It's not about race. Do you think there are not white pimps and thugs?!?! Who's the racist here? My two BEST friends are black! Race has nothing to do with it at all. And, also, if I did come across that way, I am very sorry. By saying "pimp hand", I was referring to abuse of "power", but I can see how that might come across wrong. I apologize.

I agree. Too bad Condaleeza Rice doesn't have more ambition in that area. Ving would be good...and Bryant. There are a lot of honorable and respectable black men and women in this country.

 

As I get less younger, I tend to lean a little bit to the right. Don't get me wrong, bleeding heart liberal is still a little too conservative of a term for me. But I would be tempted by a Powell Rice ticket.

I have had the pleasure of Meeting Condoliza Rice and I would vote for her in a hot second. Remarkable woman and statesman. I just fear she might have a "stain" from her years with Bush.

 

I have white hair but my skin tone is a bit more peach and my neck is red. At least I did not say Half dollar or $.50 :lol:

 

BlooMoose, I appreciate the apology and also appreciate that you can see how I could interpret your statement like I did. In response, I'll retract my statement. Sorry for calling you a racist.

 

Too late! I've already recruited 10 posters to slam your "rep!" Tomorrow, we're buying you a ticket on the train to Hell! :AR15::badass:

*** You HAVE read the thread on rep assassination, haven't you? Just having some fun!

 

Colts Fan said:

That depends on how successful the GOP is at rigging the electronic voting machines that their supporters own and have provided.

[I TRIED to stay out of this one.... really!]

I agree, and can't for the life of me understand why the GOP selected such a middle of the road candidate, unless of course... it is because (as the polls show) the majority of that party has become disillusioned with Bush and the Neo-Cons.

Perhaps, because he knows it is a claim that doesn't hold water... and he is an honorable man who would rather run on HIS record than against lies about his opponent.

Maybe because they left him hanging out to dry in 2000? Maybe because he just flat out doesn't agree with their ultra conservative bias against the other half of America that has rights to expect some measure of fair government for them?

Like THAT would be a FIRST? :hellno:

I'm quite sure the GOP has been hard at work. But, you can't manufacture lies when there is no basis for them. Even the Dems who went to Alaska could only shine light on FACTS. It appears that it is an even draw. Palin will probably survive the scrutiny just as Obama will/has. As for a pre-arranged agreement, that is possible. When faced with the facts that they are losing, it may become prudent to hope the other team fails within 4 years and they can present a better candidate next time. If they are counting on Palin to BE that candidate.... they will lose another one!

I LOVE the way your side substitutes words for greater effect! Yeah, he really AGITATED a bunch of old black people living in government housing to storm the Capitol and demand that the asbestos be removed from THEIR homes, just as it was being removed from businesses in the area! And he AGITATED young black kids with little hope that they even HAD a voice in this country to register to vote! He AGITATED the local government to provide better schooling for the lower classes. You know.... there was a time when Americans considered such an "agitator" as a patriot! And don't give him any credit for turning down offers to be a high priced lawyer to instead serve the common man. :hellno:

I addressed the false claim of redistribution of wealth on another thread. To be honest, I find it hard to argue with this line of hysteria. I prefer to argue with rational Americans. Unfortunately, it is becoming harder and harder to FIND one on "your" side of the aisle.

 

Ridge Runner said:

I won't even THINK of hitting you with the realities of the stock market today under Bush. But, I will remind you to consider the improvements in our economy under Clinton and a Dem controlled congress.... after the disillusionment with the GOP's "contract with America." :eek2:

I won't even get into the argument of whether it was a surplus, or a balanced budget, or any of that. But, it sure wasn't the Carter years, and it sure was better than what we have after 8 years of Bush!

That is not entirely true. Members of Congress present Bills at the request of the President and in concert with his agenda. You KNOW that. They don't usually present them unless they know they have the votes to pass them, and a rubber stamp from the President to enact them into law.

I know that Congress is SUPPOSED to make law, but we all know that they can't pass a law unless they can override a Presidential veto.

You're not actually blaming the Dem controlled congress for the meltdown of the GOP controlled economy are you?

They lost sight of that moral advantage many years ago! They've been on line 5 at least since the Nixon administration!