hey Barrack get some new material

[Soul Crusher]

Exactly - like I said - blacks marginalize themselves in electoral politics. 

[MM2K]

I heard a black political scientist on the radio one day talking about how the black community has marginalized itself politically by just blindly voting democrat.  He talked about looking at the state of black america after years and years of blindly voting democrat....what has it brought them?  When asked about republicans, he said why would they even bother a serious campaign towards blacks when it is already a forgone conclusion.....the guy was spot on.  Sad. 
ALL politicians should be earning votes.....and yes, I have voted dem, rep and indy during my lifetime so anyone who hasn't, your opinion HAS to be taken with a grain of salt.

Very true. Hispanics are to some extent the same way.  But that doesnt excuse Republican politicians for not atleast making the effort to court them and sway thier opinion. Here is what needs to be said to hispanics.

1. Why would you vote for the party that has the policies which destroyed the homeland that you got away from in the first place?
2. Many Americans understand the illegal immigrant and that is why many Americans support a conditional path to citezenship. Do illegal immigrants and thier supporters understand Americans who have cultural, institutional, and economic concerns about hundreds of thousands and millions of foreigners chaotically immersing themselves into a soverign land without any kind of an organized process that manages it?
What if many forigners from Chile, Venuezual, and Nicaragua immersed themselves into Mexico? Would Mexico feel invaded? Would Mexico treat those illegal immigrants as well as the U.S.?

[Option D]

Its not blind voting a dem per se.. what it is, (for a good margin) is voting for tax brackets...which is why i dont understand why rural whites were pro bush (well i do understand but for arguments sake). I have to chalk it up to religion and war and shit like that. Because the bush tax cuts didnt help them. My best friend..has his masters degree in education, is an innercity product like me...makes about 56k per year and is black...votes republican and dosent care who knows...more over he is a councelor at a school in WATTS....a public school.

And i have a white friend...makes about $1.6 mil per year with some custom bike and wheel shops he owns down in garden grove....and he voted dem...all the time...

i cant explain either but to say this. Maybe in the totem pole of issues in their mind, one guy suits them best.  IF you are an automobile worker for gm you might make that top priority and vote obama because of it.

As far as race...im positive race is a huge reason obamas approval ratings are high among blacks and i also think they would be in the 50's among whites if he were white...its impossible to judge because we have blacks and whites who vote soely based off race this election.

And when i say marginalize...i mean lump blacks in a category as billy does that says "blacks are criminals or blacks are lazy" because me my family and every black person close to me is a clear contradiction to that line of thinking

and dont get me started on economy and shit...we were crazy in the black when clinton left...and ....we know how the previous administration left it after 8 years..do spare me the bull shit

[MM2K]

Its not blind voting a dem per se.. what it is, (for a good margin) is voting for tax brackets...which is why i dont understand why rural whites were pro bush (well i do understand but for arguments sake). I have to chalk it up to religion and war and shit like that. Because the bush tax cuts didnt help them. My best friend..has his masters degree in education, is an innercity product like me...makes about 56k per year and is black...votes republican and dosent care who knows...more over he is a councelor at a school in WATTS....a public school.

And i have a white friend...makes about $1.6 mil per year with some custom bike and wheel shops he owns down in garden grove....and he voted dem...all the time...

i cant explain either but to say this. Maybe in the totem pole of issues in their mind, one guy suits them best.  IF you are an automobile worker for gm you might make that top priority and vote obama because of it.

As far as race...im positive race is a huge reason obamas approval ratings are high among blacks and i also think they would be in the 50's among whites if he were white...its impossible to judge because we have blacks and whites who vote soely based off race this election.

And when i say marginalize...i mean lump blacks in a category as billy does that says "blacks are criminals or blacks are lazy" because me my family and every black person close to me is a clear contradiction to that line of thinking

and dont get me started on economy and shit...we were crazy in the black when clinton left...and ....we know how the previous administration left it after 8 years..do spare me the bull shit

No. Spare ME the bullshit.  The Republicans balanced the budget in 40 months after the Dems talked about it for 40 years. Clinton just cynaclly went along for the ride. Oh, and people who make way more than the $250000 threshhold are MORE likely to vote Democrat.  Millionares and especialy billionares vote Democrat because, quite frankly, when you get that rich you dont pay taxes anyway no matter what happens. Its the people who make just a little above the $250000 threshold  who get hurt the most and vote Republican.

[Option D]

No. Spare ME the bullshit.  The Republicans balanced the budget in 40 months after the Dems talked about it for 40 years. Clinton just cynaclly went along for the ride. Oh, and people who make way more than the $250000 threshhold are MORE likely to vote Democrat.  Millionares and especialy billionares vote Democrat because, quite frankly, when you get that rich you dont pay taxes anyway no matter what happens. Its the people who make just a little above the $250000 threshold  who get hurt the most and vote Republican.

are you fucking high..get the fuck out of here

[tonymctones]

and dont get me started on economy and shit...we were crazy in the black when clinton left...and ....we know how the previous administration left it after 8 years..do spare me the bull shit

MALLLLL

tell me how bush and the reps fucked up the economy?

LOL ill give you the spending but please dont come on here and parrot the ignorant talking points of this administration...

[Soul Crusher]

Why is everyone letting Reid/Pelosi off the hook?  Those two have run the budget since 2007!

[Kazan]

Clinton was stalemated by a Republican majority in congress. Its very simple to see what happens when either party has control of everything.

[Option D]

MALLLLL

tell me how bush and the reps fucked up the economy?

LOL ill give you the spending but please dont come on here and parrot the ignorant talking points of this administration...

Was there a surplus when bush took office...yes...was there a deficit when he left...yes...

[Soul Crusher]

Was there a surplus when bush took office...yes...was there a deficit when he left...yes...

No there wasnt.  It was a budgetary gimmick as a result of insane revenues from the dot com bubble that collapsed as bush went into office.  The govt was getting huge capital gains tax receipts as well as tons of money from M&A action on wall street. 

Needless to say, Clinton & the GOP worked well together on these things, as acrimonious as it was. 

Gridlock is good for everyone.   

[Kazan]

Was there a surplus when bush took office...yes...was there a deficit when he left...yes...

There was no surplus, that is a democrat fairy tale.
from the CBO

Fiscal
Year            Year Ending
                                       National Debt    Deficit
FY1994    09/30/1994    $4.692749 trillion    $281.26 billion
FY1995    09/29/1995    $4.973982 trillion    $281.23 billion
FY1996    09/30/1996    $5.224810 trillion    $250.83 billion
FY1997    09/30/1997    $5.413146 trillion    $188.34 billion
FY1998    09/30/1998    $5.526193 trillion    $113.05 billion
FY1999    09/30/1999    $5.656270 trillion    $130.08 billion
FY2000    09/29/2000    $5.674178 trillion    $17.91 billion
FY2001    09/28/2001    $5.807463 trillion    $133.29 billion

[tonymctones]

Was there a surplus when bush took office...yes...was there a deficit when he left...yes...

again that was spending NOT THE ECONOMY...

you said the economy...so please tell me how bush destroyed the economy?

either that or for goodness sake please stop parroting the ignorance of others...

[Option D]

There was no surplus, that is a democrat fairy tale.
from the CBO

Fiscal
Year            Year Ending
                                       National Debt    Deficit
FY1994    09/30/1994    $4.692749 trillion    $281.26 billion
FY1995    09/29/1995    $4.973982 trillion    $281.23 billion
FY1996    09/30/1996    $5.224810 trillion    $250.83 billion
FY1997    09/30/1997    $5.413146 trillion    $188.34 billion
FY1998    09/30/1998    $5.526193 trillion    $113.05 billion
FY1999    09/30/1999    $5.656270 trillion    $130.08 billion
FY2000    09/29/2000    $5.674178 trillion    $17.91 billion
FY2001    09/28/2001    $5.807463 trillion    $133.29 billion

Output fell 2.2% in 1982 while budget deficits soared. When Reagan took office in 1981, the national debt stood at $995 billion. Twelve years later, by the end of George H.W. Bush�s presidency, it had exploded to $4 trillion. Reagan was a �B� grade movie actor and a doddering, probably clinically senile president, but he was a sheer genius at rewarding his friends by saddling other people with debts.

Bill Clinton reversed Reagan�s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton�s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever.

George W. Bush immediately reversed Clinton�s policy in order to revive Reagan�s, once again showering an embarrassment of riches on the already most embarrassingly rich, his �base� as he calls them. He ladled out some $630 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% of income earners. In true Republican fashion, they returned the favor by investing over $200 million to ensure Bush�s re-election. Do the math. A $630 billion return on a $200 million investment: $3,160 for $1. I�ll give you $3,160. All I ask is that you give me $1 back so I can keep the goodness flowing. Do we have a deal? Republicans know return on investment.

[Kazan]

Well according the the CBO numbers the Debt was never decreased on the deficit.

[GigantorX]

The whole "Clinton Surplus" is a fairy tail, correct.

At what point did Clinton run a budget surplus? In fact, when did Clinton run a balanced budget? Never.

The magical "200 Billion Dollar" surplus was achieved by "borrowing" 200 or so billion dollars from the Social Security Trust Fund which was then counted as "revenue" on the Govt. balance sheet.

And without the Republican Congress there wouldn't even have been TALK of achieving a balanced budget. Clinton owes The Republican Congress a huge "Thank You" as well as the Dot.Com bubble aided by the Fed and, of course, Clinton owes himself a HUGE pat on the back for not listening to that stupid doddering old Marxist Robert Reich. I thought that would have been the end of Comrade Reich, but he is now pounding the pulpit on MSNBC and CNBC about the govt. needing to spend trillions on a new WPA program...Apparently Robert isn't good with history which is, sadly, the case with many on this board.

[Option D]

again that was spending NOT THE ECONOMY...

you said the economy...so please tell me how bush destroyed the economy?

either that or for goodness sake please stop parroting the ignorance of others...

For the economy i will say it was a joint effort by both parties...Because i think the housing market based on something not real was a large part of the economy....But the massive wallstreet unregulation by GOP lead to the fucked up economy...but whos administration was in power

[Kazan]

For the economy i will say it was a joint effort by both parties...Because i think the housing market based on something not real was a large part of the economy....But the massive wallstreet unregulation by GOP lead to the fucked up economy...but whos administration was in power

Both parties get the blame for deregulation, Glass/Stegal was repleaed under Clinton with a Republican majority congress. We can go at this all night, but when all is said and done, both parties have fucked the country up, neither should get anymore blame than the other.

[tonymctones]

For the economy i will say it was a joint effort by both parties...Because i think the housing market based on something not real was a large part of the economy....But the massive wallstreet unregulation by GOP lead to the fucked up economy...but whos administration was in power

do you understand that there was regulation in place that could have stopped the melt down?

what exactly do you think the GOP undid that would have stopped the fucked up economy?

[MM2K]

are you fucking high..get the fuck out of here

Wow. You mean presidents have the power of the purse? I didnt know that. I thought Congress had power of the purse. Lets not forget that Reagan had to fight and defeat the Communists, and Bush had to fight the terrorists. Clinton had the luxury of presiding during the most peaceful decade in US history and he has Reagan to thank for that.

[MM2K]

Output fell 2.2% in 1982 while budget deficits soared. When Reagan took office in 1981, the national debt stood at $995 billion. Twelve years later, by the end of George H.W. Bush�s presidency, it had exploded to $4 trillion. Reagan was a �B� grade movie actor and a doddering, probably clinically senile president, but he was a sheer genius at rewarding his friends by saddling other people with debts.

Bill Clinton reversed Reagan�s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton�s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever.

George W. Bush immediately reversed Clinton�s policy in order to revive Reagan�s, once again showering an embarrassment of riches on the already most embarrassingly rich, his �base� as he calls them. He ladled out some $630 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% of income earners. In true Republican fashion, they returned the favor by investing over $200 million to ensure Bush�s re-election. Do the math. A $630 billion return on a $200 million investment: $3,160 for $1. I�ll give you $3,160. All I ask is that you give me $1 back so I can keep the goodness flowing. Do we have a deal? Republicans know return on investment.

 Regean had to fight inflation with high interest rates and that caused the recession of the early 80s. His tax cuts were not enacted until 1983, which is when the economy took off. Deficits soured because we were building up our defenses against the Soviet Union and it proved to be a terrific investment. But domestic descretionary spending went DOWN. Yes, deficits were up but assets were up probably TEN times as much.
Clinton raised taxes on EVERYONE except some people who werent paying taxes at all and stayed off the tax rolls. That's part of the reason Republicans took Congress in 1994. The Republicans forced lower government spending. They even shut down the government to achieve this end. The dot com bubble, easy money by the fed, and the capital gains tax cut led to the near surplus, not to mention much lower millitary spending.

Earning $250000 on a joint filing status when you are in your 40s and 50s does not make you rich!!!!!!!! If you are a small business owner making that money you are not rich!!!! You may need to save that money for years in which you are not making as much revenue.

[Soul Crusher]

Barack and his followers are whiney little cry babies.  They will be blaming bush for decades after they get tossed in 2012. 

[BM OUT]

Its not blind voting a dem per se.. what it is, (for a good margin) is voting for tax brackets...which is why i dont understand why rural whites were pro bush (well i do understand but for arguments sake). I have to chalk it up to religion and war and shit like that. Because the bush tax cuts didnt help them. My best friend..has his masters degree in education, is an innercity product like me...makes about 56k per year and is black...votes republican and dosent care who knows...more over he is a councelor at a school in WATTS....a public school.

And i have a white friend...makes about $1.6 mil per year with some custom bike and wheel shops he owns down in garden grove....and he voted dem...all the time...

i cant explain either but to say this. Maybe in the totem pole of issues in their mind, one guy suits them best.  IF you are an automobile worker for gm you might make that top priority and vote obama because of it.

As far as race...im positive race is a huge reason obamas approval ratings are high among blacks and i also think they would be in the 50's among whites if he were white...its impossible to judge because we have blacks and whites who vote soely based off race this election.

And when i say marginalize...i mean lump blacks in a category as billy does that says "blacks are criminals or blacks are lazy" because me my family and every black person close to me is a clear contradiction to that line of thinking

and dont get me started on economy and shit...we were crazy in the black when clinton left...and ....we know how the previous administration left it after 8 years..do spare me the bull shit

Well,Ive never said "all blacks are lazy or all blacks are criminals".I have said that there were 36,000 black on white rapes and ZERO white on black rapes.Sorry,thats a statistic and yet the one case the media harped on was the absolute made up Duke case.

I do say the blacks in Barrack Hussein Obamas community are lazy and criminals,again stats prove that and yet the media acts like he healed the community.

My agenda is not race based.Its the double standard of the media.If its a whiyte on black issue its news for months[look at the Imus case,the Duke case]if its a black on white case -nothing.Look at the Jaime Fox case or the 36,000 black on white rapes.So,my rhetoric is ALWAYS about the double standard in society and while its based on racial issues,its not racist,its simply to point out the incredible double standards in the society.Knock Obama,its about race,knock Palin,its about competance,when both are completely clueless.

[Option D]

Both parties get the blame for deregulation, Glass/Stegal was repleaed under Clinton with a Republican majority congress. We can go at this all night, but when all is said and done, both parties have fucked the country up, neither should get anymore blame than the other.

you are right.. It was good talkin with you guys.

[225for70]

Every day that goes by makes Bush look better in retrospect, as awful as he was in his second term. 

hhaha

Yes we can, yes we can destroy the nation. haha