Asymmetrical Information

Clinton has regained control of the party, Terry will never lose his job.

Why blame McAuliffe? The real problem is what did the democrats do wrong to not get their message accross to the public, or why is the public so stupid that it can not understand that the democrats are right?

The point is that the democrats do everything to explain the loss except look in the mirror, so until they do that McAuliffe will have his job and still be able to make $20 million through his buddy at Global Crossing.

Bottom line is that this country does not want what the democrats have to offer, especially the radical left that has taken over the party. How many losers of epic proportion like Mondale, Dukaka, Gore and Kerry does it take to figure out that it's the message.

And an interesting fact about this is that if you take out the black vote which goes about 90-10 for them (my belief is that the african american communites in the inner cities do not vote based on policy but rather blind faith that has been abused by the democrats for thirty years now and the democrats have no problem telling us continually that this is their voting block lock), this country is probably devided around 58-42 for Republicans. That is an enormous difference and the democrats just do not realize how few people buy into their socialist master plan.

What will cause Terry McAuliffe to lose his job.

Increasing Democratic Party losses during the mid-term elections and the failure of the Hillary Clinton 2008 Presidential bid.

Kissing a guy should do it, I have the terrible feeling there's gonna be anti-gay backlash in the democratic party (to the grim satisfaction of the republicans).

I think he needs to be caught in bed with BOTH a dead woman and a live boy...

Hopefully, nothing.

Why is keeping his job a bad thing?

Heh.

Parker......good one!

Unfortunately for the Clintons he knows where all the bodies are buried. It wouldn't be in Hillary's best interest for any tell-all books to be published in the next few years.

Peter,

Exactly WHY should African Americans vote for white conservatives--a group that fought tooth and nail against civil rights?
Democrats might not be perfect, but there a damned site better for blacks like me than the party of David Duke, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay and Rudy (unarmed black men take cover) Giuliani.

--Cobra

Cobra, you are living in the past, times change and if you think that the democratic party is good for minorities then keep voting for them, but for thirty years they have done nothing but count on your vote. It can't really get much worse than what the democrats have done over these few decades. And if you want to live in the past, it was Lincoln and the republicans who fought for the abolition of slavery, why don't you use that to counteract your argument. So going back 30 years is fine, going back 130 is not?

As for your trying to paint current republicans as racists, by listing David Duke first and then honorable men like Cheney, Guilliani and Delay in the same sentence, that is just a joke. Duke is not welcomed or representational of the republican party. How is Cheney in the same class exactly? And have you been to NY since Rudy cleaned it up? Black, white, hispanic, who cares, crimes is down astronomically and the city is safe.

You opitimize my exact point, without thinking you instinctively want to label republicans anti african american, so you just put David Duke in the same sentence. Oh yeah, the democrats gave us the wonderful concept of projects, give minorities cheap and free housing, but don't let them mingle with the rest of the citizens, we'll put 5,000 apartment units all together and separate the minorities from everyone. That's top line thinking, and you don't even question it.

These same people you cite all support school vouchers in DC to give the african american community a choice and opportunity to get out of the worst public school system imaginable. But your democrats are the ones who stop vouchers. Why, because they care so much about you and vouchers are bad? Get real. All you do is give them votes, the teachers union gives them money, and that puts you in the back seat to the unions.

Cobra, you should heed this advice. Commonly but probably irreoneously attributed to Mark Twain-

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"

More Republicans than Democrats voted for both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Democrats: Senators were 69% in favor and House members were 61% in favor.
Republicans: Senators were 82% in favor and House members were 80% in favor.

For the Voting Rights Act, the vote was this:

Democrats: Senators were 74% in favor and House members were 80% in favor.
Republicans: Senators were 97% in favor and House members were 85% in favor.

Bottom line is that this country does not want what the democrats have to offer, especially the radical left that has taken over the party. How many losers of epic proportion like Mondale, Dukaka, Gore and Kerry does it take to figure out that it's the message.

Gore & Kerry losers of 'epic proportion'? Getting a bit carried away there. Gore won the popular vote and only a fluke gave Florida to Bush. Kerry did indeed lose but you shouldn't compare his loss to Mondale & Dukasis whose losses were much more dramatic.

Boonton:

I'm pretty sure that Peter was speaking metaphorically, as in: "Gore - what a loser!!"

Of course bagadonuts leaves out the money line, that most of the democrats who voted agains civil rights legislation later became republicans (the Trent Lott kind).

Please Farris, Fmr. Sen. Robert Byrd (D - WV) actually was a klansman instead of just hyperbolicly one. Everyone's gotta own up that in our nation's past there were good people that were also racist. That was the culture and they were all living in it. Fortunately we're moving on. Both parties.

Citizen:

Yeah, except that (at a bare minimum), if Dems go oblique racist, African Americans don't come out and we lose the election. If Republicans do the same, McCain gets stopped in SC (2000), Helms beats Gant in NC (1994, IIRC), or Trent Lott becomes Majority Leader.

Ocassionally, incentives matter.

Over time, both parties have changed and will change again. The Democrat Party from being the stronghold of Jim Crow to [supposedly] the instigator of civil rights. And unitil 9/11/01 I feared the Newt Gingrich wing of the Repubs had won, but now I see it marginalized if still vocal; but it isn't exactly the fiscal-conservative bunch it used to be.

Of course bagadonuts leaves out the money line, that most of the democrats who voted agains civil rights legislation later became republicans (the Trent Lott kind).

Really now, when did Albert Gore Sr, William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd switch parties?

Boonton:

I'm pretty sure that Peter was speaking metaphorically, as in: "Gore - what a loser!!"

Ohhh by metaphorically you mean knee jerk name calling dressed up as a statement of objective fact. Gottcha

Boonton -

Gore "did indeed lose" as well. The popular vote doesn't count - the system is the electoral college, the system that Gore was quick to uphold before the election (since it was considered then more likely that, if anyone, Bush might win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote). Your candidate loses the race, so you redefine it ex post to something more convenient that you already know he won? That's illegitimate.

I agree that it wasn't a landslide loss, but Gore lost. By "only a fluke" I assume you mean only a few hundred votes, but that's the system everyone agreed to in advance. Gore didn't get enough votes, in enough States, so he lost.

Calling those guys losers is not a knee jerk reaction at all.

Lets see. Gore, a man who made a life of his daddy's name but failed to ever accomplish anything. Never had a real job. Has lived his last four years creating some lunatic theory that he should be president no matter how many times they recount the Florida votes. Spent the last year yelling like a mad man at speaches how the real President has lied and deceived the country. No man who almost became president should even be capable of acting like this. Raised money from Chinese Nationals in a Buddist Temple and claimed he had no idea that monks had no money.

Kerry, now the king of losers. He could not beat Bush with everything in this country in his favor. Weak economy, handed to Bush by Clinton, made worse by 9/11 and immense oil price increases. War in Iraq which has an entire world attacking our country. All out main stream media bias against the sitting president so that the headlines on CBS, NBC, ABC and the NY Times are continual campaign ads for him. Plus, just look at the man, he's the type of guy who drives on the shoulder and cuts everyone off because he does not believe he should wait. Only guy to leave Vietnam with three purple hearts in three months of combat. Biggest opportunist I have ever seen. Has absolutely no character or convictions other than what is best for John Kerry. Married Terresa Heinz.

Wake up! Look in the mirror. The guys the democrats are nominating are the reason that republicans win. Then again, the guys nominated represent the leaders of your party. Hopefully for this country that is not what the majority of democrats believe.

But instead of overthrowing your leaders you blame anything else. Republicans had to do you a favor and get rid of Daschle for you.

Lieberman would have run away with this election but your leaders chose to push him out of the race and never give him a fair chance. What does that say about Kerry. A Jew could have been president of this country and Kerry could not!

Ann:

Fantastic point. Isn't it funny how soon democrats forget. Before the election all you heard from their talking heads was that the electoral college is what our country lives by. Then the day after they forget we are a Republic.

Sort of reminds me about all the anti war idiots now. All they do is complain about us losing troops and we already lost 1,000. These were the same jerks telling us before the war that we better have 10-20,000 body bags for the invasion. No apology about how wrong they were, just move on to your next completely unsubstantiated attack. The sad thing is that they do not even care about our troops, they look at each loss of life as another body count to attack our President.

Get caught with a dead girl or a live boy, of course. Wait a minute -- we're talking Democratic bigwigs here. That's nothing ...I've got it. Get caught with pictures of Anne Coulter on his laptop...yeah, that's the ticket...

Peter,

First of all...Abe Lincoln thought blacks were inferior, and wanted to ship them back to Africa. Slavery was never abolished, is quite Constitutional, (read the 13th Amendment) and slave labor is used by US corporations this very day in our prison system.
Second, Tom Delay is under ethics investigation, and disenfranchised black voting power in Texas with his redistricting schemes. Dick Cheney voted against MLK's Birthday, and Head Start programs for poor and minority children as a congressman. Rudy Giuliani is the most hated mayor in the African American community in New York City, and no amount of lies on the part of white suburbanites is going to change that.
And if you're so gung ho in support of this war that's killed 1125 American troops, and a hundred thousand Iraqis, costing $225 Billion with no end in sight, why the hell are you blogging here, and not signing up to fight yourself? I hear they're calling up 50 year old reservists now, so age isn't an issue.
Think about it Pete...Cool uniforms...marching for Bush...MRE's for dinner...and you get to shoot all the brown-skinned people you can get a bead on. You'd be in heaven!

--Cobra

Cobra:

Your last post indicates that you really are a hopeless, bitter fool.

The 13th Amendment's reference to "except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" clearly referrs to involuntary servitude - NOT slavery. It is there to allow prison sentences.

I agree that it wasn't a landslide loss, but Gore lost. By "only a fluke" I assume you mean only a few hundred votes, but that's the system everyone agreed to in advance. Gore didn't get enough votes, in enough States, so he lost.

Ann, the charge was that Gore & Kerry not only lost the election (which I agree is a statement of fact) but lost it in 'epic proportions'. The fact is anyone who actually pays attention to either facts or what they write cannot accept that as a true statement. Gore won the popular vote and lost the electorial college by nearly the smallest margin possible. Kerry lost both but even there the popular margin was less than 2% and the electorial college loss was relatively small.

In a two man race, there will be one guy who wins and one guy who loses. You can't honestly assert anyone is the 'King of losers' for losing a race by 2%.

As for your prattle about the Florida vote and such. I never said that the popular vote should count above the electorial vote (neither did Gore BTW). Gore's loss in Florida was a fluke, literally within the probable margin of error. That doesn't mean he didn't lose in Florida but it hardly justifies considering the Democratic candidate f*ked up. If so what would be an acceptable margin of for a non-f'ed up candidate to lose by?

Hondo,

That's YOUR interpretation of the 13th Amendment, which, added to $1.10 will buy you a small cup of coffee.

Here is the 13th Amendment verbatum:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

And here is what's happening now:

http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/~perspy/issues/1999/feb/uncletom.shtml

It is morning, and you wake in a cement cell to the sound of a nightstick on bars. You proceed to join a sea of primarily black faces in an assembly line as white guards with shotguns and tasers stroll between the ranks, punishing inefficient laborers. With wages as low as 11 cents an hour and no benefits or vacations, the prisoners must choose between labor and longer sentences, since "good time" policies shave days from the captivity period for days worked. This is not a description of a sweatshop in a developing country, but of a fascistic marriage between private enterprise and state that bears a frightening resemblance to slavery -- prison labor.

And HERE:

>>>Let's do a little calculation, assuming these statistics are accurate (they're the best we have). In 1991, 481,979 state prisoners worked jobs in prison, at an average pay rate of $.56 per hour. Some didn't get paid, or got only "nonmonetary" compensation (such as good time or other benefits), but we don't know the details of that so we assume it averaged out to $.56 per hour, the paid wage rate, though it might well be even less. From the figures in the report, we can estimate how many paid hours these prisoners worked in 1991: 10,278,194 per week. At $.56 per hour, that would be $299 million per year in wages. If those workers had been paid even the minimum wage of $4.25 in 1991, it would have been $2.3 billion, or a "savings" for the states of $2 billion. In fact, the average wage in 1991 for the whole country was $11.41 per hour.(8) Compared to that rate, the state governments saved $5.8 billion. Because prisoners are doing work that doesn't pay as much as most work on the outside, we can maybe split the difference, so the state governments saved $3.9 billion in 1991 by paying prisoners $.56 per hour instead of a wage rate halfway between minimum wage and the average wage.

That's just one year, and it's just state prison inmates. Back then, there were only 700,000 state inmates altogether. Now, as of 1997 there were 1.1 million state prisoners (and 1.7 million including federal prisons and jails).(7) If this were the same every year, that $3.9 billion in 1991 would be $27 billion from 1991 to 1997. But if we assume a steady annual increase from 700,00 to 1.1 million over these years, and nothing else changes, the total would increase to $35 billion from 1991 to 1997. And that's just for seven years."

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/dc/prislab.html

Hey, with the highest prison population in the world, 2 million, (surpassing even communist China)there's a bonanza to be had! To hell with OUTSOURCING! Corporations just have to mine the PRISONS, where disproportionately minority non-violent offenders can make the same widgets without all that overseas shipping cost. And as more and more PRIVATIZED prisons are being built, the return of the American plantation is upon us.
But I'm sure these facts are lost on you, Hondo.

--Cobra

Cobra:

I see you can use an internet search engine, and can cut and paste text. Bravo.

I didn't post the full text of the 13th Amendment here because it didn't seem necessary. It still doesn't, actually. The plain language of the 13th Amendment supports what I wrote earlier. Slavery is prohibited; it is involuntary servitude - IN THE FORM OF A JAIL OR PRISON SENTENCE RESULTING FROM CRIMINAL CONVICTION - that is permitted.

What you describe in your post above sounds precisely like someone serving a sentence in a prison or jail. Finish the sentence (assuming it's not a life sentence, of course) or get paroled and you walk out the door a free man/woman. As I recall the history I've read, slavery was for life; slaves were legally property to be bought or sold and were freed only at their owner's whim.

Moreover every one of the inmates you reference has been convicted of - or has legally admitted guilt to - a crime for which he or she has been sentenced to prison as punishment. Under slavery, many were born into slavery - and died slaves with no hope of ever achieving their freedom.

I assume you can see that there is quite a difference. However, your previous posts lead me to believe that you will willfully ignore this difference, or will delude yourself into thinking there really IS no difference. Be intellectually dishonest with yourself if you like. The rest of us see through the lie.

It's not the fault of "the Man", fella - it's the fault of the criminal. Ever heard the old saying, "You can't do the time, don't do the crime"?

Hondo writes:

>>>Moreover every one of the inmates you reference has been convicted of - or has legally admitted guilt to - a crime for which he or she has been sentenced to prison as punishment. Under slavery, many were born into slavery - and died slaves with no hope of ever achieving their freedom.
You don't refute any of the facts that I presented to support my argument. Of course I use internet search engines to find information. Unlike conservatives under the Karl Rove cult, I was ENCOURAGED to READ UP on topics and make decisions for myself based upon the information available.
AGAIN, your interpretation of the 13th Amendment doesn't mean a thing. Obviously, corporations taking advantage of a prison labor system to the tune of millions of dollars LEGALLY is much more compelling evidence in support of my argument.
I would love to know what your definition of "slavery" actually is. Here is the dictionary's:
Main Entry: slav·ery
Pronunciation: 'slA-v(&-)rE
Function: noun
Date: 1551
1 : DRUDGERY, TOIL
2 : submission to a dominating influence
3 a : the state of a person who is a chattel of another b : the practice of slaveholding

Would that fall under the definition of breaking rocks on a chain gang? Highway refuse road crews? Those aren't VOLUNTARY services, Hondo. And what is your opinion of inmate labor without pay, benefits or job safety oversight?
That sure sounds like "drugery and toil" to me.
Remember, my history buff-claiming friend, white slave owners often granted freedom to some of their slaves, as Thomas Jefferson did on his deathbed.
You also write:

>>>It's not the fault of "the Man", fella - it's the fault of the criminal. Ever heard the old saying, "You can't do the time, don't do the crime"?

Well, I'll agree with that viewpoint, if you agree that illegal drug sweeps should be applied as vigorously in white fraternity houses and suburban raves as it does on the street corners in urban areas.
>>>white Americans are the overwhelming majority of drug users in America. In 1997, for example, there were 10.3 million whites who used illegal drugs in the past month, but only 1.8 million blacks (Ibid. Applying the percentages of table 11 to table 1A). These numbers have not substantially changed since 1988.
http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/outcomes.htm

Yet African Americans have a higher incarceration rate for illegal drug possession. You ever ask yourself why that is, Hondo? Or is that a question you don't concern yourself with?

--Cobra

What does Terry have to do to lose his job?
Simple: piss off the Clintons.

Comments are Closed.