Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 70 of 70
  1. #51
    Chronic User Bandit2981's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    2,145
    My thoughts are that Bandit is referring to the Downing Street Memo, which if authentic (the British haven't denied it is), proves with little doubt that the W administration, including Ms. Rice, was intentionally shaping intelligence data to support an invasion of Iraq and the overthrown of Saddam Hussien. An Invasion that even our closes allied, Britian, thought was probably illegal.
    thats a big part of it, as well as the "bin laden determined to attack inside the US" memo that went ignored, as well as the statements of richard clarke, paul o'neill, etc etc etc...its a long list, not just 1 or 2 specific things

  2. #52
    Seeking the quiet mind desflood's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    5,054
    Rice will never get the nomination. Tolerance for women and minorities runs only so deep in the Republican party.
    Let's see what a black man has to say about that...

    Liberals, race, and history
    Thomas Sowell (archive)


    May 24, 2005 | Print | Send


    If the share of the black vote that goes to the Democrats ever falls to 70 percent, it may be virtually impossible for the Democrats to win the White House or Congress, because they have long ago lost the white male vote and their support among other groups is eroding. Against that background, it is possible to understand their desperate efforts to keep blacks paranoid, not only about Republicans but about American society in general.

    Liberal Democrats, especially, must keep blacks fearful of racism everywhere, including in an administration whose Cabinet includes people of Chinese, Japanese, Hispanic, and Jewish ancestry, and two consecutive black Secretaries of State. Blacks must be kept believing that their only hope lies with liberals.

    Not only must the present be distorted, so must the past -- and any alternative view of the future must be nipped in the bud. That is why prominent minority figures who stray from the liberal plantation must be discredited, debased and, above all, kept from becoming federal judges.

    A thoughtful and highly intelligent member of the California supreme court like Justice Janice Rogers Brown must be smeared as a right-wing extremist, even though she received 76 percent of the vote in California, hardly a right-wing extremist state. But desperate politicians cannot let facts stand in their way.

    Least of all can they afford to let Janice Rogers Brown become a national figure on the federal bench. The things she says and does could lead other blacks to begin to think independently -- and that in turn threatens the whole liberal house of cards. If a smear is what it takes to stop her, that is what liberal politicians and the liberal media will use.

    It's "not personal" as they say when they smear someone. It doesn't matter how outstanding or upstanding Justice Brown is. She is a threat to the power that means everything to liberal politicians. The Democrats' dependence on blacks for votes means that they must keep blacks dependent on them.

    Black self-reliance would be almost as bad as blacks becoming Republicans, as far as liberal Democrats are concerned. All black progress in the past must be depicted as the result of liberal government programs and all hope of future progress must be depicted as dependent on the same liberalism.

    In reality, reductions in poverty among blacks and the rise of blacks into higher level occupations were both more pronounced in the years leading up to the civil rights legislation and welfare state policies of the 1960s than in the years that followed.

    Moreover, contrary to political myth, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But facts have never stopped politicians or ideologues before and show no signs of stopping them now.

    What blacks have achieved for themselves, without the help of liberals, is of no interest to liberals. Nothing illustrates this better than political reactions to academically successful black schools.

    Despite widespread concerns expressed about the abysmal educational performances of most black schools, there is remarkably little interest in those relatively few black schools which have met or exceeded national standards.

    Anyone who is serious about the advancement of blacks would want to know what is going on in those ghetto schools whose students have reading and math scores above the national average, when so many other ghetto schools are miles behind in both subjects. But virtually all the studies of such schools have been done by conservatives, while liberals have been strangely silent.

    Achievement is not what liberalism is about. Victimhood and dependency are.

    Black educational achievements are a special inconvenience for liberals because those achievements have usually been a result of methods and practices that go directly counter to prevailing theories in liberal educational circles and are anathema to the teachers' unions that are key supporters of the Democratic Party.

    Many things that would advance blacks would not advance the liberal agenda. That is why the time is long overdue for the two to come to a parting of the ways.

  3. #53
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    Many things that would advance blacks would not advance the liberal agenda. That is why the time is long overdue for the two to come to a parting of the ways.
    Oh that goes both ways. Replace the word liberal with conservative and it still makes perfect sense.

  4. #54
    Guess Who's Back?
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    1,558
    Oh that goes both ways. Replace the word liberal with conservative and it still makes perfect sense.
    Okay, I did. I can't think of one Conservative agenda item that is at odds with the advancement of Blacks.

    Fill us in Manny.

  5. #55
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    Okay, I did. I can't think of one Conservative agenda item that is at odds with the advancement of Blacks.

    Fill us in Manny.


    And the consevatives don't use the military for political gain, and the republicans don't play politics, etc etc.

    No, you know, I think I'll save my breath with you from now on.

  6. #56
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Black self-reliance would be almost as bad as blacks becoming Republicans, as far as liberal Democrats are concerned. All black progress in the past must be depicted as the result of liberal government programs and all hope of future progress must be depicted as dependent on the same liberalism.

    In reality, reductions in poverty among blacks and the rise of blacks into higher level occupations were both more pronounced in the years leading up to the civil rights legislation and welfare state policies of the 1960s than in the years that followed.
    Thomas Sowell is such a tool. Progressives don't fear black or minority success, they welcome it because it usually equates to wealther coffers at election time. This whole Democrats want to keep blacks down is a myth perpetuated through the Republican echo chamber with little real basis in reality. If Blacks and Hispanics ever really smartened up and started realizing which political party is really fighting today for greater minority rights, affordable health care, affirmative action in education and lower taxes after we pay off our debt. Progressives would start to carry states in the South, and we can't have that, so we keep perpetuating this Liberals-hate-blacks myth to keep minorities confused AND away from the ballot boxes. Never mind that blacks aren't buying it since 80% voted for Kerry in 04, but hispanics and other minorities are, or Texas would go Democrat - could still happen.

  7. #57
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,406
    Rice wants to be President; it sounded pretty clear in her interview with Juan Williams this week. She was expounding on all kinds of issues that had nothing to do with her current job. That said, she'll be drafted as a reaction to a Hilary Clinton nomination. Republicans will have no choice - they'd have to do something to get back the female vote.

  8. #58
    Cowboy Up BronxCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    1,065
    Rice wants to be President; it sounded pretty clear in her interview with Juan Williams this week. She was expounding on all kinds of issues that had nothing to do with her current job.
    Agree.
    That said, she'll be drafted as a reaction to a Hilary Clinton nomination. Republicans will have no choice - they'd have to do something to get back the female vote.
    Disagree. Hillary would be the dream candidate for ANY Republican to run against. If she's nominated, GOP will win with whomever they pick, as long as it isn't Tom DeLay or Cheney.

  9. #59
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,406
    You'd be surprised at the women's vote.

  10. #60
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    You'd be surprised at the women's vote.
    But a women and a minority? Whew...talk about strike two. I think the Republicans would be more dangerous with Hutchingson, but even then only as a Vice Presidential candidate with a male.

    The Democrats can't afford to gamble on Hillary. She alienates to many moderates not so much because of anything really based in reality, but because she is a darlin of talk radio, but then again the right-wing media has no problem scavenging its own if the legislator doesn't measure up on the fundi scale.

  11. #61
    Cowboy Up BronxCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    1,065
    The Democrats can't afford to gamble on Hillary. She alienates to many moderates not so much because of anything really based in reality, but because she is a darlin of talk radio, but then again the right-wing media has no problem scavenging its own if the legislator doesn't measure up on the fundi scale.
    She alienates too many progressives, as well. Full-fledged support for the "War on Terror," backing the war in Iraq, and voting in the Patriot act aren't going to get you too many liberal votes, regardless of whether you're famous or what type of genitalia you have.

  12. #62
    My uncles' friend is JFK NameDropper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Post Count
    914
    Rumors...


  13. #63
    Keith Jackson mookie2001's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    13,278
    ehh
    i think hillary would be a good president, although she seems like a big
    i hope she doesnt run because it will be VERY hard for her to win
    i would likely support whoever got the Dem nomination

  14. #64
    I can live with it JoeChalupa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    21,547
    Hillary can do it.

  15. #65
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    She alienates too many progressives, as well. Full-fledged support for the "War on Terror," backing the war in Iraq, and voting in the Patriot act aren't going to get you too many liberal votes, regardless of whether you're famous or what type of genitalia you have.
    Yes, you also forgot for her new open dialogue approach on abortion rights. Everyday Hillary drifts more and more to the center, or so it would seem, but I'm not sure that Reagan-Democrats have really bought into the new, improved and centrist Hillary, especially since the Right keeps continuously attacking her as a rabid liberal in sheep's clothing. I'm not sure what to make of the recent love fest between rabid conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Hitlary. My guess is some powerful en y wants to see a Hillary nomination in 08, almost as much as they fear a John McCain nomination.

  16. #66
    Hint Hint ClintSquint's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Post Count
    1,275
    The Democratic party needs to move back to the center and become the party it once was.

  17. #67
    Cowboy Up BronxCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    1,065
    become the party it once was.
    If by this you mean a strong supporter of labor, more populist, and less driven by big business, then yes. If you mean keep being the puppy dog of the GOP and following the Republicans to the right, then no. Gore ran on a centrist platform and look what happened (I won't say that he lost). Kerry ran on a centrist platform and got his butt kicked. The Republicans have been able to paint Democratic candidates as "extremists" no matter how moderate they are. (For example, most of the country believes that Kerry supported gay marriage, despite the fact that he never made a statement to this effect and frequently stated that he did not believe in gay marriage.) It's a mistake for the Democrats to sacrifice liberal votes in order to gain moderate appeal, because it won't happen. They need to put forward candidates who know where they stand and are not afraid to tell everyone, regardless of the issue or the right/leftness of it. I do think that dialogue on some particularly divisive social issues is a good thing, but I don't think that's the same as moving toward the center. You just have to pick your battles, but the ones you do pick, you absolutely have to hold your ground on.

  18. #68
    Who's Your Caddy?! NeoConIV's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Post Count
    2,024
    Rice wants to be President; it sounded pretty clear in her interview with Juan Williams this week.
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4669163

    In case anyone is interested in what 44 has to say...

  19. #69
    noididnot ididnotnothat's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Post Count
    1,437
    She is getting ready I already noticed she changed from that "flip" hair style she's been wearing. Now she has to fix that gap.

  20. #70
    The Great Eight Ocotillo's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    4,029
    I'll be elected president before Condi Rice is.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •