e a racist.

Attaching the stigma that you have to liberals is the hallmark of your political bigotry...its ugly, its disgusting, its petty, and its foolish, and it reflects exactly on how small minded people like you are if you think there is a stigma to the word liberal.

[Orion27]

Lerkfish;
Why are you getting so excited? I haven't heard one bigoted remark in this thread. Attaching labels is part of the game. Conservatives are racist, bigoted homophobes who want to starve your chidren and poison your water. I say, if you advertise and promote your belief, have the guts to defend it without personal attacks.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Orion27:

I am not in favor of an amendment to the constitution. My view is the current administration is not conservative enough. We should be balancing the budget with
cuts in spending.

Your politics sound more Libertarian than Republican.

Originally posted by SpliffDaddy:

It's exceedingly rare that anybody admits to being a liberal.

There's a stigma attached to it.

Depends on what circles you run it I suppose. Maybe amongst you, your friends, and your co=workers this is the case. When I was in college and when I was working in an quasi academic (but for profit) research job .. it was extremely rare for anyone to admit to being a conservative. You see, there was this stigma attached to it that conservatives were close minded

[BRussell]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The Latino community will be surprised to find this out, particularly the 35% (estimated) of them who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000.

Right, 35% voted for Bush, 65% for Gore, and that was some kind of record for a Republican. That makes my point, doesn't it? I'm certainly not saying every single hispanic or black votes for Dems and every single white male votes for Repubs (I'm a Dem-voting white male), just that there are very clear demographic differences.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Orion27:
Lerkfish;
Why are you getting so excited? I haven't heard one bigoted remark in this thread. Attaching labels is part of the game. Conservatives are racist, bigoted homophobes who want to starve your chidren and poison your water. I say, if you advertise and promote your belief, have the guts to defend it without personal attacks.

Just because attaching labels is part of the game doesn't mean it isn't bigoted and unfair. The whole premise of this thread is ridiculously prejudiced. No group of people is of a single mind on anything. The fact that 34% of black people identify themselves as independents is proof of that. Black people are no different from white people in terms of diversity of opinion, ability to analyze politics, or which party/candidate is better for them. What is achieved by distinguishing black voters from white voters? Nothing.

I've lived in the South
and I understand the power of the church in blacks lives. And I understand the legacy of segregation and the group think of voting in a block for protection. And this fear has been exploited by the Democrat party to the detriment of blacks. I think we are finally seeing the unshackling of the black political mind.

Uh huh... Yes blacks are a deeply religions and fearful people who are only now beginning to think freely.

It's exceedingly rare that anybody admits to being a liberal.

There's a stigma attached to it.

Where I am it's exceedingly rare that anyone admits to being a conservative. For the same reason.

Why the hell does everyone care so damned much about race?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Orion27:
"constitutional amendment to control personal choice (banning gay marriage) and that has opened the doors for government spying on all Americans (Patriot Act) to be "libertine"."

I am not in favor of an amendment to the constitution. My view is the current administration is not conservative enough. We should be balancing the budget with
cuts in spending. The American people's sense of entitlement is insatiable. As far as security goes, we do need to be more vigilant. Hopefully, an conservative, strict constructionist court would balance out government excess. That's why it's so important to appoint conservatives to the court.

Remember, conservatives on the court will be less libertarian than liberals: Those judicial "activists" are reading the constitution more broadly to construe more basic rights, such as gay marriage and privacy and abortion. Social conservatives may disagree with those things, but there's no denying that you get more fundamental rights from liberals on the court. Strict constructionists, on the other hand, say you don't have any basic rights unless the words are written exactly into the constitution. You have to beg the majority to vote for your basic civil rights under strict constructionism.

I just really don't get it. Why do libertarians think conservatives are better than liberals? Conservatives are bigger spenders, stricter bedroom police, against states' rights, etc., all on down the line. Conservatives are less libertarian in every important way. IMO, it's because the vast majority of US libertarians are really just conservatives who don't want to admit it. Not all, but most.

[Orion27]

The argument is not about "rights". It is that "lliberals" wish to compel others to suppport
those rights. Now we have the push for the the ageing baby boomers ''right" to a drug benefit. It's not about rights, it's about big government and compelling others to support
the new "right" of the month.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Orion27:
The argument is not about "rights". It is that "lliberals" wish to compel others to suppport
those rights. Now we have the push for the the ageing baby boomers ''right" to a drug benefit. It's not about rights, it's about big government and compelling others to support
the new "right" of the month.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about here. Compel others to support those rights? In other words, you don't want people to have those rights. It's the same with a whole list of issues - from miranda on up to gay marriage. That's fine, it's what social conservatism is all about. But don't pretend it's somehow about increased freedom.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I just really don't get it. Why do libertarians think conservatives are better than liberals? Conservatives are bigger spenders, stricter bedroom police, against states' rights, etc., all on down the line. Conservatives are less libertarian in every important way. IMO, it's because the vast majority of US libertarians are really just conservatives who don't want to admit it. Not all, but most.

The same reason most Americans are Republicans and not Democrats. They tend to equate "freedom" with "freedom to spend".

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Orion27:
Lerkfish;
Why are you getting so excited? I haven't heard one bigoted remark in this thread. Attaching labels is part of the game. Conservatives are racist, bigoted homophobes who want to starve your chidren and poison your water. I say, if you advertise and promote your belief, have the guts to defend it without personal attacks.

My point may have been lost:

If person A spends a lot of time slandering group B, to the point that group B gets a stigma to being in group B, Its very odd for the same person A to BLAME group B for having the stigma.

the fault of the stigma lies in the bigotry of person A, not in being part of group B.

Maybe by simplifying it, the point may be clearer.

[chris v]

Originally posted by voodoo:
We apologize for the previous apology. It was completely unnecessary and was due to a clerical error.

And now, the Trondheim Hammer Dance, in which the old ladies are taken into the fields, and beaten with sticks.

CV

[BRussell]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
The same reason most Americans are Republicans and not Democrats. They tend to equate "freedom" with "freedom to spend".

Hmm? I think party identification is slightly higher with Dems still. At the least, it's split just about equal.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
The same reason most Americans are Republicans and not Democrats. They tend to equate "freedom" with "freedom to spend".

December 19, 2003
Bush Fails With GOP Image
In the new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 36 percent of Americans identify with the President Bush's party, "about the same as when he became president," while 39 percent "called themselves Democrats." Interestingly, "Bush tax cuts haven't widened his party's tax advantage."

(Source)

This poll (PDF) taken last January pegs it at 29% Republican, 32% Democrat, with 39% independent.

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by Orion27:
"There is no noticable difference between the Dems and GOP. Colin Powell could jsut as well been a Dem and Joe Lieberman could well have been a republican"

When it come to tax policy, there is a huge difference. The republican base favors less government and more libertine attitudes. The democrat base favors bigger government and are less libertine and certainly urge more government control over
personal choices and private property.

That's what they -say-, but what they say and what they -do- are quite different. I see little to no difference. Kerry looks like Bush with bad teeth.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Hmm? I think party identification is slightly higher with Dems still. At the least, it's split just about equal.

Sorry, I meant vote Republican as opposed to Democrat, not "are". I'm pretty sure it works out that way.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
That's what they -say-, but what they say and what they -do- are quite different. I see little to no difference. Kerry looks like Bush with bad teeth.

If all you look at is their teeth, then no wonder you can't tell a difference between their policies. Look at just one issue: the country's fiscal situation. When Republicans are in power, we get massive deficits. When Dems are in power, we get surpluses. This is because Republicans believe that you can cut taxes and raise spending without worrying about the consequences. These policies and views can have a profound impact on our future. And that's not even getting in to foreign policy, which also has a dramatic impact on the world.

[saranwarp]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I honestly don't know what you're talking about here. Compel others to support those rights? In other words, you don't want people to have those rights. It's the same with a whole list of issues - from miranda on up to gay marriage. That's fine, it's what social conservatism is all about. But don't pretend it's somehow about increased freedom.

Social conservatives are all for "personal freedom" until they consider that exercise of that freedom to be immoral. Their support of the FMA has revealed the so-called doctrine of states' rights as the complete crock everyone knew it was. These people aren't for states' rights, they're for their own set of outdated social views and cloak it in a "legal philosophy."

[OAW]

In an attempt to get back onto the original topic, let me say that the politics of the African-American community is undoubtedly "voting bloc" based. This is demonstrated in the fact that African-Americans vote 90+ percent Democratic on a consistent basis. It is also very logical behavior given African-Americans' minority status (approximately 12-15%) and long history of oppression in American society. The fact of the matter is that in a society that still has a long way to go in terms of race-relations, voting as a bloc is a prudent thing to do. African-Americans simply can't outvote the white majority. That is, they cannot enact their political will by the sheer force of their numbers. Additionally, being politically divided only serves to further dilute their political power. Consequently, the power of the minority can only be expressed by recognizing the political differences of the majority and aligning itself with one "faction" or another within the majority in order to provide the margin of victory.

Having said that, let's examine why African-Americans overwhelmingly vote Democratic. In order to do that, you have to first recognize the reality of the African-American psyche. By and large African-Americans see themselves as "black" first. Before male or female. Before Democrat or Republican. Before Liberal or Conservative. Before whatever. And this is only natural given our 400+ year sojourn in this country where the overwhelming majority of that time we have caught hell (slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, and/or discrimination) from the white majority simply for being black. The reality is that there is a large portion of the African-American community that lived through legalized apartheid (segregation and Jim Crow) in this country. Furthermore, the vast majority of African-Americans who did not live through such hardships have parents (like myself) and/or grandparents .... still living .... who did. So we are not talking about "ancient history" here as many of our white counterparts would like to believe. We are only looking at 40 years of "official" equality in this country. And that's just on paper, because if you ask black people about their daily experiences with racism and discrimination today you will clearly see that while much progress has been made there is still a lot of room for improvement. I've often heard many white people say that they don't give much thought to the fact that they are "white". And quite honestly, I don't dispute that at all. In my view, that is simply the luxury of being in the majority and a member of a group that collectively wields the most power in this country. Of course, if a white person lived in Nigeria s/he would be acutely aware of their "whiteness" on a daily basis ... whereas a black person wouldn't give it a second thought. Instead, a black person would likely be more aware of his or her ethnic background ... Yoruba, Ibo, Hausa, etc.

Now given the reality of this psyche, it is quite understandable that the foremost political consideration in the African-American community is the protection of the group .... physically, legally, educationally, economically, and politically. So for the most part, African-Americans tend to vote in a manner that they believe will best protect the interests of the group ... even if in some situations that vote is contrary to their own personal or short-term interest. This is why the overwhelming majority of African-Americans hold people like Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerly in sheer and utter contempt. Such individuals have advocated positions and taken actions that are justifiably perceived as sacrificing the interests of the group on the altar of their own personal advancement. And this is why one can routinely hear them referred to as "Uncle Toms", "sellouts", "house negros", etc. in the black community. At best they are viewed as self-hating individuals who identify with the enemy. And at worst they are viewed in the same light as a slave who snitched on other slaves who were planning to escape or revolt in order to curry favor with the master and perhaps get a few extra scraps from the master's table. This is the reason why such individuals get virtually no love from people who look like them. And contrary to popular opinion amongst politically conservative white people and their nominally black apologists, it is not because millions of black people would otherwise think that these individuals were good guys were they not somehow being "duped" by the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world.

Now the historical reality is that when African-Americans were first able to vote in this country, they overwhelmingly voted Republican! Why? Because the Republicans were the party of Lincoln, whose actions led to the end of slavery in this country. At the same time, the Democrats were the party of the slavemasters ... especially in the South. This behavior continued from the Civil War until the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. At that time many African-Americans began switching to the Democratic party because the New Deal put a lot of black people to work after the Great Depression. However, this political migration was completed during the Lyndon Johnson administration with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now when Johnson pushed this legislation through, he mourned that as a result the Democratic party would "lose the South for the next twenty years." He was right ... and he was wrong. Right because the Democrats did lose the South. (Most of the old segregationist "Dixiecrats" became Republicans e.g. Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond). Wrong because the Democrats lost the South for twice that long with no end in sight.

So here we are today, and African-Americans still vote primarily Democratic. Why? Because the Republican party is still perceived as being hostile to black people in the areas of civil rights, affirmative action, anti-discrimination enforcement, etc. And for good reason. The Republican party has the white Southern vote on lock because it advocates positions that appeal to the long-standing anti-black sentiments that many of them have .... albeit in a more "subtle" manner given our modern day sensibilities. So while African-Americans tend to be socially conservative ... and many are even financially conservative (lower taxes does have its appeal, especially to higher income blacks) .... they are not for the most part politically conservative because a cursory review of the history of this country clearly reveals that political conservatives have a long history of hostility towards black people. Period. It was political conservatives who opposed civil rights legislation. It was political conservatives who opposed affirmative action. It was political conservatives who opposed desegregation. It was political conservatives who advocated for "states rights" which was just a euphemism for the right of a state to make apartheid the law the land. It was political conservatives who suddenly had a problem with social programs once black people and other minorities became eligible to participate. Etc., etc. Of course, we have to keep in mind that being politically conservative and being Republican are not necessarily the same thing. The two tend to go hand in hand, but that is not always the case. Robert Byrd is a Dixiecrat, um I mean Democrat and he isn't held in the highest regard by African-Americans either. My point is that the Republican party could make significant inroads with African-American voters if it would simply lighten up on its anti-affirmative action positions. But it doesn't, because it has been a useful wedge issue to attract the "white guys driving pickup trucks" crowd. And the political calculation has been made that toning down some of its more politically conservative positions would lose more white voters than gain black voters.

.... continued .....

[OAW]

Now having said all that, I do have some criticism of the political behavior of my people. While it is prudent to vote as a bloc, it is imprudent to always vote as a bloc in one direction. That leads to your vote being taken for granted, as has become the case with the Democratic party. As I said before, the power of a unified minority is in being able to provide the margin of victory to one faction or another of the majority. Put more bluntly, you have to be able to play one side against the other in order to advance your interests. The same way a consumer plays one car dealer against another in order to get the best possible price for a new vehicle. But if you always go to the same dealer no matter what ... eventually you won't get the best price. Now in my view, this is not being done in African-American politics because the political leadership of the African-American community and the majority of black voters is still primarily comprised with those from the "civil rights" era. Their world view and approach is still shaped by the dramatic struggles of the 1950s and 1960s and as such, they for the most part consider dealing with political conservatives to be anathema. The mentality is one of voting for "the lesser of two evils". As the African-American voter base and political leadership becomes increasingly comprised with those from younger generations, the focus will likely shift from "civil rights" to other areas. (e.g economic development, education, tax policy, etc.) I believe we are seeing the beginnings of this as indicated by the OP which noted that 34% of blacks consider themselves to be Independents .... and how this designation was particularly prevalent among younger black voters. Additionally, if progress continues to be made in race relations ... and the income, educational, and overall quality of life gaps between African-Americans and the white majority significantly decreases, I think we will see a continued shift in the political winds in the African-American community.

OAW

[Orion27]

OAW
Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts. I only have time to offer one point of disagreement. On affirmitive action, I think the opposition is more philosophical than political calculation. The republican party is a lot more inclusive than you give it credit.

[OAW]

Originally posted by Orion27:
OAW
Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts. I only have time to offer one point of disagreement. On affirmitive action, I think the opposition is more philosophical than political calculation. The republican party is a lot more inclusive than you give it credit.

Perhaps it is philosophical. But I simply have to question why a party makes so much noise ranting against a policy that has little to no impact on the overwhelming majority of white people in this country.

OAW

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by BRussell:
If all you look at is their teeth, then no wonder you can't tell a difference between their policies. Look at just one issue: the country's fiscal situation. When Republicans are in power, we get massive deficits. When Dems are in power, we get surpluses. This is because Republicans believe that you can cut taxes and raise spending without worrying about the consequences. These policies and views can have a profound impact on our future. And that's not even getting in to foreign policy, which also has a dramatic impact on the world.

you're right, kerry and bush both aren't skull and bones massachussets aristocrats born and bred to be put into positions of power because they obey the right people. i've got them and the core problem with the way things are with our representative form of government representing the interests of a few people rather than the nation as a whole all wrong, and the evidence of the past 50 years certainly doesn't back me up.

[vmarks]

Once again you show you have no clue about Skull and Bones. But hey, whatever makes you sleep well at night knowing you're rebelling...

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Once again you show you have no clue about Skull and Bones. But hey, whatever makes you sleep well at night knowing you're rebelling...

It's a term used in the vernacular. But thanks for the well-articulated argument.

The fact that believing that the best interest of the country does not fall within two neat little categories (a liberal is a this this and that and a neocon is this this and that) is considered rebelling is sad.

[vmarks]

It is NOT a term used in vernacular. It refers to a specific extracurricular club at Yale, and only that club. Using it for anything else is a dilution of the name and only shows that the user doesn't know what they're talking about.

Which in this instance fails to surprise me.

[fizzlemynizzle]

Translated - "I have nothing of merit to argue about so I'm going to fall back on semantics and personal attacks."

Funny how there are rules against personal attacks and a moderator's violating them.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmarks:
It is NOT a term used in vernacular. It refers to a specific extracurricular club at Yale, and only that club. Using it for anything else is a dilution of the name and only shows that the user doesn't know what they're talking about.

Which in this instance fails to surprise me.

I do not know the answer, but I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression Dubya actually was supposed to be a member of that club? Does anyone have proof either way?
I"m only being curious.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
Translated - "I have nothing of merit to argue about so I'm going to fall back on semantics and personal attacks."

Funny how there are rules against personal attacks and a moderator's violating them.

Translation: "I have no real response, because I know I misused the word, so I'm going to cry victim from a moderator."

Look. You blew it. It's okay, but when you use words incorrectly, accept it and move on, don't try and redefine them.



LERKFISH: Kerry was never a member of Skull and Bones. Two members of Skull and Bones would never run against each other. Fizzle is just trying to use the name of the club to disparage anyone of privilege. Skull and Bones is a private club sometimes composed of children of privilege who band together to try and maintain and increase their wealth rather than squandering it. Kerry married his money. Entirely different things.

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I do not know the answer, but I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression Dubya actually was supposed to be a member of that club? Does anyone have proof either way?
I"m only being curious.

EDIT - Correction, GW Bush -is- skull and bones, initiated his senior year at Yale, per the CBS/60 Minutes article linked in my next post.

George HW Bush is on the list of initiates but GWB is not. However it doesn't take much of a leap of faith to believe he's involved with the group. John Kerry was initiated in 1966. Other significant initiates include McGeorge Bundy (Kennedy's NSA), Bill Buckley, John Heinz, William Draper, and Winston Lord.

Despite vmarks' desperate attempts to make it a "let's argue about Skull and Bones" issue and not a "power structure controlling the government" issue, why is it so stunning to people that an old boys network exists amongst media, military/defense contractors, aerospace and politicians? They exist in every other facet of business.. it just so happens the stakes are higher when you're talking about control of the industrialized world.

The easiest way to get people to not pay attention to what you're up to is to pit them against each other over meaningless crap, to project an air that one side is truly different than the other when the people in -power- in both parties are exactly the same.