Why poor and lower class whites vote Republican

comm

The best thing BHO did was hire Hillary, agreed ?

How has voting for democrats helped all those other smart poor white people? You know, the ones who vote for democrats. How about all the poor blacks; what's their reward for voting democrat all these years? What democrat policies can be pointed to as the salvation for poor people as a whole in America?

Democrats pay a great deal of lip service to helping the middle class and the working poor. On occasion, they actually do something to help them. By and large, Republicans in Washington view them as potato-digging serfs. They have an almost feudal approach to dealing with poor people -- they want to be poor, they ought to be poor, God made them poor, they're on this earth to serve the rich, and so forth.

Republican political strategists not only play on fear and bigotry, but portray themselves as "the party of morality" (implying that Democrats are the party of immorality), thumping Bibles and thundering about righteous behavior and the like. It's become an almost-unshakeable meme in the public consciousness and, of course, in the liberal mainstream/insider/conservative-leaning media that Republicans have some sort of corner on morality, and that appeals to these groups of voters. Same for patriotism. Even when Bush, Cheney, Libby, Addington, Rove, Yoo, and the like commit actual treason (lying us into war and outing a covert CIA agent, for two), the public and the media portrayal of the GOP as the "party of patriots" (and the implication that Democrats are, by contrast, unpatriotic) still reigns.

The perception is, if you're a moral, patriotic American, you must, almost by definition, be a Republican, no matter if their actions and values conflict with yours. It's been a very difficult meme to counter.

common sense

Do you think that maybe one of the reasons poorer people support the Republicans is that so many young poor kids end up in the military; maybe their families feel more apart of the aggressive war focused rhetoric and flag waving of the Republicans? I was just thinking that if you really are sort of excluded from a lot of American life, then the military connection is probably a very big deal. (It is a big deal to us all, but families who can afford to send their kids to college at $40-50,000 year, are not so eager to vote for hawks!

Hey Max- just how is the Democrat party any different- they are all politicians- which translates 99% corrupt - the main difference is the Republicans get caught on sex while the Democrats ( with exception of Bill Clinton) can't seem to keep their hands out of the money jar- so if morals are the question guess would have to wonder who you rather have in charge someone with sex hang up or a money thief- either way can think of a lot of folks would rather have running things then ones like Dodd, Reid , Pelosi or Franks but hery they had nothing to do with anything did they

alter:

lemming [ˈlɛmɪŋ]n

1. a member of any large group following an unthinking course towards mass destruction

...so in other words, ALL partisans are 'lemmings'. I like it.....

Im not a lemming.

I think and act for myself. GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. I haven't taken a cup of anyone's kool-aid.

The article is about poor, white, lower class and why they vote Republican.

I am not white. I am not poor. I am not Republican. I am college educated. And I sure as hell am not running around building bunkers, stocking up on dry goods, ammunition, guns, looking up at the sky everytime a plane flies by wondering OMG! We're under attack!! OMG! Look there's a dark skinned person.....it's ONE OF TTTTTTTTHEM!

alter-I am not poor, I am not white, I am college educated- and then some- AND I AM REPUBLICAN. And celebrating the election of someone for their skin color is only slightly less ignorant than celebrating someone's election loss because of their skin color.

We are not building bunkers, we are not stocking up on dry goods, we are a party in decline, we can never beat you ever again, you have nothing to worry about- these are not the droids you are looking for........

Im not looking for anyone.

I happen to be one those people that supposedly aren't a REAL American.....you know, the ones you're looking for.

How have those social programs helped the poor better themselves? A helping hand beats a hand out imo.

Next you'll whine about "poor people living off my hard-earned tax dollars." Jesus would have kicked your ass out of the Temple along with the rest of your money-grubbing conservative pals.

Jesus would have kicked your ass out of the Temple along with the rest of your money-grubbing conservative pals.

Really? Interesting.

Max Black

Next you'll whine about "poor people living off my hard-earned tax dollars." Jesus would have kicked your ass out of the Temple along with the rest of your money-grubbing conservative pals.

Agreed. And for those who usually do their darnedest to sink any social safety nets, there is a line of less noble arguments:

Most people want to make absolutely sure that no one can get away with something for nothing in America. There is nothing wrong with this when carried out within reason. But this idea is being developed to such an extreme that if acted upon as proposed by its most ardent promoters, the country would soon become a Dog-eat-Dog jungle. A strong trend in that direction exists right now. For instance, in the Health file, this phobia dictates that no illegal alien should get away with so much as a free Band-Aid in any emergency room... Such an idea is absurd and unworkable. It could end up killing all kinds of people. We have a dilemma that still survives after we manage to assuage all our humanitarian objections over letting an alien die in an ER corridor: There is no effective way of making sure that a comatose patient without either friends or an ID, that arrives in the ER in a coma is not an alien, before starting urgent treatments. Such an expectation is unrealistic. And there are some cases where an alien should be treated for the greater good whether he can afford it or not. A case in point is for a contagious disease.

Very few things are either black or white in our daily lives. We need to apply some unbiased judgment here and there. Most forms of extremism are bad. Let us not sink our boat just to make sure we get some potential enemy that may have managed to hide somewhere on board. That way lays paranoia.

Next you'll whine about "poor people living off my hard-earned tax dollars." Jesus would have kicked your ass out of the Temple along with the rest of your money-grubbing conservative pals.

In a truly Christian country, this would have been an overriding argument. But let us not bury our heads in the sand. This is not the case here.

There is a huge difference between taking money at the point of a gun to distribute it to the clueless and taking money out of your own pocket to give it to the helpless.

Jesus was for the latter.

Unfortunately, democrats don't quite grasp the concept of voluntary charity. I give more to charity every month than Joe Biden does in two years. I give a greater percentage of my income every year than millionaire Obama does.

And if liberal programs are so wonderful, why do they have to be FORCED on people?

Spirit, a democratic administration signed the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts and appointed the first African-American Supreme Court Justice. Since that time, republicans have made the fostering of racial hatred and resentment their raison-d'etre in order to win elections. Don't take my word for it, two heads of the Republican National Committee already admitted to it.

It isn't just what democrats have done for black people, its also what republicans have done against black people for nearly a half century. Its so reflexive that republicans continue to try and blame the global financial meltdown on loans to minorities.

Max stop and think whose money are the Democrats giving not their own for sure - just look at how many folks Obama tried to nominate that got caught the same way Capone did for not paying their taxes- the same folks that want to tax everyone else to pay for their "free" giving to those that can't do for themselves ( or is it won't but will vote for them. And do not try and say all Republicans are rich cause in congress there are no poor people on either side- out here there are as many poor conservatives as there are liberals- the diff is how they are trying to get out of being poor

Spirit

As an American and a Democrat I am smart enough and experienced enough in this world to know.......

I DEPEND ON MYSELF for what I have iin my life....I don't depend on the government.

It's not what the government has or hasn't done for Democrats or Republicans it's what has it done FOR AMERICANS as a whole.

Dwilie

you must have been asleep in history class or perhaps your revisionist version of history is at play here?

Here let the poor uneducated independent educate you just a little bit.

your version of history Spirit, a democratic administration signed the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts

What actually transpired aka what really happened.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 is a piece of United States legislation that gave further rights to the freed slaves after the end of the American Civil War. A far-reaching consequence of this act is that since 1866, it has been illegal to discriminate in housing based on race. However, federal solutions were not provided for, and remedies were left to the individuals involved. Because those being discriminated against had limited access to legal help, this left many victims of discrimination without recourse. Since the latter half of the 20th century, there have been an increasing number of remedies provided under this act, including the landmark Jones v. Mayer decision in 1968.

Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was the first major anti-discrimination employment statute. This act prohibited employment discrimination based on race and color. This Act has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to protect African Americans, Asian Americans, white Americans and other groups.

Herman Belz. A New Birth of Freedom: The Republican Party and Freedom Rights, 1861 to 1866 (2000)
Eric Foner. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877

the Civil Rights Act of 1871 is a federal statute in force in the United States. Several of its provisions still exist today as codified statutes, but the most important still-existing provision is 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Act was originally enacted a few years after the American Civil War, along with the 1870 Force Act. One of the chief reasons for its passage was to protect southern blacks from the Ku Klux Klan by providing a civil remedy for abuses then being committed in the South. The statute has been subject to only minor changes since then, but has been the subject of voluminous interpretation by courts.

Just so you know reconstruction was brought on by those nasty old republicans.

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335) was a United States federal law proposed by Republican Senator Charles Sumner and Republican Congressman Benjamin F. Butler in 1870. The act was passed by Congress in February, 1875 and signed by President Grant on March 1, 1875. It was declared unconstitutional[1] by the US Supreme Court in 1883[2]. Many of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 were passed into law in the 1960s with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act using the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

The Act guaranteed that everyone, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in "public accommodations" (i.e. inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement).

If found guilty, the lawbreaker could face a penalty anywhere from $500 to $1,000 and/or 30 days to 1 year in prison. However, the law was rarely enforced (especially after the withdrawal of federal troops from the South after the 1876 Presidential election) and in the 1883 Civil Rights Cases the Supreme Court deemed the act unconstitutional on the basis that Congress had no power to regulate the conduct of individuals. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination by the state, not by individuals.

Once again those damn republicans given them free black men the rights to buy a home.

The Civil Rights Act of 1957, primarily a voting rights bill, was the first civil rights legislation enacted by Congress in the United States since Reconstruction. After it was proposed to Congress by then-President Dwight Eisenhower, Senator James Strom Thurmond sustained the longest one-person filibuster in history in an attempt to keep it from becoming law. His one-man filibuster consisted of 24 hours and 18 minutes of readings from the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, Washington's Farewell Address, and various phone books. His speech set the record for a Senate filibuster.[1] The bill passed the House with a vote of 270 to 97 and the Senate 60 to 15. President Eisenhower signed it on 9 September 1957.

Strom Thurmond, who at the time during his one-man filibuster was a Democratic Senator from South Carolina who later became a Republican, supported racial segregation with the longest filibuster ever conducted by a single Senator, speaking for 24 hours and 18 minutes in an unsuccessful attempt to derail the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Cots were brought in from a nearby hotel for the legislators to sleep on while Thurmond rambled on about random things, including his grandmother's biscuit recipe. Other Southern Senators, who had agreed as part of a compromise not to filibuster this bill, were upset with Thurmond because they thought his defiance made them look bad to their constituents.

Because of Democratic opposition and amendment of The Civil Rights Act of 1957, it was largely ineffective in its enforcement and its scope. By 1960, slightly fewer blacks were voting in the South than had been in 1956. It did however open the door to later legislation that was effective in securing voting rights as well as ending legal segregation and providing housing rights. In particular, it established both the Commission on Civil Rights and the office of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Subsequently, on December 9, 1957, the Civil Rights Division was established within the Justice Department by order of Attorney General William P. Rogers, giving the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights a distinct division to command. Previously, civil rights lawyers enforced Reconstruction-era laws from within the Criminal Division.

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.

The Senate's debate over the passage of this bill actually started on February 29, 1960. However, 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. On the morning of March 2nd, only a fifteen-minute break was allowed before the Senate sat for another 82 hours. By the time the 24-hour sessions were called off by majority leader Lyndon Johnson, the Senate had sat for 125 hours and 31 minutes minus a fifteen-minute break.

The act was signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on May 6, 1960.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that extended voting rights and outlawed racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public

Passage in the House of Representatives

The bill was sent to the House of Representatives, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Emmanuel Celler, a Democrat from New York. After a series of hearings on the bill, Celler's committee greatly strengthened the act, adding provisions to ban racial discrimination in employment, providing greater protection to black voters, eliminating segregation in all publicly owned facilities (not just schools), and strengthening the anti-segregation clauses regarding public facilities such as lunch counters. They also added authorization for the Attorney General to file lawsuits to protect individuals against the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution or U.S. law. In essence, this was the controversial "Title III" that had been removed from the 1957 and 1960 Acts. Civil rights organizations pressed hard for this provision because it could be used to protect peaceful protesters and black voters from police brutality and suppression of free speech rights.

The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963, and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat and avid segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely. It was at this point that President Kennedy was assassinated. The new president, Lyndon Johnson, utilized his experience in legislative politics and the bully pulpit he wielded as president in support of the bill.

Because of Smith's stalling of the bill in the Rules Committee, Celler filed a petition to discharge the bill from the Committee. Only if a majority of members signed the discharge petition would the bill move directly to the House floor without consideration by Smith's committee. Initially Celler had a difficult time acquiring the signatures necessary, as even many congressmen who supported the civil rights bill itself were cautious about violating House procedure with the discharge petition. By the time of the 1963 winter recess, 50 signatures were still needed.

The record of the roll call vote kept by the House Clerk on final passage of the bill.

On the return from the winter recess, however, matters took a significant turn. The pressure of the civil rights movement, the March on Washington, and the President's public advocacy of the Act had made a difference of opinion in Representatives' home districts, and soon it became apparent that the petition would acquire the necessary signatures. To prevent the humiliation of the success of the petition, Chairman Smith allowed the bill to pass through the Rules Committee. The bill was brought to a vote in the House on February 10, 1964, and passed by a vote of 290 to 130, and sent to the Senate.

Passage in the Senate

Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X at the United States Capitol on March 26, 1964. Both men had come to hear the Senate debate on the bill. This was the only time the two men ever met; their meeting lasted only one minute.[3][4]

Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Under Eastland's care, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. Although this parliamentary move led to a filibuster, the senators eventually let it pass, preferring to concentrate their resistance on passage of the bill itself.

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[5]

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[6]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.[7]

Key to the passage of the Civil Rights Act were not just the congressional maneuvers, but also the public pressure, which was fed by a campaign led by Dr. Robert Hayling and Dr. Martin Luther King in St. Augustine, Florida--the "nation's oldest city"--in the Spring and summer of 1964. The graphic incidents in St. Augustine, including the arrest of Dr. King at a segregated restaurant, the largest mass arrest of rabbis in American history, the arrest of the 72-year-old mother of the governor of Massachusetts, wade-ins at St. Augustine Beach, many brutal beatings, and the pouring of acid in a motel pool when an integrated group was swimming there, demonstrated for the American people the need to pass the law."Remarks upon Signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964"

Public statement by Lyndon B. Johnson of July 2, 1964 about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Finally, on June 19, the substitute (compromise) bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73-27, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, referring to the Democratic Party, "We have lost the South for a generation

Damn those nasty repugs how dare they enact every piece of civil rights legislation in the history of the United Sates tell me once again how the democrats did it ?

Didn't i see an article here just the other day that said republicans are revisionists?

Mav

Nicely written, and very misleading. The single enormous fact you're leaving out is the "sea change" that took place between the two parties in the mid-1950s and early 1960s. Before, the Democrats had "enjoyed" an uneasy alliance between more liberal/progressive members who favored civil rights, and the more conservative, often openly racist "Dixiecrats" of the South and Appalachian regions. The Dixiecrats bolted the party over the civil rights issue, joining their more conservative brethren in the GOP. About the same time, the GOP began discouraging liberal Republicans who often favored civil rights from progressing in the party. Liberal Republicans like Jacob Javits, Richard Schweicker, Nelson Rockefeller, and John Chafee were slowly purged from the party.

In other words, the Democrats became somewhat more liberal (although retaining many conservatives and libertarian/populists) while the GOP became ever more conservative. The Republicans of 2010 are nothing like the Eisenhowers and the liberal Republicans I've listed.

And your history proves that it was a combination of Democrats and liberal Republicans who were responsible for enacting the various civil rights legislations and agencies that now exist. No one, and I mean no one, of national prominence in the current GOP would have anything to do with anything you tout as "proof" of your party being so progressive.

Wow mavrick. All of that nice history in support of a lie because you didn't follow through and you ignored the string of discussion. Spirit asked in #4:

What have the democrats EVER done for poor and lower-class whites -- OR blacks

The statement in the dwillie post was succinct and correct. In your so-called history lesson, you ignore everything after 1965. Quiet as it s kept, that is history too. You ignore Barry Goldwater's "States Rights" campaign, garnering only the South and his home state of Arizona. You ignore the Southern Strategy developed under Richard Nixon. You ignore statements made by both Lee Atwater and Richard Mehlman acknowledging the race-based strategy of the GOP. You ignore Ronald Reagan announcing his candidacy in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered and buried in an earthen dam. You ignore Reagan's railing against the welfare mom driving a Cadillac. You ignore George Bush's "Willie Horton" ads. You ignore Jesse Helms' "white hands" ads. You ignore the Tennessee GOP's "call me Harold" ads. You ignore the fact that republicans have been pissing on Lincoln and Eisenhower's graves for the last 45 years.

Generally accurate as it is, our history lesson might have been a worthwhile read had it been a complete one.

Mav, what specifically is in my post that is a revision? The Civil Rights Act was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. He later signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Last time I checked, this was a democratic administration. What was revisionist about that?

Your history treatise might have been remotely worthwhile if you didn't start out with unnecessary (and unwarranted if you actually paid attention) condescension and if you were intellectually honest enough to acknowledge the last 45 years of republican bankruptcy with respect to race.

I always find it a source of amusement on how so many issues come down to white versus black in the minds of the Dems. I guess that Black is the only thing that matters- how rarely are the other colors of the rainbow thrown out- browns , reds and yellows. It is as if the Black were the only group that was ever oppressed and no one else ever has been. And if they were , it doesn't really matter because only if you are Black does it count. SO sad- doesn't it ever get tiring all this self-martyrdom?

Damn Jeff, a guy can't answer a simple question factually without people like you sermonizing based on some ridiculous manufactured umbrage. If you want answers to your questions, ask Spirit. He's the one who opened up this line of discussion (#4) and he is always race-baiting on the Vine.

You protest too much for someone too lazy to follow the context of the discussion. Perhaps the problem is you. Common sense, paying attention and thinking are what matters Jeff in Las Vegas. I suggest you try it some time.

Has anyone but me realized that this article was likely written for an Asian audience

renard, China is a great example of limited government, don't you know? We should look to them as our example! I mean, if we just removed personal freedom from everyone and 'forced' them to save, we'd all be set. It is clear to me that that statement makes perfect sense and that Bill's logic is completely perfectly on the level.

Bills argument is flawed; First off, 90% of the national debt is from Regan/Bush/Bush, so you can't pin that on Democrats. Secondly, Republicans are good at lip service on the economy, but they stupidy belive that its top down: Coorporations provide employment that provides growth. They use coorporation friendly regluations (blocking lawsuits, not taking preemptive action), that results in wages falling (as they did EVERY year during Bush's term in office, i might add), but leads to explosive coorporate profits, driving up the markets.

Of course, since private income generally falls during Republican run years, that growth is always unsustainable, hence why every Republican president since Hoover has had one form of economic disaster after another:

(Hoover: Great Depression

Eisenhower: Price Controls and Wage freezes

Nixon/Ford: Stagflation

Regan: Trippled debt & Savings & Loan Crisis

Bush1: Raise taxes to stop deficit (I do point out, he inherted Regans problems)

Bush2: Doubled Deficit & Great Recession)

Now, someone will respond throwing FDR's "failure" to stop the Great Depression, and I'll tell them to read their history better. FDR had the economy recovered by 1936 (minus unemployment, which is ALWAYS last to recover...sound familliar?), but he was under intense pressure to stop the deficit (sound familiar yet?). He caved and cut governement spending, and the stock market tanked a second time, loosing 80% of the gains since he took office. The economy didn't recover to that point until mid-1941, and it took the massive shock of WWII to jump-start the economy (funded entirly on GOVERNMENT SPENDING I might add :D)

JFK/LBJ/Clinton proved that proper government intervention can not only grow the economy, but grow it in a stable way without adding to the deficit. Even Carter (who inhereted stagflation) managed to drop unemployment and raise GDP from when he took office, without adding significantly to the national debt.

In short: Republican economic policy is good for coorporations, and bad for ordinary americans.

gamerk2 - I agree, but add to this that primarily the Republican and right-wing types have had us fighting the "commies" and their minions for 70 years making billions every year off of every scare tactic they could think of and when unions got to powerful and the middle classes got to cushy in their life style they had Nixon "open" China and we have been shipping jobs there ever since. Now the same "anti-commies" make billions more and tell the US worker that they aren't competitive enough and things to help them are to expensive. Seems that the German workers who lost to the Russians have it better, they get health insurance and 8 weeks vacation and have been for 40 years, we on the other hand have added work days on weekends and holidays.

Jesus was a socialist according to the definitions put forth by republicans such as giving away fish and bread, healing the poor without asking for money, etc.

This is about helping the poor and and those who don't have a voice.

All voters have a choice. Those who are not eligible to vote simply do not have a choice. That is the law of the land

BTW - Jesus was an individual who helped the poor, he was not a government.

All the Democrats/Liberals want to do is take from the rich and give to the poor..and even though that may seem christian to some it really is the antithesis of Christianity.

I'm so tired of this ignorance. If all democrats want to do is "take from the rich to give to the poor", then WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY WAITING FOR? They own D.C., so why are they waisting their time trying to reform the country?! They could've fixed health care a year ago by getting the rich people's money and cutting the poor a check, right? BTW: What does Christianity have to do with this? Unless everyone in this country shares the same religious beliefs, its stupid to expect others to follow what YOUR religious beliefs are!

It places no faith in the individual spirit to grow and thrive and it says let me do this for you because you cannot do it for yourself

Is that why Clinton getting the poor off welfare worked so well, before Bush came along? Is that why job fairs now look like rock concerts, with people packed in wall to wall? Someone must have forgot to tell them about the big bucks the gov hands out to people who sit home with their feet up all day!

Democrats/Liberals destroy initiative they don't foster it

What "initiative" have the dems destroyed? Better yet, what have republicans done for anyone other then themselves?!

True Giving comes from the heart, not because some All knowing and Powerful Government mandates it...that is what is wrong with the Liberal way of thinking...They want the Government to take care of them forming what to many would be an ideal Nanny state.

True giving does come from the heart, so thank God for all those charities and such that do these good works. It has absolutely nothing to do with the gov., at least not until they start cutting those checks to the poor with all the money from the rich! :)

FYI: "the Liberal way of thinking" is, EVERYONE is entitled to the same opportunities and treatment, regardless of race, religion, class, sex, etc.!

Jesus was a theocrat wauk. Where is the Republican dictionary defining socialist as one who gives away fish? Bring some intelligent thought to the table. I know a lot of Republicans who give a great deal to charity.

I know a lot of Republicans who give a great deal to charity.

Some do out of a sincere desire to help. Most do it for the tax deductions or for "points" among their fatcat friends: "Ewwww, Buffy, I gave $50,000 to that smelly homeless shelter, that beats your $40,000 to the ASPCA. I win, you lose, ha ha ha. Have that Mexican woman bring me some tea."

Actually, most don't give anything. Neither do most Democrats. However, I work in a job that brings me in frequent contact with people who work at homeless shelters, food pantries, animal shelters, and the like, and I would guess that 90% of the people who put in real time at those places are either liberals, religious, or both. I have yet to see one country-club Republican like Bush strut his or her overprivileged ass in one.

You certainly do make a lot of assumptions.

You certainly do make a lot of assumptions.

My "assumptions" are based on thirty years of experience. I could assume that you get all your information from your pals at the golf course, but that would be assuming without a basis in fact.

Actually the Democrats ideas are destroying the country - their take from the rich ( of course excluding the rich Democrats) and giving to the poor (those that vote for them) does one thing for sure squeezes the middle class out till there will be none- they are great at spending and giving away the money they tax from the working middle class and giving them nothing back- maybe they should cut their pay and benefits and give that money to the poor they pretend to worry about- but hey you know the answer to that like health insurance they know what is best for everyone else but it is not same as what they give themselves separate and unequal- since they are rich enough to get elected because of what they spend not for what they stand for

Good one Joe! The problem people have is distinguishing between the poor and the irresponsible (many of which are poor); these cannot be clumped together when discussing policies related to helping others. We all should be for 'helping' the poor, while none of us should be for supporting the irresponsible. The only way to help the irresponsible is to hold them accountable for responsible behavior, which promotes self-growth instead of fostering continued irresponsibility with handouts. For those of us who have spent years in underdeveloped countries, we know the majority of what we categorize as 'poor' in this country are actually very well off relative to the rest of the world's poor.

Dragonchef:

Actually the Democrats ideas are destroying the country - their take from the rich ( of course excluding the rich Democrats) and giving to the poor (those that vote for them)

Now its time to prove it. Give me an example of the democrats taking exclusively from rich republicans and giving the money to poor democrats...I will wait.

(I got ten bucks that the response will include something including one or more of the following buzzwords: ACORN, socialist, birth certificate, secret muslim, communist, and anti-American...any takers?)

You may want to go back and read up on your bible. The wine he made was at a wedding feast and the hosts ran out of wine. This had nothing at all to do with feeding poor, this was supplying more wine to a wedding FEAST.

And the bread he made was given to his followers, go read up on it- nothing says these were poor people just people who had followed him for days and were hungry. Who is to say that everyone in the crowd was poor? He appealed to ( and still does) many different levels of society.

I am by no means a bible expert but just a little research tells a different story.

Yes read them- it says nothing about the poor- there is a difference between feeding the multitudes that are your followers and feeding the poor. there is no connect between the two phrases. There are multitudes at the Super Bowl game but very few of them are poor.

read about the wind and the wwedding feast

http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/John%202.1-11#ref=Jn%202%3A1%E2%80%9311%2Chi%3DJn%202%3A1-Jn%202%3A11&ver=NIV

Renard- I never said that some or many of his followers were not poor, I just said that your examples of his compassion for the poor were incorrect.. It is you that are misreading what I am saying and trying to state that I am saying his followers were rich. I did not state that. Some of his followers may have been but certainly many poor people heard his message of compassion for others and love for fellow man.

Yes who He fed, and you seemed to be assuming they were all poor.

Undoubtedly there were poor in the crowds, but there is no reason to think they were ALL poor.

He fed them because they had traveled far, (to see Him), and now they were hungry. If you read the passage it states that the apostles say that the crowd followed him to this "deserted place" -- the place is far from everything and there is no where for the people to aquire food. It does not say they are too impoverished to provide for themselves.

Surely there were poor among the crowd, but that is not even the point of the story.

The people had rtaveled far to see Jesus and they were hungry -- that is what we really know of the crowd.

Does Jesus want us to be charitable? -- I am sure that is so.

But before you are so sure you know Him, the bible also has much to say about the value of hard work; here is just a sampling:

Proverbs 14

All hard work brings profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty.
Proverbs 14: 22-24

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: If a man will not work he shall not eat.
2 Thessalonians 3:9-11

Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves their wages. Do not move around from house to house.
Luke 10:7

nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day labouring and toiling so we would not be a burden to any of you.
2 Thessalonians 3:7-9

I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labour.
2 Corinthians6: 4-6

I know your deeds, your hard work, and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and found them false.
Revelations 2:1-3

(final instructions) Now we ask you brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you.
1 Thessalonians 5: 11-13

Also, remember that He also gave us the parable about the bridesmaids.

The bridemaids all went to wait for the bridegroom, the ones who had prepared had plenty of oil, but the ones who had not ran out of oil and asked the others to share -- but they are told no -- to go back and get more for themselves.

We are not told that they share!

Why? --- when the groom comes the girls who were prepared meet him and they go to the party, the girls who were not prepared are too late and left behind.

So although God wants us to be charitable, he seems also to want for us to be responsible for ourselves!

And remember Jesus had no prejudices against people -- rich or poor. He ate with tax collectors as well as the humble and poor. true, He told them all to repent from sinfulness. True -- the rich were told often not to be greedy and to renounce anything they had earned in any unjust way ---- but the poor were given these same instructions, they too had to renounce from money which was ill-gotten, and for them it would have proven to be a hardship.

As I recall His good friend, Lazarus, was from a wealthy family with means.

Renard:
I have often though that the Pharisees and Scribes are a great analogy for many of today's Evangelicals

But all their works they do for to be seen of men. . . .
And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues

Matthew 23:5-6

Many give to charities like United Way, Salvation Amry, homeless shelters, etc

Joe:

Yes Jesus Christ helped the poor...but I don't remember him making a Government mandate out of it..He said "what you do for the least of my bretheren you also do for me"..

Might not of made a government mandate out of it...he just leverage access to heaven and God based on following his example "I am the way and the truth and the light, none may come to my father except by me" (John 14:6)

Nevermind, I see below.

Good luck with Chris Christie.

I don't expect miracles from either side. The only thing I know is this: You know it is bad when you have had a few republican governors that you can rate 'bad' and then all the democrat governors afterwards you can rate 'worse.' So, instead of following a party trend (keep voting the same party in), might as well try something different.

What I expect are things to get done and explained to the people why (or why not) it is being done. I don't want to see money wasted on frivolous crap and I sure as hell don't want a governor where the only major thing you can remember him doing is breaking his leg in a car accident by not wearing a seatbelt. Only time will tell.

Same issue near me in Nassau County (Long Island). Basically, Republicans spent 40 years in total control, and essentially bankrupted the county (That is NOT an understatement; the county was totally broke). Understand, Nassau county as far back as 1980 was on of the most heavily Republican districts in the country, just so you understand the significance of Democrats in charge.

Problem is, the finacnces were so screwed up, and since no one would want to can a social program, meant that taxes had to go up to stablize the deficit. So Republicans are back in charge, and already up to their business as usual routine...(Dems have only themselves to blame though; loosing by a few hundred votes with $10 Million left in the bank...)

Our State Senate is ever more messed up; Its the democratic governer who is trying to balance the budget by cutting bloated programs, and Republicans (and many democrats as well) saying that he can't do that. Its all lip; you can talk about cutting spending, its another to actually start to cut away.

If you really want to know about corruption and one party constantly being voted over and over again, look at Newark. I believe people have voted a democratic mayor in office since the riots happened. And I went through Newark most of the time (I lived near it). Homeless people, violence, filth, etc. The lowest ranking in education in all the public schools in NJ. Where are their tax dollars going? The mayors try to beautify Newark, which is a complete joke. The problems are still there. That's like taking a piece of crap and putting new wrapping paper around it; it's still crap. Same crap, different wrapper.

Checkmate

I agree, I live in Minnesota

You know the state that could balance its budget so our governor did it. Just recently one of his cuts was over turned by a liberal judge in Ramsey county. Just a sad day when social programs become a way of life and can't be cut. It is the true problem with this country. We'll make people dependant on a program that way the program always has to exist and can't be eliminated. It is just sad!

igo, I know people who are playing the system. I know someone whose husband got fired just around the same time they figured out that with his paychecks, they would receive less food stamps. Coincidence, I think not. I know people who think that if they get pregnant, the government will take care of their needs. These are not people who are living on hard times and are on welfare for awhile. These are people who are living on welfare, generation after generation, and don't expect to be on their own. It's pathetic. I remember in the past where people were ashamed to be on welfare. Now I meet people who are proud of it and don't want anything to change.

This site is becoming a waste of time. What happened to the intelligent discussion that used to take place? Where are all these deluded fools coming from and why have they infected what was once a place where one could actually, potentially, "get smarter here"?

Now I only come here if I want to cringe. This country is going nowhere, fast.

Which govt programs which the democrats have wanted to put in place to cure America's poor have been stopped by the republicans?

Do you realize that the way you formulate your questions makes it literally impossible to have a reasoned discussion with you, or anyone like you?

Is it because you don't like the answer? My questions seem legitimate to me. All this blaming the other party for the downfall of AMerica is played out imo. Neither party gives two cents about anything other than staying in power.

Renard, depends on where you live. I have a friend that has a democrat mayor in their town. She told me that this guy is a complete ass who does NOTHING for his community. However, people keep voting him back in, mainly black people (the newspaper comes out with a poll telling the race gender of who voted for which candidates). Why? Because they believe in his 'promises' over and over again. My friend is poor and lives in an area where it is mainly black people and knows what they say about him. All positive things, but he has done NOTHING for them. They believe that voting democrat will get them something (this she heard most of the time from the black people in her area). It's the meaning of insanity.

Of course it seems reasonable and 'legitimate' to you, you wrote it. But you are delusional, that is the problem.

Thanks, Nick. Rather than help me understand why my question is invalid you attack me personally. Happy New Year.

Which govt programs which the democrats have wanted to put in place to cure America's poor have been stopped by the republicans?

Republicans "cure" poor people from being poor the same way the Ebola virus "cures" people from being alive.

Good answer.

George W Bush's Republicans, the party clearly working to serve the interests of big business and big money, had now become the party that was winning elections solely with the votes of lower-income whites; in that election the Republicans won 18 of the 19 lowest income states in the nation.

Low income people, don't vote Republican as your income will not rise. Insanity definition - keep voting the same party and expecting a different result....?

Max Black

Republicans "cure" poor people from being poor the same way the Ebola virus "cures" people from being alive.

This is why the Republicans don't want working people to have access to affordable Health Care. Republicans = Death Panels

Specifically how were they shooting themselves in the foot?By voting Republican? Had they voted Democrat how would that have changed their lives for the better?

The rising Republican economic tide floats all yachts. The rest of us drown.

RKB123, the programs these people were against could have helped them. They seemed so convinced that if you were poor, it was your fault, they couldn't see that they weren't rich themselves. Someone making $30,000 a year doesn't have a right to look down on anybody!

yeah those poor people should have taken a cue from the poor people in Lousiana who voted in the Dem.s and did so well, (especially New Orleans and the 9th ward in particular which had been a Dem. stronghold voting in Dem. generation after generation after generation before Katrina hit -- those crooked Dem's sure did 'work' for those poor people, they were doing real well after all those years and all that help).

and lets not forget Detroit, Detroit became such a wonderful place to be poor after the 60's when it became a democratic stronghold. In fact you can find out how well all those poor people do in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw&feature=email

It's a fun, (albeit slanted), look at the subject

^^ Its not their fault the entire economy is built on one industry

Actually Dtertoit took on a system of entitlements that were so generous anyone who was on welfare and food-stamps for miles around was tempted to move to Detroit where they could do better -- and many people in that type of situation are not beholden to an area and eadily able to move. You could move there and get signed up right away, with no waiting period. (unlike states like Texas which make it known that they are not in the welfare business and have a waiting period -- )

and it was a place that did not have to be beholden to only one industry -- they had a proud history and couldhave been a place which inspired innovation, but the unions choked the life out of anything that smacked of changes. (with one notable exeption when they were convinced that the govt. was going to start pushing electric cars -- Detroit put a whole bunch of investment into the design and make of the future in electric cars -- I think it was the late 70's -- and then the Japanese auto makers had figured out that people would rather have an extra small, cheap car than one expensive one. I have to hand it Japan that they saw the way the future was going to look before we did; even if it irritates me. The govt. dropped teh ball and Detroit lost that bet big.)

But to say 'it's not their fault' is short sighted, there are planty of choices which brought Detroit where it is today -- not just one.

So illogical, so ignorant, so crazy - please take the neon "I am a wingnut" sign off your forehead, it is blinding us with the pure insanity of a comment like this

Eriq

you are attacking again

Why can't you aswer with knowledge and oppisite diiscoarse. You haven't a answer do you!

Hi Soc,

Interesting that the Democrats, according to the article, are now the party of the rich.

You know, I was thinking the same thing, however, the article also states:

in that election the Republicans won 18 of the 19 lowest income states in the nation. The average income of the 19 states won by the Democrats was US$49,770; for the Republicans, $41,598.

So the range (~$8000) is not so overwhelming that one would cause the Democratic fraction to be made up of a great number of "elites" (examples from the article include Manhattan with an average income of $2.4M).

You suggest that Wall Street is Democratic? (Along with the rest of the Banking system?)

Certainly the average income of Democrats seems to be higher....I wonder why that is.

Soc,

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about math. I'll start over.

Soc - Interesting that the Democrats, according to the article, are now the party of the rich.

Meso - So the range (~$8000) is not so overwhelming that one would cause the Democratic fraction to be made up of a great number of "elites" (examples from the article include Manhattan with an average income of $2.4M).

Soc - You suggest that Wall Street is Democratic? (Along with the rest of the Banking system?)

Naturally in order to answer the question accurately I'd have to write out the data points and perform find the standard deviation of the 2 data sets.

HOWEVER, because the difference between the averages is not that great I make the assumption that as a whole (the US) one can expect normal, even distribution of voter preference. This means that in every state, there will be very rich and very poor and all in between and if you take the US as a whole, that distribution is on average even.

I also take into account that this income average is essentially steady in every election. This means that if you look at the income averages of these same 19 now-Democratic states, the income averages will not change by very much from year to year. (IE. I assume my income this year didn't differ all that much from last year and on average this is the case)

Finally I consider the time of the election, 2004, in which Bush beat Kerry.

The results of the 2004 election tell what the country wanted -

With his election victory George W Bush made clear his intention to continue and intensify the free-market, big business revolution; the first step in that cause would be the privatization of Franklin Roosevelt's most durable gem from the New Deal - the Social Security program of old-age income support.

Therefore, I can only conclude that Wall Street wanted to "intensify the free-market" and the "big business revolution" that Bush offered, and that is why Wall Street voted Republican in the 2004 elections.

Certainly the average income of Democrats seems to be higher....I wonder why that is.

I can only then offer my explanation based again, on standard deviation.

Three populations {0, 0, 14, 14}, {0, 6, 8, 14} and {6, 6, 8, 8} has a mean of 7. Their standard deviations are 7, 5, and 1, respectively.

Since I have said earlier that the means do not differ all that much, I will say that the 19 Democratic states (2004) had a distribution like the second population. Since I also have stated that I believe that Wall Street (the elites) voted Republican, I will say that the 2004 Republicans had a distribution more like the first population.

A couple of observations.

1. From your post I can only assume that you therefore disagree with the article...the poor and lower classes vote Republican.

2. Your belief that Wall Street votes Republican is just that...belief.

3. I would suggest that much of the ultra-rich vote Democratic. The alliance is between the poor and the ultra-rich to the detriment of the middle class. The poor vote for the Democratic giveaways and the ultra-rich vote for the taxes on the middle class.

Seems like those poor and lower class whites have it right, if one is to believe the article and/or your analysis.

Hi Soc,

You didn't address my math, so I'm going to say you're ok with it.

1. From your post I can only assume that you therefore disagree with the article...the poor and lower classes vote Republican.

The article addresses potential reasons why the poor and lower middle class vote Republican. What it DID NOT claim, is that those that vote Republican are necessarily poor and lower middle class. (All fish live in water, but not all that live in water are fish.)

IE. It is still possible that there are some rich, elite, college educated blah blah blah that also vote Republican.

2. Your belief that Wall Street votes Republican is just that...belief

We'd have to go find the demographics of the 2004 elections. You can see that of the group making more than $100,000, 41% Kerry, 58% Bush, a difference of 17%.

Furthermore, I already stated that Wall Street voted Bush because he offered to intensify the free-market and foster the big-business revolution, and of course those famous Bush tax-cuts.

If you would like to pose another reason, then please do so.

3. I would suggest that much of the ultra-rich vote Democratic.

Please show how you came to this conclusion. (With specifics, please).

Seems like those poor and lower class whites have it right,

There is no "right" and "wrong". We are discussing possible reasons why poor and lower middle class vote Republican because it has been established that it is generally against their economic interests. I will not claim that someone doesn't have the right to vote with their "values" if they should choose to.

if one is to believe the article and/or your analysis.

No one has to BELIEVE anything. You check my facts, my reasoning, and you tell me where my reasoning has gone wrong or is supported by data.

1. According to the article the poor and lower class whites vote Republican and theorize that this is against their interests. Why?

2. Although it is possible, it was suggested that the reason that the aforementioned voters voted Republican was because they were poor and less educated with the correlary being that the more educated and weatlhier voted Democratic. It would stand to reason than that the poor and uneducated viewed the Republican Party as the one who better represented their interests, while the wealthier and more educated voted Democratic for the same reason. Further I specifically discussed the ultra-rich which does not include those who make $100,000.00.

3. Bill Gates, Sores, Buffet, general Hollywood, etc. In addition, check the stats on the financial support given to Democrats by Wall Street, etc. as well as who ended up in positions of power in the Obama Administration.

How has it been shown to be "generally against their economic interests" to vote Republican vs. Democratic?

3.

Soc,

1. According to the article the poor and lower class whites vote Republican and theorize that this is against their interests. Why?

You want an explanation of the negative (Why do poor and lower class whites NOT vote Democrat). From the article -

they saw that the townspeople in the little towns of The Deer Hunter, and in thousands of others that had been sheared away from the Roosevelt coalition

From about this period on, whenever the Democrats advanced a reform issue that might improve the lives of average Americans, such as health care, income support for the poor, an increased minimum wages, and many others, the Republicans told this population that, if the Democrats really loved America as much as they said they did, why would they be trying so hard to change it?

of what use was the Democrats' appeal to a better life in this world, when just by sitting in the pews and tithing (that is, donating to the church) eternal bliss in the afterlife was assured?

Basically the first half of page 2 is explaining this mentality.

Please demonstrate the positive - How is voting Republican in their best interest?

Further I specifically discussed the ultra-rich which does not include those who make $100,000.00.

I pointed out the demographic of those making more than $100,000, not those making just $100K.

If you are unhappy with the information provided, please refute by bringing your own information to the discussion.

Please stop asking me to research for you.

Certainly I don't wish you to do my research for me...I think you need to do it for yourself.

I disagree with your/their assessment of how many of these social programs help the poor and lower class whites.

I want no explanation...I was simply pointing out that one can't indicate in the article that the poor and uneducated whites are voting against their own interests while at the same time showing that the wealthier and more educated vote Democratic. Does this mean that the wealthier are also voting against their own interests? I don't need to bring stats and/or more information to the table to show the basic flaw in this reasoning. I am commenting on the flaws in the article itself using the information in the article itself.

Making more than 100K would indicate to me those making....more than 100K. How about those with assets over 1 billion dollars? How about those making over 25 million annually? How about the top 1%? The ultra-rich.

The higher the inflation, the higher the cost of government, the higher the ratio of government employees, and the higher the costs of various social programs..the more the poor get squeezed. Look at the so-called bailouts. Look at the so-called stimulus package. Great for the rich...not so great for the working poor.

Soc,

I don't wish you to do my research for me...I think you need to do it for yourself.

Then you ask me questions:

How about those with assets over 1 billion dollars? How about those making over 25 million annually? How about the top 1%?

So maybe I could ask you to find this data.

From Berkeley professor Emmanuel Saez - The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States

Check out figures 1 and 2 and then look at Table 1. (Look at fig 3 too, but it just makes me sick)

Figure 1 shows that the percentage of income going to the top 10% has increased every year.

Figure 2 shows that it is the top 1% of earners that is the main source of the aforementioned trend.

Table 1 shows that the fraction of total growth captured by the top 1% was 65% from 2002 - 2007.

The higher the inflation, the higher the cost of government, the higher the ratio of government employees, and the higher the costs of various social programs..the more the poor get squeezed. Look at the so-called bailouts. Look at the so-called stimulus package. Great for the rich...not so great for the working poor.

It is your claim that Republican economic policy is in the best interest of the poor and lower class.

I don't think we're making any progress here so I will just ask you to go here.

A comparison of the periods in question show that the increase in income for the top 10% failed to translate into anything for the middle/lower class.

This is my last reply to you. If you had presented any data then we would have discussed yours too.

Actually Puck, the black population of the US is about 11-12% , and they did vote overwhelmingly for obama.

Actually Puck, the black population of the US is about 11-12% , and they did vote overwhelmingly for obama.

AA also voted overwhelmingly for Bill Clinton, Kerry, Mondale, Carter, and JFK. Because they too were black.

And asians, native americans, muslims, and hispanics also voted overwhelming for Obama because . . .

????

Sorry I can't find the conservative talking point on that one. Its a fact they don't like to bring up.

A 661334,

Man you need a serious reality check. If the only message you're getting from conservatives and the GOP is one of racism, then you're only hearing what you want to hear. You've fallen hook, line and sinker for the lies that the libs feed you to keep you pissed off at republicans. When they pander to blacks, and convince you that you're a victim who needs special coddling, then that is not only racist, but insulting. The democratic party is very good at manipulating blacks and playing the race card. Were you to join with conservatives, you would be treated as an equal for the first time in your life.

Why did some 90% of the young whites under 30 vote for Obama ?

The uninformed and idealistic always vote for the fanciful empty rhetoric of the democratic party. The appeal of style over substance is what attracts the young and politically inexperienced. The fact that obama is a superficial fraud is irrelevant.

I agree with all you said A661. As for the young not having embraced racism yet - or moreso along the lines of 'blindly following'.

My son and a white friend of his were discussing the upcoming election last year. The friend says he's voting Rep and my son asks why. He said because his family (parents) were Reps and expected him to vote the same. My son told him he was pretty stupid if he was voting for someone just because his parents 'expected' him to and began asking him how he felt about certain things/issues.

Not that my son is all that politically savvy (they all turned 18 last year) but this poor kid was absolutely clueless to what each party/candidate stood for. At the end of their discussion, my son tells him 'Bob', man you're a Democrat and you don't even know it!!' It was too too funny.

Another of his non-black friends said he wanted to vote for Obama because he liked what he stood for, but his parents actually told him who he was not allowed to and he had to vote Republican. I was horrified that a parent would try to exercise this type CONTROL over their child.

It's one thing to discuss candidate/issues and what they stand for and try to bring a person (your child or anyone for that matter) over to your side of thinking. But to try to stifle individual thoughts, opinions and beliefs is absolutely pathetic and disgusting in my book. I told the kid NOBODY is allowed in that booth with him and he could make his own choices and vote for whomever he wanted. The kid actually looked afraid to 'go against them' and you could see it all over his face. I told him 'look, just vote for whoever you want and if/when they ask, just tell them whatever they want to hear. They will be none the wiser.'

It's very sad to say but I've seen this over and over and over again where Rep parents try to bully/pressure their kids into voting the same as they do. Dems parents on the other hand have a totally different attitude and have a liberal attitude towards their children making their own choices. And I'm not just talking about last years elections. This is a Rep 'phenomena' that has existed for all the years I've cared to pay attention to it.

The uninformed and idealistic always vote for the fanciful empty rhetoric of the democratic party.

The same uninformed and idealistic always vote for the racist thetoric of the extreme right of the republican party(horton) and believe ohh it isn't about race because we say it isn't after it is already said.

The appeal of style over substance is what attracts the young and politically inexperienced. The fact that obama is a superficial fraud is irrelevant.

Is Pres Obama inexperienced....maybe...but he took over office after bush who conservatives rarely can admit he was not the most experienced, trustworthy, or capable of leading a nation to prosperity/

Why is it an issue that 90-98% of blacks voted for Pres Obama based on he was the best person for the job? Would it be the same as saying that 99% of white people voted for bush (as well as the other presidents) based soley on the color of his skin or because they were the best person elected by the people? When I see conservatives use the fact that most blacks voted for Pres Obama (and some may have voted based on his skin color just as some racist voted against based on his skin color) but never use that same fact with a white president just what are supposed to think about conservatives and their issue with race.

And what is this racism we're talking about?

Why did some 90% of the young whites under 30 vote for Obama ?

Because they haven't embraced the racism that your generation has.

How many voted for Obama because he was the eventual Democratic candidate, but were hoping for Hillary instead? Are they simply racists whose loyalty to the DNC is stronger than their racism? A vote for Obama is not equivalent to a repudiation of racism, nor is a vote against him equivalent to being a racist.

IMO, its because they generally haven't had to do too much living on their own yet, and many have a tendancy to blindly believe what their college professors tell them is right.

"they do this by fighting against any and all Federal legislation aimed at promoting genuine equality between the races."

Kind of like the Democratic Party. The Democrats and Republicans love dividing people up by race, religion, etc. That's how they keep people from noticing that the two parties aren't much different.

Mike at #15, are you sure you aren't my bro-in-law?! You state that you vote 'your values'. Well so do I!

So I ask, why is it that Reps always bring up their values like nobody else has any just because others don't believe the same as you do? I really and truly don't get it.

This country will always have a tax structure and we are run by a government. MY values and beliefs are that everyone should have a fair shot and sometimes people need a hand up/assistance from said government, amongst the MANY OTHER things taxes are expended upon.

So no, you don't need to vote Dem because you are 'not a rich white person'. You'd vote Dem because you don't agree with corporate welfare and all the breaks the fat cats and their ilk are afforded while we the 'not rich - of any color' are not afforded the same.

If you agree with the way Reps generally run things, then by all means you vote Rep. However, you shouldn't be making statements about 'personal responsibility' but instead just say 'welfare/foodstamps' or what have you because that's probably what you're alluding to. Not only that, but you also stated you were NOT looking for the government to do anything for you!

Well news bulletin Mike. The government ALREADY does a lot for you.

There's these little things called public schools, public roadways, FDA, DOD, (feel free to add more GOVERNMENT acronyms as you see fit) and so forth and so on.

So like it or not, WE ALL get something from the government. It's all about what you/a person feels/believes on an individual basis. That said, it's more than clear what the Rep party stands for and I myself don't feel they have my or my fellow (non rich) mans best interests at heart.

Heyford,

Well, my sister is on her third marriage, but I don't recall any of her consorts having your name. My own wife has only sisters and none of them is named Heyford either.

Well news bulletin Mike. The government ALREADY does a lot for you.

There's these little things called public schools, public roadways, FDA, DOD, (feel free to add more GOVERNMENT acronyms as you see fit) and so forth and so on.

Very good Heyford. Yes, I admit that there are certain public functions that the government provides. I don't have the resources or manpower to maintain the public roads or wage war with another nation-state, so yes, I do rely in Uncle Sam for that; I cannot exist utterly outside of the sphere of society. My children are educated privately at my wife and my considerable sacrifice, but I do recognize the need not to have an illiterate population. I am certainly in agreement that the common good requires governmental action on issues like public education and public safety. I am not specifically referring to welfare and foodstamps, although I have issues with those programs when people find themselves more or less permanently reliant on them,l sometimes for several generations. Again, what I am refering to is speifically the idea that one's vote should stem merely from the cold calculus of what the party in question has done or can do for them in terms of political payback. Yes I do want the government to take care of the public good and I recognize that I benefit from that in so far as I am a member of the public. No, I don't want the government to rescue me from my mortgage obligations, or intervene in my credit card contract. No I don't want the government to ensure that I have the same material quality of life as someone who is richer than me. I don't mind the government investing in corporations because I see that as an investment in the engines of the economy and jobs may be created, although corporations should not have the option of privately patenting anything developed with government aid. I don't appreciate the idea of bailing out banks from their risky investments, but I recognize begrugingly that letting really big financial institutions fail would likely cause damage to the greater economy and thereby to lots and lots of little people. I don't begrudge the banks reluctance to loosen the purse strings until they know what their own situation is stable. I also recognize that certain government policies trying to subsidize home ownership for people who really could not afford it were partly responsible for the current financial difficulties. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/10/06/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac.html

When I see the Democrats, I see a philosophy that seems to propose that people are owed a materially good life for simply being alive. I see a philosophy that assumes that wealthy white people are irredeemable racists and class bigots who must be beaten down and controlled by the heavy hand of government to keep from acts of evil. Thus, they incite and perpetuate class hatred and racial suspicion. This whole article is filled with it. I know several wealthy, white people. None of them are evil. To a person, all of them are decent, kind, and charitable people. They do not begruge poor people of any race their opportunity to try and succeed, but they also believe strongly in competition and meritocracy. All of them got to their financal positions through a combination of hard work and prudent decision making, and yes, luck. Are there sociopaths to be found on Wall Street? Of course, just as there are to be found in any walk of life. It seems as though the Democrats want to paint everyone in a position of wealth as a sociopath, while the sociopaths who come from the poor parts of town are painted as victims of society. I also happen to know several poor black and white people from disadvantaged backgrounds who see this situation as being corrosive to their communities. Rather than promoting in poor people a value of self determination and desire for personal responsibility, the Democrats simply keep telling them that they are hopelessly stuck because of the evil rich bankers and that their only hope is for them to vote Democrat. Other than "surviving = success in life," dependence on Government welfare, housing, and other handouts, and the political model of quid pro quo, exactly what have Democratic social programs actually done to promote people getting out of poverty. Oh the material resources yes, but the actual desire to be more and more importantly the belief that they can? Nothing. Democrats don't want poor people to believe that they can actually become rich, because then poor people would no longer need them. What do Republicans ever do for poor people? How about giving them the example of what is possible in life for those with brains, talent, and drive. How about not trying to make them dependent, political serfs? How about trying to encourage an economic system that allows them to grow and prosper if they have the chutzpah to do it, or at least earn their own living to the point where their children may have more opportunities than they did? Oh, but the Republicans don't want to see people earn a decent wage right? True Republicans tend to be resistent to minimum wage increases, but that's because they are burdensome to the small businesses that might actually employ poor people. If I have small business that employs 50 people, all at minimum wage, an increase of $1.00 in the hourly minimum wage means $20.00-$40.00 extra per week per employee, or $1000-$2000 extra dollars in outlay every week. Multiply that times (for simplicity) 50 working weeks per year and that's $50,00-$100,000 fewer dollars that can be put into advertising, improving record keeping, or any other function that might actually keep the whole affair running and actually employing people. So, instead of promising them individual favors as the Democrats do, maybe what the Republicans provide to poor people is an overall state of opportunity, much as the DoD provides us all with an overall state of security and the FDA provides us all with an overall state of food safety.

I see also a Democratic philosophy that celebrates the kind of class struggle that fosters wealth and cronyism amongst union leadership, while forbiding union members to look for work independently in hard economic times since that would hurt the collective bargaining arrangement that the union depends on. Unionism that promotes people based on the length of their service rather than on competence (ie. "seniority") and is trying to remove the right of worker's secret vote in favor of a "card check." How do I know these things? My father was a member of a trade union in the rust belt during the hard days of the 1980's when the steel mills closed. He and my uncle were victims of "seniority" even though they were easily some of the most competent members of the local. He and many of his union brothers grew frustrated because, even though no work was to be found at the hall, they could not independently go and find their own jobs because it would violate the terms of their union membership. Some years after my father's death, the same union found no moral difficulty in slashing my mother's health insurance because of the lack of paying dues members. And now our dear President finds himself consulting with SEIU president Andy Stern more than almost any other non-official member of the Executive branch. If the Democrats get their way, they and their SEIU cronies will see to it the EVERY working person in this country is forced to give up their rights to find thir own work and manage their own working lives and is instead forcibly unionized.

I used to be a solid Democrat and I sucked up the whole story that greedy "fat cats" were out to destroy poor and working class Americans. I guess I must have sustained a bump to the head or something because the older I got, the more I began to see the damage that Democrat-style social welfare policies damaged the psyches of poor people and increased their dependence rather than promoting their success. I also began to see how unionism, in spite of the material benefits it gave my family in times of plenty, was so very destructive when my father needed help as a working man the most, when the economy shifted and there were no more jobs. I've seen the fate of societies who take the plunge and have the government rather than the business men control their economies. Rather than a situation where some get rich, and most benefit to some degree, although many are poor, they get a situation where only the politically connected, under their hypocritical offices as "protectors of the people" enjoy the perks of wealth, while everyone else simply becomes a poor and miserable servant of the state. I'll risk the ups and downs, the Ken Lays and Bernie Madoffs and the other occasional sociopathic Wall Streeters rather than having a permanent, oligarchic political class where government itself is the only way to a better life, and technocrats whose only qualification is political loyalty or seniority control most aspects of daily life. That is why this poor, white guy votes Republican. The GOP fails plenty too when it comes to political cronyism, but at least the stated standards are not simply "Vote for us and we'll return the favor." the way it is with Democrats.

Like I said, this whole thesis may be incomprehensible if you follow the Democrat model.

When I see the Democrats, I see a philosophy that seems to propose that people are owed a materially good life for simply being alive.

Then you don't really see the democrats... those who have eyes will not see.

And, based on the rest of what you said, you don't see the world either. You think that we can let this earth, that belongs to everyone, be raped by a few opportunists for their private gain, without concern for future generations? Those resources were extracted, manipulated and formed by regular people, without which these rich people would not be able to become rich or maintain their richness. Also, these elitist few are given the unfair advantage of being born rich in the majority of cases... and you have to have money to make money, so an unfair advantage makes it okay for you to justify that others go without? Even though it is OUR resources that are being utilized?

Think of the infrastructure, created by ALL of us... but used the most by the elitists. Therefore, they should pay more to maintain it... having tore up billions of miles of roads with truck carrying their merchandise around. Or the fact that the elitists use the courts the most, or the police the most, or the fireman the most.... so yes, they should pay more for taxes. Only a selfish bastard would think otherwise.

I do believe in rewarding more to those who have bright ideas and sound motivation, but not at the expense of faith, hope and charity. If you do, then I can only pray for your ignorant soul.

I've seen the fate of societies who take the plunge and have the government rather than the business men control their economies.

That would be true for private interests... but imagine that for public interests? A private army? Geee, I wonder what would happen then!

Look at France, having a universal health care system via the government... they have the #1 results in so many things, they are considered the best system in the world... and it costs half the cost of what we pay to cover just 80% of the population. So that proves you wrong. Better wake up and smell the coffee, because I can show you dozens of systems where the government works better to provide health care, but you can't even show me ONE nation that has a health system like ours that works.

So yeah... it's incomprehensible ... if you're not smart enough to look at the facts. But being open-minded, I'll listen... if you can mention one nation that has a system like ours that works. If you can't, then you have to admit you're wrong.

I guess I must have sustained a bump to the head or something because the older I got, the more I began to see the damage that Democrat-style social welfare policies damaged the psyches of poor people and increased their dependence rather than promoting their success.

Yeah... if you ignore the truth about how the social security system stopped Grandma from being tossed out on her ear to live on the street. If you ignore the truth about how Medicare saves lives. If you ignore the truth about how Medicare saves money, getting people back to a productive life. If you ignore the fact that investing in the people of other nations has led them to encroach upon our role as leader.

The rest of the world is growing and developing, while people like you hold us stagnant, to the point that our economy can no longer compete world-wide with nations that are providing health care to their citizens. You're a social dinosaur who can't see the benefits of creating a "more perfect union" or the benefits of "promoting the general welfare". You have no clue as to what the founders of this great nation stood for. They knew that we would advance, as long as we did it together, becoming more and more civilized. And you just want to stagnate....

Sorry, but we don't need to listen to stagnated souls who actually think it is better for us all to faithfully protect a system that leaves others behind in pain and misery while others steal from this very public earth for their very private gain.

In God we trust.... but what god do you have?

With one exception and that being the starting of a war based upon lies.

Without arguing the merits of the war, please explain how it was started based on lies. Which lies specifically would those be? Please don't include new information after the fact.

Without arguing the merits of the war, please explain how it was started based on lies. Which lies specifically would those be?

What is this "earth is round" stuff? Please explain why the earth is not flat, and give specifics.

Good God. Start here.

I call 5 Trillion dollars added to the national debt the most irresponsible act by a political party or a President in American history.

With one exception and that being the starting of a war based upon lies.

Oh Renard, you can't possibly think that the Democrats wouldn't have found reasons to spend that money that fit their ideology as well. Instead of defeating communism and liberating large numbers of people from the Soviet yoke, we would simply have spent it on an ever increasing battery of social welfare programs aimed at buying the votes of poor people.

Starting a war based on lies? Have you ever heard of the Gulf of Tonkin incident? You know, the little naval dustup that was the excuse for increasing our involvement in Vietnam (you know, the most evil and pointless war that our country has ever fought) . Well, it turns out that alot of it never happened. And this under President Johnson, you know, the guy who signed the Civil Rights Act and started the whole "Great Society" war-on-poverty thingy. You know, the guy who was tying together the foreign affairs loose ends left by that great Democratic demigod John Kennedy, who everyone is reminded of when they see, hear or think of the current President.

Hmmm....

Sorry, but every analyst the NSA had predicted that the Soviet Union was going to collapse in a decade or two anyway, without our having to give sweetheart deals to defense contractors on "star wars" programs that didn't work.

Gulf of Tonkin? Yeah, we're apparently more familiar with that than you are, since it was a rogue general and rogue CIA, who tired of not having enough resources to actually win the war (when it wasn't a war) purposefully falsified the Gulf of Tonkin incident in order to convince Johnson and others that there was a need for more troops, etc. It was over-zealous military men... not Johnson. But Johnson did address the nation before knowing the full deal, as evidenced by messages, recorded the day of the incident, that indicate neither President Johnson nor McNamara were certain of an attack, but they felt they had to respond and listen to the generals. The Pentagon Papers also report that clues making the incident more suspect were wired to the Defense Secretary McNamara, but that he had recieved it too late, after the address to the nation, but by then, they had to continue the investigation without announcing it since they had just announced war and could not have "egg on face" without checking it out first. The incident became more and more suspicious as time went along but it was weeks before Johnson or McNamara knew for sure what happened...but by then it was too late. This information is available for all whom seek it... check out the Pentagon Papers.

Yeah.. "Hmmmm"...

Maybe you won't be straining your mind so much if you actually knew the facts.

Jack says:

Perfecty said. It comes down to what Kennedy once said " It is not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" Poor Democrats want to be taken care of and the pretentius rich Democrats, in this authors eyes, can provide a myriod of wealth to the 'have-nots" That's a laugh, they are the first to complain when their taxes go up.

In general, who doesn't complain about taxes? But yet the democrats don't fight taxes, or misunderstand them. Warren Buffett agrees that he can be taxed more. So does Steve Gates. So do millions of others who make big dough each year. There are over 6 million who consider themselves millionaires or near-millionaires in the USA. Out of that amount, there are a lot more than you think that believe they aren't taxed enough. In fact, they think it is a bit troublesome to have to give money away and wished it were easier, through programs. Hollywood stars are constantly saying they could be taxed more. Currently, there are thousands of rich germans who are now calling for the German government to raise taxes on them to help the nation through the recession. But I understand, you don't have a generous or fair bone in your body, so you assume everyone else is the same. But thank God, we have more sensible people in this world than you, as evidenced by your next comment.

Hypocritical nonsense. Republicans, rich or poor, believe in responsibility, capitalism, and understanding that without capitalism, any schmo would not be driving their Lexus, today.

Who said Democrats don't believe in that? In fact, it appears we believe in it more, since Democrats don't give irresponsible tax breaks in time of war to people who don't need it and that cripples the government from maintaining a healthy economy and infrastructure. It's Democrats who believe in fair compensation for work, which is capitalism too. Don't pretend to be the responsible ones after Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr balooned our national deficit for no reason, and stopped the poor from also growing richer to instead making it "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer".

What else can you say to ANOTHER blame game post? Problems are still there regardless of who gets the to wear the "BLAME" badge. This country belongs to all of us. Suck it up and quit whining about who's to blame. We're all to blame if the only thing we ever accomplish is making sure we know who's to blame. There are no winners. Can we move on?

How can you prevent mistakes in the future, if you don't analyze the past and truly understand it?

Ignorance may work for you, but not for me.

What do you know, the seeder's just a lousy troll.

You, as a black person, should be worried when other black people like renard think you are as a group less educated than other races.

"I feel sorry for people like you."

Hey, we ALL feel sorry for these trolls.

Blacks may be less educated than some whites but they aren't as stupid as most white Republicans.

They are smart enough and have enough common sense to know the difference in between Shyt and Shinola.

Nah, libs aren't racist. Only the the things they say are racist. And extraordinarily stupid.
Let me see if I understand. You're saying most white Republicans are stupider than most blacks. Brilliant!

Now, as smart as you think black Democrats are explain their votes for John Kerry.

Well Obama has been doing it for just under a year and he's got my vote as the worst president ever. He makes Jimmy Carter look like Thomas Jefferson. And yes, his performance even make George Bush look good. Which I'm sure brings Bush a lot of comfort. Do you not find it odd how Bush is going up in the polls and Obama is going down in the polls? I don't think that's ever happened before.

"As far as John Kerry goes we will never know if he would have made a good President or not"

Okay, so you take a guy that isn't great with the whole responsibility thing, and think that by giving him even more that somehow he's going to become good at it?

And maybe, despite the fact that I'm not good enough to play basketball at a high school level, if you just give me my shot at the NBA, maybe I'll make it. Yeah, right.

Yo umiss the point altogether Renard. If Obama is so great as his supporters claim he is then he should be holding the upper ground. Simply not the case. It's more of an indictment against Obama than it is a past presidents poll numbers.

You, as a black person, should be worried when other black people like renard think you are as a group less educated than other races.

Why should s/he be worried? What do you think Ringo, black people are the borg? Everytime one AA thinks something the rest have to link up and react?

Good Lord, If he doesn't want to be worried about it s/he doesn't have to be.

A person would go insane if they worried about everything a person that shared their pigmentation did or said.

"Why should s/he be worried?"

Because when your government is decided by how other people think, how they think has an impact on your life.

"What do you think Ringo, black people are the borg?"

No, I think we live in a country where what other people think affects the laws we all have to live under.

I am aware of the history of this country. Racism has hurt people of all colors, and here we have loons like renard trying to start the cycle again.

"A person would go insane if they worried about everything a person that shared their pigmentation did or said."

I guess that I mispoke a little....I should have said, You, as a human being, should be worried when loonies try to promote racism. The skin color doesn't really matter, what matters is that we have to live with people like that helping to influence our law.

I guess that I mispoke a little....I should have said, You, as a human being, should be worried when loonies try to promote racism

I appreciate the change. Really I do :)

Renard.

Should Obama continuously be allowed to blame the last administration? By doing so he shows weakness and vulnerability. 9-11 happened under Bush's watch. Now all those terrorist attacks during the 90's led up to 9-11, whether you want to agree or not. After black hawk down, Osama referred to America as a paper tiger because a rag tag group of Somalis chased off the U.S. Marine corp. One thing I notice throughout all of that crisis following 9-11. Bush didn't constantly invoke that Bill Clinton did nothing during the 90's leading up to 9-11. He took charge. Told or country he's take the fight to the enemy and that's exactly what he did. It was all of his supporters that invoked the fact that Bill Clinton was responsible for the attack. That showed character and strength as a leader. Something that Barack Obama knows nothing about.

Should Obama continuously be allowed to blame the last administration? By doing so he shows weakness and vulnerability. 9-11 happened under Bush's watch. Now all those terrorist attacks during the 90's led up to 9-11, whether you want to agree or not.

This proves you have no ability to properly analyze anything with fairness. Do you not know that Bush IGNORED terrorism, never even having one meeting with his counter-terrorism czar for the full 9 months before 9ll? In contrast, Clinton had a meeting to fight terrorism on a weekly basis. Clinton rose to the occasion, while Bush simply stuck his head in the sand, and pretended there was no terrorism.

I'm sure you know that, but you prefer to lie to yourself and others.

Do you not know that there were explicit warnings that Bush ignored? Or that he lied afterwards, saying "how could we have known anyone would use planes as weapons?", despite there being training scenarios against it for years, and Condi Rice setting up a defense against that very thing when she set up security for the G8 meetings well before 911?

Do you not know that Bush was on vacation constantly? MUCH more than any president in history?

Do you not know that the Taliban were created by Reagan's conservative policies that led the CIA to interfere elsewhere, causing what's called as "blowback"?

Bush and the republicans even chided Clinton when he went after Osama bin Laden, crying "No war for Monica", ignorantly thinking he was "wagging the dog".

And when Clinton handed over the reins to Bush, he warned him that Osama Bin Laden was so crucial that he would spend most of his time on the Al Queda network, yet Bush ignored terrorism anyway!

And when the CIA determined finally that it was Osama Bin Laden responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole, Bush STILL ignored terrorism.

So don't even try to NOT accept responsibility for 911. Although you guys didn't pull the trigger, your negligence and obscene ignorance has put your bloody hands all over it! And then you go and sully our good name by torturing, causing even more incitement against the USA, feeding the frenzy and helping to recruit more terrorists?

Believe me... you're a fool to think anything other than the fact that Bush and the republicans are solely to blame for bad defense and stupid policy, helping bring 911 into fruition.

Bush didn't constantly invoke that Bill Clinton did nothing during the 90's leading up to 9-11.

Yeah.. he knew it was a lie, and a lie that would have made him vulnerable for attack back, with liberals pointing out his ignoring terrorism, despite pleas from the anti-terrorism czar (whom Bush demoted to less than a cabinet level position despite its' importance). He also knew that it would break the bipartisanship that the democrats were given him at first... who were giving him the benefit of the doubt.

He took charge. Told or country he's take the fight to the enemy and that's exactly what he did.

And then he let Osama Bin Laden get away... despite having him surrounded on 3 sides, and despite Generals telling him that just a few more troops could close him in on all 4 sides.... he chose to pull them out instead to attack Iraq. Yeah.. way of taking "charge" ignorantly... and stupidly... but it is taking "charge"... I guess.

It was all of his supporters that invoked the fact that Bill Clinton was responsible for the attack.

Bush's supporters? True... Bush didn't want to be throwing rocks when he lived in a glass house... Bush's supporters were just plain stupid to blame Clinton. However, if you looked at the first attack on the WTC, just 8 weeks into Clinton's first term... it was Clinton AND his supporters who never blamed the republican administration for the attack in '92... so kudos go to the democrats for the thing you ignorantly claim the republicans did.. except even the democratic supporters never even blamed Bush Sr., so we know where the true "class act" is.

That showed character and strength as a leader. Something that Barack Obama knows nothing about.

Well... you just can't fix stupid....

Every single word in that dribble was speculation without not one link to back it up. It's quite alright, I'm sure if you did provide a link it would be from some agenda driven trash site such as Huff Post and Daily Koz. You did the right thing and saved yourself the embarrassment. You're other comments are self serving in nature meant to distract away from the fact you had nothing to back your claims.

Let me ask you this. If Bill Clinton had done ll he could in the 90's and captured Bin Laden, do you think that would have played a part in stopping 9-11? Bill had numerous times when Bin Laden could have been taken into custody or his military could have called in a strike to kill him. Red tape, particularly Madeline Albright, kept him form doing so. He chose to do nothing instead. The rest is history.

"It is so sad that Republicans refuse to realize or accept the fact that we weren't attacked and 3000 Americans didn't die and lose their life while Clinton was President."

Renard. If that's what you think then you didn't understand a word I said. Bin Laden did not pop up on Sept. 11th 2001. He bombed a US Warship, the Cole. He was behind the initial bombing of the WTC in 1993. He was responsible for base bombings and he even was behind the terrorists in Somolia who shot down a black hawk and killed numerous U.S. soldiers. Clinton had many opportunities to capture this guy and even kill him throughout the 90's. He let red tape and a passive Madeline Albright keep him from doing just that. In other words, Bin Laden lived to fight another day. That day being 9-11-2001. Yes the event happened under Bush. But had the threat been taken seriously in the 90's, the attack would have never happened. Your logic just doesn't fit the situation.

So Bin Laden had a different World Trade Center bombed in another country? Funny, I though we only had one and that was here in America.

"and then Bush came in with homosexual bedroom habits, tax cuts and gay marriage as his administrations priorities."

What in the hell? Homosexual bedroom habits? You're just too ridiculous to be taken serious. That was just plain ignorant.

Again Renard you keep derailing the conversation. You are gifted in that, I'll give you. Let me drive this point home for a third time already. Had Clinton dealt with the problem in the 90's it's safe to assume that 9-11 would have never happened. He didn't, and now 3000+ people are dead as a result. How does he sleep at night? I'll never know.

Every single word in that dribble was speculation without not one link to back it up.

Some things are common knowledge and don't have to be looked up. But ironically, you didn't prove any of it wrong with any of your own links, I noticed. Don't bother, you'll only embarrass yourself, right? Nah... don't take your own advice... please try. You might learn something by actually looking up some facts.

What in the hell? Homosexual bedroom habits? You're just too ridiculous to be taken serious. That was just plain ignorant.

In defense of Renard, he's right. Ever hear of Jeff Gannon? Please tell us how the Secret Service would approve of a man who was using a false name (real name is James Guckert) to be given daily press access (without any experience or credentials) while having a webpage advertising himself as a male "escort" in leather chaps!

Do you really think the Secret Service made this "mistake" when common sense tells us that either Bush or Cheney approved it? And not once did Bush ever comment on the subject, saying anything about a breach in security.

So are you going to deny the fact that a gay prostitute was given unprecedented admittance to the White House press corps despite having no credentials? Are you going to explain what purpose this served other than a sneaky way to get a male prostitute into the White House?

Had Clinton dealt with the problem in the 90's it's safe to assume that 9-11 would have never happened.

And once again... what about how Clinton actually had weekly anti-terrorism meetings with his cabinet level anti-terror czar? What about how Clinton attacked Osama Bin Laden with some missiles sent into Afghanistan, and moron republicans like you complained about "NO WAR FOR MONICA"? He was trying to fight terrorism, but you un-patriotic republicans tried to stop him from fighting Al Queda, suggesting that he was just "wagging the dog". Time proved you wrong, eh?

And then how do you explain the fact that Bush demoted the anti-terror czar to less than cabinet level, and NEVER had an anti-terror meeting the whole 9 months before 911. These are facts. Republicans are soft on terror, until it happens, then they act stupidly, torturing people to incite more to terror. Then they get soft on it again, letting Osama Bin Laden get away by taking troops out to go to Iraq for oil instead, against the recommendations of his generals.

And you defend this idiocy?

"Had Clinton dealt with the problem in the 90's it's safe to assume that 9-11 would have never happened"

Sort of like if Bush had dealt with the problems of the economy in the 00's it would be safe to assume that the economic meltdown would not have happened?

"Please President Clinton had and active terror program"

Then why didn't he do anything about the terrorists in the US busy learning how to fly planes?

The simple fact is that the public never knows how many terrorist plans are stopped BEFORE an attack due to security concerns. There is no way to guarantee that there will be no terrorist attacks.

The only people that actually know how well anti-terror programs are working are those actually doing the work.....anybody else (you know, those people that like to sit around blaming Bush, Clinton, etc.) is just throwing out a wild guess.

The problem is invariably simple. You guys don't know that you don't know. You've been indoctrinated to this BS through your peers and agenda driven blogs that the fantasy, of a blameless Bill Clinton, has become the truth to you It's OK to have a party alliance, but when you abandon all reason to deny any blame, you've become an unreliable source of information. So many claims jimiracle and not one link to back them up. Nothing but speculation. It's truly a feeble attempt to refute a claim.

No links. Sigh......

Here's one of my own. Not agenda driven. No written by Sean Hannity himself. A simple Wiki entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

It makes a direct link to the Alquaida network by pointing out that the mastermind was closely aligned with Bin Laden. It's no smoking gun, but it's definitive enough for me to say that Bin Laden was guilty by association if nothing else. But did Osama light the fuse? No. But he also didn't fly the planes either.

Dryverness

OK you can quit high fiving yourself now.

"Yousef's uncle Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Ali Fadden, who later was considered the principal architect of the September 11 attacks, gave him advice and tips over the phone, and funded him with a US$660 wire transfer.^["

So there was a direct link to the 2 attacks after all. Since Bin Laden was behind 9-11, it would be accurate that he and it's principal architect would have a working relationship. Your own biased clouds good judgment. It's so typical of a liberal to cherry pick what information drives an agenda and totally ignore that which may hamper their argument.

Talks like a duck? Do you even know what you're talking about? Because if you do that would make one of us.

The father of the guy who conducted the 93 bombing attack gave them money and advice on how to carry it out. This same fella is even known to be the mastermind behind 9-11. I honestly do not know how to make any clearer for you. It's one thing to be loyal to your party. But when you keep arguing even when the facts are laid right on your forehead, you look like an utter ass. I guess is it sounds and smells like a donkey, it is a donkey.

Oh and here we go with the Bush Cheney torture garbage. What are you trying to do say the suicide bombers are justified in their attacks against America? Now you've just identified yourself as a blithering idiot. Now I know what I'm dealing with. I guess all that torture Clinton did in the 90's pissed the terrorists off enough to make them conduct 9-11? You make some of the weakest arguments I've ever seen here on the Vine. I'm surprised you have the shame to keep posting.

Hey, that one paragraph was only one sentence! That's, pretty, impressive. BUt seriously, when you say Bush/Cheney/torture/war/lie/oil/WMD/abu gharib/gitmo/criminal/halliburton you've pretty much said it all. Right?

The facts were lain before you. Directly linking Bin Laden to the 93 bombing of the WTC. Not an agenda driven link, but a Wiki entry. I guess you covered your eyes and ears and went nananananana. So you could say you didn't hear it.

Never have I seen such a hard headed, stubborn, and down right (nah I'm not going to say it) here on the Vine. You were shot down and went down and flames and you still want to talk smack talk. I just don't get it. Donald Duck?????? Do you even proofread your garbage before you post it? You have a morbid fascination with ducks. You may want to seek help. The rest of the post is self serving dribble. I guess meant to make you feel good about yourself after being made to look like an idiot. Peace

Furthermore. Your version of events just don't jibe with the Wiki entry. Since y ou provided no links, I assume you made it up anyway.

The guy who masterminded the 9-11 attacks also funded and gave advice to the bomber in 93. Osama had a working relationship with this man as he funded the 9-11 terror attacks. As stated in the Wiki article. Do I need to write it in crayon on a piece of construction paper for you? Will that help you understand the connection any better?

Again your blind partisanship forbids you to see that which is placed right before you. I even offered up a non agenda driven link as proof. Something you liberals NEVER do. You guys will quote the Huff Post as if it were the Bible.

You know I think this is more about saving face to you. You got served so now you launch into these personal attacks. KKK membership card? Pathetic. You are a disgrace to all the other liberals when you talk such garbage. There are liberal minded people who will actually debate and discuss these topics passionately without such childish antics. You, on the other hand, resort to playground potty mouthed slander, that distracts away from the fact that you were wrong and proven to be just that. Have a nice day.

you're talking up a non-existent tree when the leader of the Teabaggers movement gets photographed with a sign saying "Congress = slave owners" followed by "Taxpayers = Niggars". Interesting how his mind works, is it not?

Just because you either hide your head in the sand to ignore the truth, or lie to yourself and others, or just plain lie to others about a racism connection doesn't mean the obvious isn't obvious to the general public.

As for the 93 bombing, which occurred only 8 weeks into Clinton's first term, it occurred before Clinton could even get half of his staff into place, so I guess that is all Bush Sr.'s fault... awww. And funny thing... we actually caught the culprit who committed the crime and he is rotting in jail as we speak. Unfortunately, enough evidence linking BinLaden to the 93 bombing did NOT exist, which is why we were not able to just rush in to foriegn lands and seize the man at the time. It wasn't really until 1996 that Al Queda as an organization began to become visible on the CIA crime watch.

Now... after 911 and nearly 8 years of complete GOP control.... Bin Laden is still free. We even had Bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora, but the GOP in all their wisdom told the generals not to worry about it, and to start moving their troops to Iraq, refusing the generals who called for more troops to put the last nail in Osama's coffin by manning the border to Pakistan.

So the conservative type are responsible for Bin Laden being free on so many levels.

1. Conservatives suppressed Clinton's attempts to fight terrorism by crying "NO WAR FOR MONICA" when he did. Figures.

2. Conservatives ignored terrorism the entire time up to 911, taking the anti-terror czar off of the cabinet, and never even once meeting with him, after Clinton met with him and others on a weekly basis.

3. Conservatives ignored warnings from Clinton as he was walking out the door, and also warnings from the CIA that Osama Bin Laden was prepared to attack the United States.

4. Conservatives let Osama get away in Tora Bora.

5. Conservatives stupidly drained our resources by attacking Iraq, a war they lied us into.

THese actions occurred for two reasons... greed for oil in Iraq, and greed making them ignore terrorism for stupid things like privatizing social security, etc., and also their hatreds (like hating Clinton more than terrorism).

It boils down to one thing jim. If Clinton had done his job in the 90's, 9-11 would never have happened. Bin Laden lived to fight another day. But that's what happens when you have a president catering to his special interests and a passive Madeline Albright calling the shots. Derailing the conversation by talking about Iraq shows me you have no valid argument to dispute what I just said. Thank you for being so compliant.

Really? So what did Bush and your fools do during the 'naughts'? Bin Laden is still out there, so that clearly means Bush didn't do his job either. And none of you fools even attempted to try to make sure he did, allowing for him to lie us into another war to distract us from our goal.

And I love how you didn't answer any of the issues brought up on this subject. You still have not even addressed how Clinton had WEEKLY anti-terrorism meetings on Bin Laden - Bush had ZERO! Clinton did attack Bin Laden, but GOP idiots yelled at him, accusing him of "wagging the dog", suppressing any future attempts to get Bin Laden. Bush had the chance to "finish the job" and get Bin Laden, but instead he attacked Iraq over reasons that he lied about, which apparently you consider to have been his job, or you would admit Bush didn't do HIS job.

It really boils down to this: If GORE had won in 2000, we would have continued to fight terrorism, rather than ignoring it for 9 months like Bush did. If Gore would have been elected, it likely would have been stopped, by virtue of a president that actually did do his job, having weekly meetings with his anti-terrorism staff and trying to pull all the intelligence together.

But please... tell us all how Bush did his job by ignoring terrorism? Tell us all how Clinton wasn't attacking terrorism when GOP fools are on record saying "No War For Monica"? And tell us how Clinton didn't do HIS job since Bin Laden wasn't caught, and how Bush DID(?) when he never caught Bin Laden either, even taking troops away from a cornered Bin Laden to attack Iraq under delusional causes?

And you say I have no valid argument, when you can't even answer some basic problems with your logic? The american populace is smarter than that. When you can answer those questions, you may actually come close to understanding valid arguments, but ignoring the truths doesn't help your cause. Ignoring these issues only proves that you have no valid arguments.

So your opinion is proven to be wrong, but you just conveniently ignore the facts. You're not a citizen... you're just a partisan liar.

That's like asking why there are so many 300lb horse jockeys.

This is what I'm talking about, a total and utter waste of time.

Why do the educated and intelligent vote Democrat?

No, that comment was a total and utter waste of time. And stupid, to boot.

I know PLENTY of ignorant, uneducated Democrats. Many of them are posting here.

I know PLENTY of ignorant, uneducated Democrats. Many of them are posting here.

Would it appropiate to say" I know MOST Republikans are ignorant, stupid, and racist. Many have posted in this thread".

The problem is is that both parties have a personal interest and not a national one and until the american people vote for national interest we will continue the same path.

I know a lot of racist Democrats too. Probably more so than Republicans. You probably have your own issues you have to come to terms with.

You are right about the special interests. But Obama said "No lobbyists will be in my administration" Oh wait....The bulk of his administration has a history of being lobbyists. We're screwed my friend. Screwed royally.

I know a lot of racist Democrats too. Probably more so than Republicans. You probably have your own issues you have to come to terms with.

An emphasis on the word "probably", which means you don't know, and your'e just guessing, ignoring the facts. Ask Limbaugh, who played "Barack, the magic negro" song on his show, or the republican representatives who sent it out on computer messages and CD's. Ask the many times that republicans are caught suppressing the black vote.

To prove this beyond a doubt, consider this: the last election showed an increase in the number of people registering as democrats all across the nation, EXCEPT in the mountain region of the confederate South.... That was the ONLY place that saw an increase in republican registrations...http://observationalism.com/2008/11/17/the-red-and-blue-states-of-white-america-in-2008-southern-whites-constitute-the-real-mccain-belt/

So the most racist region of all the USA, in the Appalachin mountains stretching from Missouri to Georgia and up to Virginia, was the only region to register more republicans than democrats, during an historic election involving a democratic BLACK candidate... what a coincidence!

You are right about the special interests. But Obama said "No lobbyists will be in my administration" Oh wait....The bulk of his administration has a history of being lobbyists. We're screwed my friend. Screwed royally.

These 12 (TWELVE) ex-lobbyists were a small proportion of the 8000 people Obama hired, and ALL of them were FORMER lobbyists. He never said he would not hire anyone who had been a lobbyist in the past.... in contrast, Bush and McCain were hiring people who were still actively lobbying positions, and putting them in positions with an obvious conflict of interest! Bush had over a hundred lobbyists working for him. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6872.html

And no... you are not "screwed royally" just for making up such lies as "The bulk of his administration has a history of being lobbyists", but you are screwed up mentally for making up such lies. Lieing will only split your mind, making you be in conflict with yourself, making yourself more insecure because you are saying one thing while knowing another. Don't torture yourself like that! It makes evil grow!

It's not good for your soul!

That comment was so ignorant, I'm even surprised I'm gratifying it with a response. Anyway.... So in your reality racism comes down to geographical boundaries? It basically boils down to anything below the Mason-Dixon line. Those states that will typically vote Republican? So ignorant and uninformed. Have you even visited these so called racist strongholds you were so inclined to point out to us all? Did you base this assumption on a personal experience of yours? Obviously not.

Here's the truth my friend. The South holds a very diverse population. We have a strong, and very prominent black presence, latino, and yes caucasian. In many areas the caucasians are even considered the minority. We are very aware of our racist past. We have worked hard to overcome that stigma and try everyday to put that past behind us. The Dem stronghold of the north always wants to point the finger at their southern contemporaries and try to pigeon hole them a certain way to fit an agenda. Their little lap dogs, such as yourself, are only too glad to do their bidding for them. What you say is out of ignorance and simply that you do not know any better.

I do, from time to time experience racism down here. Here in Virginia we have a strong transplant population from New York, New Jersey and Delaware. I would have to say that the majority of the time when I hear the N word or something derogatory about another group of people, it is generally one of these transplants that is the offender. I even saw a co worker, a democrat from New Jersey no doubt, get his ass kicked one day for using the N word against one of our coworkers. The majority of us pretty much stopped mingling with this guy after that.

You see, that's my experience here in the South. I see this everyday. I have experience on my side. You have mere here say and what your manipulators want you to believe. You are the sad one my friend. Those who control you don't even see you as being able to think for yourself. Now who's the racist one here?

"So the most racist region of all the USA, in the Appalachin mountains stretching from Missouri to Georgia and up to Virginia, was the only region to register more republicans than democrats, during an historic election involving a democratic BLACK candidate... what a coincidence!"

I had to come back and revisit this collumn to adress this. This comment here takes the cake. By your words alone, the definition of a racist is anyone who votes Republican. This comment alone, your own words mind you, do more to discredit you and label yourself a hate mongering bigot than anything I could have said. MANY people didn't vote for Obama for various reasons. For one, he is a Democrat. Two, he is a stark raving liberal. Three, he had absolutely no experience whatsoever. and Four, I'm sure there were a small fraction of our population, north/south who didn't vote for him because he is black. But equally racist is someone who voted for him solely because he is black. The two would literally cancel each other out.

You take the cake sir. You are the most openly racist poster I've seen here to date. There is no shame in your game.

That comment was so ignorant, I'm even surprised I'm gratifying it with a response. Anyway.... So in your reality racism comes down to geographical boundaries? It basically boils down to anything below the Mason-Dixon line. Those states that will typically vote Republican? So ignorant and uninformed. Have you even visited these so called racist strongholds you were so inclined to point out to us all? Did you base this assumption on a personal experience of yours? Obviously not.

Yeah... I've lived in the south and the north. And I've talked to HUNDREDS of poeple about it, with DOZENS explaining away their racist comments by saying "It's a southern thing". So obviously not? You're a total joke.

And as far as geographical boundaries, there is no boundary to racism, but there is proof that racism is a consideration in the Obama phenomena because the most racist region in the USA, accepted as fact by historical standards and social studies, is in the south. Let the facts speak for themselves. Explain this: http://observationalism.com/2008/11/17/the-red-and-blue-states-of-white-america-in-2008-southern-whites-constitute-the-real-mccain-belt/

By your words alone, the definition of a racist is anyone who votes Republican.

LOL... really? Where did I say that? I'm just saying the republican party has a huge problem with racism, which is something that can not be changed by twisting other people's words.

This comment alone, your own words mind you, do more to discredit you and label yourself a hate mongering bigot than anything I could have said.

So I'm a bigot by fighting against bigotry? Talk about 1984! War Is Peace! And don't assume I'm a minority, saying it's wrong to vote for Obama just because he's black.

equally racist is someone who voted for him solely because he is black

Really? Where did that happen? Blacks are historicaly voting for democrats anyway, so that rumor doesn't fly. Some praised the fact that we finally had a black candidate, which proved a deminished racism in the USA; nothing more. Don't twist the facts into some fantasy reason for Obama winning.

MANY people didn't vote for Obama for various reasons. For one, he is a Democrat. Two, he is a stark raving liberal.

Oh... I thought people were supposed to vote based on a party platform, not merely because he is a democrat. And a stark raving liberal? LOL...

You take the cake sir. You are the most openly racist poster I've seen here to date.

Really? How is that, pray tell? I'm a white person who is against racism, and that makes me racist? Please explain... I could use a good laugh.

jimiracle

using an agenda driven garbage link to back up a claim is one way to get your butt laugh off of Newsvine. Nice try. Listen to what you're saying. If you live below an imaginary geographical line, and vote Republican, you're a racist. Only a true idiot would make such a stupid claim. True idiot indeed. Furthermore, did I at any time say you were black? Are you offended by the prospect of being called black? Your racist tendencies are just screaming out to us.

One other thing. Let's try not to so pathetically wear our hearts on our sleeve. Often when someone has to keep reminding others that he's not racist, the truth of the matter he's usually the biggest offender. Let me guess, you have black friends so you couldn't be racist? I thought so. Textbook

If you live below an imaginary geographical line, and vote Republican, you're a racist. Only a true idiot would make such a stupid claim.

Wow... you need it delivered on a silver platter, don't you? Too used to the silver spoon?

If you live in the southern racist mountain belt, as proven here, http://observationalism.com/2008/11/17/the-red-and-blue-states-of-white-america-in-2008-southern-whites-constitute-the-real-mccain-belt/, and it shows as the only place in all of America that sees an increase in republican registrations, despite heightened anger at Republicans everywhere else tending to show only an increase in democratic registrations, then that means the more racist amongst us proved they would come out and vote republican, for obvious racist reasons.

No one said if you live there, and vote republican, you're a racist. "Thou dost protest too much" to the truth that the more racist amongst us came out in droves suddenly for the republican candidate. I wonder why?

So again, what was said, despite your upside-down, irrational thinking, is that if the most racist area in the US countered the national trend to favor the party opposing the first black candidate, racism was a factor. It wasn't the only factor, and it wasn't a factor for every republican, but it was a factor for the area as a whole.

Twist that any way you want to. There's no helping someone whose partisanship keeps them from facing the truth.

What really shocks me is that you can live in the south, and pretend that there isn't a racist problem down there that is worse than anywhere in the US. And it also shocks me that you can pretend that it isn't a factor in hating Obama.

You must be living in denial, with your head in the sand, or you just stubbornly refuse to tell the truth because you are afraid of conceding ANY point in political debate, even when YOU know it to be true. That's just psycho.

Admit it here, or make it totally apparent to all that you don't know what you're talking about: there is a racism problem in the south, and the voting trends of the 2008 election proved that racism is a factor in some of the reactions people have towards Obama. It's as clear as that tea-bag on your head!

One other thing. Let's try not to so pathetically wear our hearts on our sleeve. Often when someone has to keep reminding others that he's not racist, the truth of the matter he's usually the biggest offender

Sorry... already beat you to that line a few messages up. YOU are the one that is seeing racism in a thread that isn't racist. This is a thread about how the "white poor" are the only poor in the USA who vote against their own best interest. And it asks why this tends to be so, because it is a truly intriguing sociological quirk. And you claim this is racism? LOL...

YOU are the one seeing racism where no racism exists.

I am just the one proving that it is the other way around. You claimed racism... so I showed you true racism, in that somehow the most racist area in the USA defied the odds last election and happened to be the only area in the whole USA that had an increase in republican registrations. Pretty coincidental, don't you think?

So yeah, there's racism out there... just not where YOU see it.

DOH!

I do live in the south Jim. We came to terms with our racist past a long time ago. Who keeps it alive are folks like yourself who do nothing but spread hate and mistrust, and those who move down from the North who feel they need to invoke the N word and other slander to fit in.

The south has one of the most diverse populations in the country. Latino, Black, and Caucasian. We live and work together with very few problems. Blacks hold key positions here in government and the work place. You obviously get your opinions from racist websites and the likes because that reality you discuss is almost non existent down here. We have no more a race problem than anywhere else in the country. If we can put our past behind us why can't you? Why continue to hate and mistrust?

I do live in the south Jim. We came to terms with our racist past a long time ago. Who keeps it alive are folks like yourself who do nothing but spread hate and mistrust, and those who move down from the North who feel they need to invoke the N word and other slander to fit in.

In the immortal words of the racist Congressman from South Carolina, Joe Wilson, "YOU LIE!" We don't need to spread hate and mistrust when fools like Joe Wilson are members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The racists are doing that well enough on their own.

And you still can't explain how the last vestige of racism in the south, belonging mostly to the hills (hill-billies?), was the ONLY area in all of the USA that saw a rise in republican registrations during a campaign where we had a black democratic president. The facts speak for themselves.

http://observationalism.com/2008/11/17/the-red-and-blue-states-of-white-america-in-2008-southern-whites-constitute-the-real-mccain-belt/

SO pray tell... why did that area just happen to be the ONLY area in the USA that went opposite the national trends? Coincidence? LOL.... if you're naive, sure.

The south has one of the most diverse populations in the country. Latino, Black, and Caucasian. We live and work together with very few problems. Blacks hold key positions here in government and the work place.

Yes, and at first, only in areas that were predominantly black, making elections difficult for white candidates. And yes, there is improvement, with more and more true diversity taking place. But you can't just have an ex-plantation farm business with white owners, and hire nothing but black farm-hands, and think you have true diversity, but it is improving. But the point you're making is that there is no racism coloring the GOP reactions and movements, when it most obviously IS the case, especially in the south.

For you to pretend there isn't racism in the south is just laughable, and I am sure everyone knows it.

Well said MNguy. Politics aside, don't get me started on 'educated fools' because I've met my share. And don't forget the just plain ignorants nor the bigots and racists. I had an older white lady call my job. She starts complaining about blacks always trying to get this and that and says 'those ni.... uh, ah, black folks blah, blah, blah.' When she took a breathe I said 'Ma'am, you might wanta stop right there because I'm one of those ni.....uh, ah black folks!'

I've had lots of calls like that over the years which not only goes to show that some whites in their narrow minded bigotry still hold the racist concept of blacks being nothing but the leeches off society, they also don't think we're able to command and correctly speak the queens english.

But that lady is the only one that almost let the word @!$%# slip out of her mouth. Well other than that one Rep State Senator that straight up called me @!$%# back in the early 90's. I told the honorable <sarcasm> b*stard in no uncertain terms to 'KISS MY BLACK A$$!!' That still boils my blood to this very day. A State Senator!!

You also have those who complain about 'those Mexicans'. One caller with a HEAVY European (I guess it was European) accent had the audacity to ask me how do I know they're citizens, 'do you check their birth certificates?'

I get so sick of it sometimes and that particular day I'd had it 'up to here'. I replied to her 'exactly how would I know a person is Mexican and not American? And by the way, did anyone check YOUR birth certificate - are YOU American?' That shut her right up and the indignant heifer (thankfully) hung up on me.

I don't believe you.

What exactly do you not believe, Socrates? Didn't they have racism in ancient greek times too?

I'm a white person that hears that crap all the time.... idiot bigots who think they can feel free to talk to me with racism just because I share their skin color talk to me like that quite often. I have often had to put them in their place.

Hopefully, you were just being facetious....

Now...

MNGuy... intelligent perspective, I assure you, but you're wrong about one thing. 20% of AMerica does not support the other 80% as you believe. It's the other way around, except that it is the 20% of the economy that gets all the rewards... unfairly. If it wasn't for the other 80%, they would be left getting chump change too, as they would have to find someone to clean the septic tanks and maintain the highways.

Without infrastructure that we build (and should have just compensation), they would also not be able to make all that money. But the monopolistic way of using this nation's and this globe's resources without concern of others, including profit over environmental concerns, etc, end up costing all of us in the end. It's just that the payments are delayed many years in the form of health care, etc... while these ruthless people run away with the money, unscathed from the disasters they create. Our recent Wall Street disaster, built on derivatives and inflated property values, is a case in point.

Let there be no mistake about it... the rich use the infrastructure more than anyone. They tear up our roads and highways with billions of miles of truck driving that delivers their goods to market, making them profits without them fully paying for the roads they drive over. They use the police and fireman to protect their investment, while the poor are usually the ones being evicted or praying someday to have a home of their own. They use the court system more than anyone, using them to gain huge tax cuts and more lenient legislation. They use the schools, to obtain well trained personnel.

In other words, they deserve to pay more than anyone else in taxes since they use the system the most.

Meanwhile, without a successful middle class, who would buy their merchandise? Again, the recent Wall Street collapse is a case in point for making it difficult for anyone to buy their stuff. Ever hear of 'recession'?

I'd say boycott all rich people's business's except for the fact that they aren't all evil, with many being very good people... perhaps even being spiritual. (Don't confuse religion with spirituality. That's a common mistake of the unenlightened.) But those who are evil know how to use their money as a means of greater influence; not because they are a great "breed" or better person though... simply because they are a rich man's son, or just plain manipulative and know how to take advantage of the situation.

This worlds' resources belongs to everyone, and let it be said that I am for greater reward for greater resourcefulness and greater effort, but not at the expense of faith, hope and charity. Why would anyone steal our equitable share of the earth for selfishness if they were truly spiritual? They could have, in gratitude, chose to use their excellent gifts in business to help and lead others, but they chose worshipping a false idol instead - mammon.

Sure, it makes them rich, but they will never be a true leader, and never be spiritual. Anyone who would take advantage of others for their own private gain, especially when they have more than enough already, is not spritual. And anyone who would rape the land without considering repercussions of tomorrow is no lover of children.

That is why republicans, who seem to think they have the market on speaking with God, should be ashamed of themselves. As it is said... there will be many false prophets. Like lieing-us-into-war Bush... or "my-heart-tells-me-I-didn't-trade-arms-for-hostages Reagan (but, as he said himself, his mind told him he did). Like Palin, who pushed for end-of-life counseling in Alaska until Obama said he was for it... which obviously meant it was actually "death panels", a complete lie and she knew it (or the bridge-to-nowhere that she was "against" despite pushing for it for years, until the election started and she lied over and over again, saying she was against it).

Republicans... have you no shame?

It is a racist article trying to denigrate a group of people. How would you feel if someone seeded a similar article about why poor black voters behave the way they do? You'd be screaming racism the loudest. I can only assume you share the author's own personal biased as well. After all you seeded it.

If you have something important to say then by all means say it. This article was written solely to inflame and incite people in order to illicit a particular response. Race baiting in it's purest form. It's absolutely pathetic.

The point is that, according to the article, the rich vote Democratic. Assuming that we all vote in our self interest one would have to therefore assume that the rich feel that the Democratic Party represents their interests. Hmm.

The irony is watching some of the liberal posters attempt to have it both ways. Regarding the racist comments by A-whatever, I would suggest that 1. Simply because you are educated does not necessarily mean that others of your race are more or less educated than other groups. 2. I would disagree with your perception of the Republican Party as the party of racism as evidenced by the appointments of Rice, Powell, and Thomas among others.

Education is something one does to better themselves. It's an individual decision. What choices you make regarding racism, sexism, or other issues are usually socially learned behavior. If your peers are racist, chances are you'll be one too. If your parents are racist you'll more than likely have their predispositions handed down to you. It literally has nothing to do at all with education. At my college we had the young republican organization and the young democrats as well. Each had about equal memberships and exposure.

It's rather ignorant an uneducated in itself to make assumptions about people based on their party affiliation. It's kind of self serving for dems or republicans to claim the educated vote anyway. This article is pure propaganda and nothing more.

The author appears to be a racist.

What an ignorant, self serving, racist, and offensive title for an article

That's what the typical racist would assume. I'm a white person who sees absolutely NO racism in this article at all. What I DO see is scientific observation and analysis... but obviously, I can see how an ignorant, self-serving racist would say what you say.

The truth is that one can not simply say that "poor" people are voting against their own best interests, because that wouldn't be true for all segments of the poor population. It seems that most other ethnicities can see the monopoly of power and respond against it. It truly is the poor "whites" who can't see their own best interests.

There are two main differences between us two types of people.

1. I see myself as a spiritual human being, thus do not see the racism, and see the greater context in which we are all One instead... you see yourself as a white, thus respond to fear and hatred towards others by accusing them of racism.

2. I see myself as a mind, not a body... thus recognize the benefit of scientific inquiry and analysis. You see yourself as a body, so you recoil in fear and lash out due to insane perception of anything "different" - of anything outside of yourself.

The point is that, according to the article, the rich vote Democratic. Assuming that we all vote in our self interest one would have to therefore assume that the rich feel that the Democratic Party represents their interests. Hmm.

Not so wise, are you, Socrates? The truth is that many rich people who vote democratic do so because they have more values than just what you see in your wallet. Besides, it is in my best interests to help the least fortunate amongst us... it saves my soul.

So if you ever want to reclaim your soul, start understanding the Oneness that we are in as the Body of Christ.... do not judge... do not hate... do not separate yourself from your God, who is One, and do not separate yourself from your brethren, who are the Body of Christ with you. Love thy neighbor... and stop voting republican.

If your peers are racist, chances are you'll be one too. If your parents are racist you'll more than likely have their predispositions handed down to you. It literally has nothing to do at all with education.

Those who have eyes will not see....

You never learned anything new in college? Why do you think society is changing? We are becoming more and more exposed to "different" things, and realizing all the repubican lies are just that... lies. Every generation learns things better and better, though I'm sure there are generations where some knowledge is lost for a while, but the point is that education exposes us to many new things, enlightening us. But it depends on the type of education, etc....

Look at Senator Byrd for example. He grew up in the racist south, was invited in to the KKK and being that it was the way of the culture at the time, explored this "reality" for a while, and found it wanting. He grew up with racist parents... yet he isn't now. But in the same way, one can go in the reverse direction, but there is no doubt about it... education can make a big difference.

I myself started out being homophobic, but after testing my beliefs, and the logic that supported those beliefs, I found them faulty and sought more truth. I've found many of my past friends who shared those homophobic feelings also changed with age. But if we were to grow up in a stifling environment where we could not be allowed to let new experiences educate us differently, we would still be "stuck in a rut". Education is a great way to stimulate an exchange of ideas, to test our ways and to expose certain myths and lies.

And then there are the 'rednecks', of which I was one.... who refuse to open their minds. Most of them never attempted to go to school, often getting "in a rut", never actually thinking through their bias to test it for rationality.

Of course... they aren't spiritual, because they don't see us as One... they see us as "US and THEM". This obviously leads to fear, and fear obviously leads to hatred.

This article is NOT meant to incite, like you fools suggest... it is meant to point out a great inequity, perpetrated AGAINST the poor whites by people other than those who wrote this article. The poor whites are being used... taken advantage of, so that a few elitists can maintain monopolistic control. It doesn't help the poor whites, but it sure helps the elites. This article is meant to help all people realize the error so it can be corrected.

Think through your prejudice, and ask yourself... is it really to my best interests? The fear? The hatred? The inevitibale conflict? Loss of my soul?

Blah blah blah blah.

It always amaze me how someone can attempt to take a racist accusation aimed at them and try to flip it around on someone. I knew some closed minded individual would try to find a way to make some accusation of racism against me. I see it all the time. It really is pathetic. Is that your knee jerk reaction to everything? If there's a comment you disagree with you automatically jump to the racist accusations? I think so. Pathetic indeed.

This op ed singled out a group of people by race and tried to explain their decisions made as being racially motivated. That's racism in it's purest form. If a white authored had penned the piece about black voter behavior, would you have been so understanding? I think not. This author and yourself, live their lives constantly trying to race bait people into a no win discussion. I would think that since you're so defensive over this racist piece that you probably share the same social predispositions of the writer. You hate and mistrust others and that's the message you try to spread all the time. It's sad to see someone waste their live propagating hate and mistrust, when there are so many other things they could be preoccupied with.

This op ed singled out a group of people by race and tried to explain their decisions made as being racially motivated.

Well... when you make things up to turn it into a racist discussion, that usually indicates someone is "protesting too much."

The article actually talks about religious mores and about lies being made by the right-wing. But if you want to see racism in that, it only proves racism is in your mind. As I said, "thou doest protest too much."

Especially since I am white, and I don't see any racism in this article at all. If it truly were racist against whites, you'd think I'd see that, right?

We already explained why it mentions "poor whites" rather than just "poor".... because it wouldn't be true if we just put "poor". It's based on science, and therefore, we're not going to refrain from mentioning the truth just for your fragile ego.

The article is racist in nature. The author has pretty pronounced social dispositions. To defend the author insinuates that you share his racist point of view.

There you go with the "I'm white" thing again. What are you offended at the prospect of possibly being thought of as black?

Answer me this. Have you ever visited these so called racist strongholds you made mention of? Or do you just formulate your opinion from what others with an ax to grind have to tell you? You one of the mindless horde who the dems string along by the nose. They do not even have enough confidence in you that you could think for yourself. They do your thinking for you. Tsk Tsk.

The article is racist in nature.

There you go with seeing "racism" in this article again. LOL

It's obvious that you HAVE to see racism here for whatever reason, but we all know what that means.

It isn't racism to point out that the "white poor" are the only poor in the whole USA who vote against their own best interests by voting republican. They are a political oddity, and a sociological curiousity.

So YOU see racism where it isn't. And if you really wanted to see racism, I pointed out to you that it's the other way around, as evidenced by the only racist stronghold in the nation being the only area, of all the areas in the last election, to have a sudden resurgence in republican registrations.

If you can't figure out where the true racism is, you're totally in denial.

Answer me this. Have you ever visited these so called racist strongholds you made mention of? Or do you just formulate your opinion from what others with an ax to grind have to tell you?

I haven't just visited these "racist strongholds"; I've lived in them. And if you truly live there, and try to pretend there is no racism affecting the republicans in the south, then you're just lieing. Not even the racist friends I've acquainted myself with down there are foolish enough to deny it; they simply just say, "It's a southern thing". But if you want to pretend there isn't... go right ahead. Everyone in the entire USA knows of this problem, and you don't while living there....which makes you a complete joke!

So you see racism where it isn't - in this article, and you don't see racism where it actually does exist - in the south - where a sudden Republican resurgency defied the national trends in the 2008 campaign!

You couldn't make it any clearer!

jimiracle

You seem to be under the impression that only whites can be racist. If that's what you believe then you're either not to bright or you make it a habit of lying to yourself. EVERYONE is capable of racist behavior. That goes from using violence on a particular group of people right on down to writing an article trying to make assumptions about poor white voters. Furthermore I cannot take your word as to whether this article is racist or not because it's pretty obvious you have race issues yourself that you have to come to terms with. You have a little biased there friend. You're a hostile witness.

Furthermore, if you "lived in" Appalachia you would know one thing to be true. They vote democrat. These folks are old school democrats who date back to the day of Roosevelt. So your GUESS that these folks are Republicans is just that. A GUESS. An incorrect guess at that. You would have to be a bumbling idiot to think that racists only live in the South. You appear to get fed your agenda from what you read online. Agenda driven, hate filled, websites have probably corrupted you beyond repair. That's the only excuse I can think of for why you have such a pronounced biased against white people.

renard

They don't see it because it would mean that the same racism is present in them as well.

in them as well. Is this an admission that there was a racial biased in the original article? Looks like it to me.

If you want to really get some folks fired up, ask them if it's racism for all of those people who voted for Obama simply because he is half black.

If you want to really get some folks fired up, ask them if it's racism for all of those people who voted for Obama simply because he is half black.

Sorry... but Blacks vote predominantly democratic anyway. The only difference is that they felt more inclusive by having a black candidate, inspiring them to get out and vote, since the government of the USA had become part of something they belonged to. For decades, and even centuries, they have never felt like they were part of the process (or even partially part of the process), and thus never felt inspired to vote. Indeed, they've even been hung, bombed and shot for standing up for thier (uppity?) rights! This is slowly changing, but one thing that hasn't changed is they always vote democratic anyway. They have always polled to be as democratic as they last voted. So your point is childishly naive and vindictive, as well as false.

But... "if you want to really get some folks fired up," tell the truth about how racism has colored some of the GOP responses to Obama, and watch how they "doth protest too much". (sort of like how someone from the south will deny that there is any racism there at all).

But....let's not profile.....lol.

The Democrats can normally be broken down into a few groups. Those who seek a handout for nothing choose to be Democrat.

Like how the GOP gave away $4 Trillion to the richest amongst us, without even paying for it, yet complain about $1 Trillion for Health care that HAS been paid for?

Like how the GOP gave Big Oil a tax break of over $600 Billion dollars, even while they were making record profits?

Like how the GOP gave Big Pharma a sweetheart deal, guaranteeing they could set all prices of drugs?

The Elitists top 2% of the economy that recieved those tax breaks for nothing, and the Big Oil and the Big Pharma, are, as far as i know... republicans.

Those who are morally bankrupt choose to be a Democrat.

You mean like the morally bankrupt that continue to deny people health care a right, not a privilege, just to get donations?

Or do you mean the morally bankrupt who lied us into an unnecessary war, killing thousands of Americans, wounding hundreds of thousands more for life, and torturing people in the process?

Or do you mean the morally bankrupt that criticized Clinton for a mutually consented sexual liasion while they themselves were cheating on their wives (Livingston, Frist, Hyde, Vitter, Gingrich, Barr)?

Those who are in some form a poverty pimp choose to be Democrat.

We don't need poverty pimps while the GOP are around. They do enough to create poverty for us for real... we don't need to sell it. It's been bought and paid for by over half of our bankruptcies being health costs related, or by having fathers killed in unnecessary wars, etc.

But....let's not profile.....lol.

It isn't profiling when you are analyzing behavior... it is profiling when you use superficial factors to make your judgment.

It matters not to me what sort of "picture" a man or woman makes to me in my eyes.... the REAL picture is what they do and how they treat me. That is the REAL person.

So when we criticize the repubicans for their behavior, it is NOT profiling.

It's just that "stupid is as stupid does."

So nice to see conservatives who act like they are the party of racial equality jsut because they "just recenty" nominated a figurehead to lead or more accurately follow (apology to rush). It was mentioned by apache that condi rice was extremely intelliigent because she "SERVED" pres bush or was it that she simply followed obediently in order to keep a job that no woman or black woman had had before. Suprisingly you didnt mention clarence thomas who has and will do more disservice then any justice (he follows obediently scalia's direction) or colin powell (he will need to answer why he didnt stay with the bush administration). Conservatives always mention Byrd in an effort to deny they secretly agree with the KKK but today they hide it by stating "reverse Racism". Then you have the NAACP, BET, JET, EBONY to which you have to ask would the republican party have steele if they didnt need someone black to say things that would be perceived as racist if the president wasn't black, that mainstream televison was predominantly white in its infancy with few if any positive roles for minorties but since whites controlled it and most people look just like them it was okay. If everything was fair why was a Ms Black America needed could it be that initially black and brown was not thought of as beautiful in the white media or were they as socially conscious as they are today. Free Mason maybe you need to look at the history of the firefighters (as well as the police force) and the inheirited racism prevelent in the hiring practices (hired those relatives that look like me, gave them answers, etc. but it was okay right). If those firefighters were the best for the job as it came out they should be promoted but if there is some favortism based on race it should be questioned.

What is annoying is that some think racism is an dead issue simply because fox promotes the "reverse racism statement", that alot think that racism is less of an issue today (Tea Baggers, Town Hall harasser) than years ago, that some use it as a weapon when it is not an issue, and that you can't see the racism in the statements "that is not what the founding fathers wanted, and "I am taking my country back". If the NAACP is perceived as a racist orgainizaion then you could make the same argument about the republican party.

Bottom line is this is not about race or wealth, but about responsible behavior that promotes a sense of well-being. Contributions to our family and our country (black, white, and all!) are much more meaningful than anything you can relate to a specific race or gender. We have a RIGHT to discriminate against the irresponsible; after all, the only reason they can afford to continue this behavior is because there are responsible ones footing their bill. How much longer can this continue with the out-of-control birth rates in this irresponsible sector of society? Do we assume we can support everyone that chooses to avoid responsible behavior? Regardless of Dems or Rep, who has the balls to address this issue!?

Oh, and about that "trickle down economics" statement that some want to demonize around here... have you ever gotten a job from a poor person? Personally I don't want to live in Obama's basement having to be limited on whatever he deems applicable.

No reason to be prejudiced against poor people. Why are you giving the already rich more money? Do they need it? They already have more than enough money to "stimulate" the economy... and to hire people. So who needs the money most?

Every dollar of that $4 TRILLION dollars that went to tax cuts to the rich by Bush and the republicans/conservatives went straight into the elitists bank accounts, not stimulating the economy with one red cent.

So your logic is EXTREMELY faulty and erroneous.

Besides, every period of history where true stimulus occurred in this nation was when everyone was getting richer. Ever since Reagan got in, that changed. Now the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The same was true for Bush. Things got better under Clinton, despite not going far enough, but we were going in the right direction and the state of the economy proved it. Then Bush got in again, and poverty skyrocketed!

Trickle down is as stupid as saying that the best way to run a business, for the benefit of all, is to give more money to the boss and less to the workers - even if the business is in profit mode. After all, it's the boss's money - who cares if the workers were what made him rich!

The republicans are the equivalent of Mr. Scrooge, leaving the workers with not enough money to support themselves or to get a good start. Merry Christmas! (not that the republicans have a clue as to what that is all about).

Clinton just maneuvered the books to claim there was a surplus. Just like everyone is in denial we have unfunded liability on Medicare that is any ones guess how big that number will become.

Clinton just maneuvered the books to claim there was a surplus.

So the cries of "It's our money!" from the Right after W was elected, referring to this phony (as you claim) Clinton surplus, that resulted in Bush sending billons in "surplus" checks to Americans came from where?

If the Right knew this then what they really were asking for (and receieved) was a government handout from a non-existant surplus.

Interesting admission on your part.

Just like everyone is in denial we have unfunded liability on Medicare that is any ones guess how big that number will become.

And the bush administration forbiding employees to announce the true cost of the prescription in medicare speaks volumes to just how much denial the republicans were to the american people.

Jimster 25.2 Excellent point!!!

Aw shucks fellers

escalating the war in Afghanistan must be knocking all the tail feathers off the peace doves by now

Here is some truth about afghanistan; the bush administration failed to supply the number of troops needed to "successfully" complete the mission instead he overfunded the bush war in Iraq.

How's that truth?