ALthough I agree, it goes way beyond this. Its not that simple

You're right, but i'd say a large majority do. I'm not saying there's something wrong with them feeling they're owed something, either, just to be clear.

Nothing is simple. That doesn't mean you have to make it overly complex, either.

All im saying is that its alot harder for a black kid who grows up in the ghetto to hike up the ladder, than your average white kid


P.S. Everytime I think of this issue I think of that line IN barbershop 2.

"Black people dont need reperations, if we all had reperations cadillac would be the biggest car dealership in America!"

And I completely agree. Anyone that doesn't is blind, in my opinion.

Alike we are :wink:

So? It's also a lot harder for a white kid who grows up in a ghetto than for your average Chinese kid.

makeshift, the graph illustrates EXACTLY why I don't support Kerry. I believe in absolute sovereignty for individual nations. I don't believe in one country invading another without direct provocation, which is why I have never supported the war in Iraq. Positions such as participation in the international criminal court eviscerates our own judicial system. Kerry would abdicate sovereignty for a "We are the World" international system. I am COMPLETELY against that.
As far as churches telling people to vote for Bush, you've got to be kidding! You won't find Dick Cheney, George Bush or their wives standing in the pulpit of a church, but in the next week you will see Al Gore campaigning for Kerry in the pulpits of several black churches in Florida. Keep watching. Democratic candidates have for years campaigned in the pulpits of black churches without fear that the churches would be audited by the IRS simply because their would be claims of racism. They know they can get away with it. I have personal knowledge of black churches who actually hand out pre-marked ballots to their members and say "Use this when you vote."
This is about the silliest argument you could make as Democrats use churches for political grandstanding much more than Republicans.

See the following articles:
This one
http://www.belleville.com/mld/bellevill ... ction2004/
9886407.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
Posted on Sun, Oct. 10, 2004


Kerry visits black churches to court social conservatives

By JAMES KUHNHENN
Knight Ridder Newspapers

MIAMI - Sen. John Kerry, eager to energize Florida voters still livid over the 2000 election results, went to church twice on Sunday, visiting two black congregations and exhorting one to mobilize the vote and "pray with your feet."

Sounding almost preacherlike at the Friendship Missionary Baptist Church, Kerry summoned more Biblical references than he usually does with church audiences. Quoting Psalm 19, he assured worshippers that, "I'm gonna speak to you from my gut and pray always that the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart will find favor in the Lord."

Kerry, a Roman Catholic who's often reticent to talk about his faith, has been drawn into more public expressions as Republicans attack his position on abortion and court socially conservative blacks and Hispanics.

Kerry was accompanied on Sunday by the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who declared that they've mended their longtime rivalry. Kerry took credit by appropriating a line from President Bush's 2000 campaign.

"Seeing (Sharpton) here with the Rev. Jesse Lewis Jackson, and coming together, I'll tell you something folks: I am the uniter, not a divider," Kerry said.

With Sharpton and Jackson at his side, as well as help from a number of black lawmakers, Kerry is hoping to energize a voting bloc that's been slow to warm to him. Though black vote overwhelmingly Democratic, weak turnout in a key state such as Florida, Michigan, Ohio or Pennsylvania could cost Kerry the election.

And this one:

http://kyw.com/Local%20News/local_story_278164021.html
Kerry Visits Philadelphia

Oct 4, 2004 7:37 pm US/Eastern
HAMPTON, N.H. (AP) John Kerry on Monday accused President Bush of restricting potentially lifesaving stem cell research because of "extreme right-wing ideology" and underscored his own strong support for research that polls show has widespread backing.

...

While in Philadelphia, Kerry continued his effort to shore up black support by speaking to clergy from black churches from several states. He won applause when he told them, "If you make me president of the United States, I will do my best to even do better than Bill Clinton did to make sure the government of the United States looks like the face of America."

And this one:

http://www.interfaithalliance.org/Election2004/Election2004.cfm?ID=5314&c=98
Kerry Visits Black Churches, Invokes Language of Faith
“Aligning himself with the civil rights movement and elements of faith in the fight for equality, Sen. John Kerry on Sunday called on members of an African-American church here to march against cynicism and disaffection. "I don't agree with the hollowness of the politics, nor do you, that tries to divide black from white, rich from poor, Massachusetts from Mississippi," Kerry told a crowd of about 600 at the predominantly black Greater Bethlehem Temple Church….Visiting black churches is an honored rite of the presidential campaign, and Kerry used the occasion Sunday to debut a speech melding policy with religion, springing from the bedrock of civil rights. Quoting James 2:14, Kerry, a Catholic, said, "We'll be tested to see how much we really remember the words of the Scripture, What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?" (Houston Chronicle, “Kerry speech invokes faith, civil rights themes,” 03/0704)

AND THIS ONE

Monday, October 4, 2004

Touting 'American values,' Kerry courts urban vote
Pitches job vow to unemployed

By Gregory Korte
Enquirer staff writer

CLEVELAND - Sen. John F. Kerry preached to a black church choir on Cleveland's east side Sunday night, ending a day of campaigning in the two parts of Ohio where the Democratic faith is strongest.


Appearing with the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson and prominent Cleveland civil rights pioneers at the pulpit of East Mount Zion Baptist Church, Kerry confessed that as a "white American with a privileged background," he was "barely qualified" to speak to a black audience about the legacy of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

But he said King's message wasn't about black or white values, but about "American values."

The Sunday church service was part of a strong get-out-the-vote effort in the state's urban areas, said J. B. Poersch, Kerry's Ohio campaign manager.

Kerry has received lukewarm support from some African-Americans.

Many say he lacks the charisma of former President Bill Clinton.

But he has been warmly received in visits to three black Baptist churches in Ohio in the past eight weeks. He also visited the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati in August, and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, campaigned in Cincinnati's Bond Hill neighborhood two weeks ago.

Yeah, it's the Republicans who are trying to tell people how to vote from the pulpit ... please.

First let me explain why Kerry scares me on foreign policy.

We can't leave Iraq the way it is. Kerry won't commit more troops to Iraq. Every general says that the only way to get a hold of the situation is simply more troops. More troops will fix the situation, and let us get out of there.

Bush will put more troops in Iraq post election, trust me on that.

Kerry has said, that he wants to enlist the help of the world, make Iraq everyones problem.

But if he thinks that France, Germany (practically in a state of civil war), or Russia (In a civil war!) are going to send troops to help ... he is nuts.

KJ

This is the funniest comment I have yet read on the board.

Hindsight...

If the Reagan administration hadn't supported Osama during the fight against the Russians we wouldn't have been so tied with them in the first place...

If Bush Sr. had gone all the way to Bahgdad and ousted Saddam during the first war, you know, the one where we had at least most of the world on our side, we would never have "had to go back".

It's funny how you put blame on the Clinton administration (1998) alone. It was definately part of the problem, don't get me wrong, but in all honesty, a pre-emptive attack on Afghanistan in early 2001 (during the BUSH administration) would had sufficed. There is a long line of American FAILURE to deal with these problems, and it bit us in the ass. George W. Bush is part of that. Kerry is too! To a lesser extent.

I dislike Kerry. I dislike what he's done, and what he has supported, but if foreign policy is your big issue this election, Kerry wins hands down. Why? Because, regardless of whatever he supported in Congress, his image isn't so tarnished as Bush's has become and there is more... much more... to "foreign policy" than pre-emptive military action.

I'm glad that I amuse you. However, it was not my intent.

Exactly. Hindsight, which proves that a pre-emptive action is an effective tool in fighting terrorism.

Only the Reagan administration never did that. Nice try, though.

True. Only Bush Sr. did not have a UN mandate to do that. Reconcile that, my friend.

Bonus points for remembering that John Kerry voted against that war.

I'm not blaming the Clinotn administration, I don't see how you gather that from my comments. A pre-emptive strike in 1998, though, would indeed have prevented 9/11; by 2001 it was too late. Note, that I'm not saying that Bush had his priorities in order before 9/11.

Yes, there's much more to foreign policy than that. But I just can't see Kerry doing the right thing when need be. He'll be so tangled up in nuances, that he won't be able to look at the big picture.

Why must liberals waste time trying to find out WHY they are hated by conservatives? Its making stupid threads like this, posting rediculous facts and figures, not excepting the truth: You hate Bush because he is Bush. We hate Kerry becasue he is Kerry. We disagree with everything he says. He is wrong on defense, wrong on America, and is a disgrace to our country. His senate record is looney and left. His war record is very questionable. (Three purple heats... oops, I got a paper cut! Sure the guy served, good for him, but he sure did do a good job pissing everyone off when he got back...), and we just don't agree with him! Is it that hard to comprehend? Hes a dope. He tries to appeal to everyone! Its worthy of ten thousand SNL skits! Yesterday he was out pretneding to hunt with a riffle for the NRA vote. He had a HUGE hand in a bill to BAN riffles, and here is he using one to appear to these guys. He does it everyday! He has crackpot values, a crackpot wife, and thinks he can appeal to every single person on America by changing his position on EVERYTHING! If you like blue, so does he. But five minutes later, if you like red, it has always been his favorite! And if you dare say anything, he is going to sue you with his other malpractice lawyer goonies. The man is a joke. Thats why we don't like him. Forgive me for being chlidish, I am, after all, only one. I am far too tired, as always to put down something of Krem or Dolce quality. But I can't help answer these rediculous questions and ask why the left doesn't see through Kerry too? God, Bush IS a very mediocre president. He makes good and bad decisions. Maybe Iraq was wrong. And there is a better canidate out there, Democrat or Republican. But, as previously stated, Kerry is a joke of a canidate, and, I won't feel bad for anyone when he looses on Nov. 2nd to Bush by three votes.

Hindsight should tell us that there are warning signs

There is no proof that pre-emptive action would have saved the United States from terrorism, and there is absolutely no proof that George W. Bush's attack on Iraq made a significant dent in the terrorist problem. In fact, in ways, it may have strengthened it. The war in Afghanistan did nothing to save those poor people in Madrid.


Only the Reagan administration never did that. Nice try, though.[/quote]
In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166, …[which authorized] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies – a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, … as well as a ‘ceaseless stream’ of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan’s ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels. – Washington Post, July 19, 1992.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/nsdd116.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/osamabinladen.html

Al-Qaeda has its origins in the uprising against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Thousands of volunteers from around the Middle East came to Afghanistan as mujahideen, warriors fighting to defend fellow Muslims. In the mid-1980s, Osama bin Laden became the prime financier for an organization that recruited Muslims from mosques around the world. These "Afghan Arab" mujahideen, which numbered in the thousands, were crucial in defeating Soviet forces.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terror-qaeda.html

This is what I've come to read and understand is the "truth". That by funding these groups we trained what would eventually become the Taliban (as we did in Iraq) because our priorities of defeating the Russians in the Cold War knew no bounds. The connections between Bush and the bin Ladens themselves is already well documented.

Please tell me where I am mistaken, because if I am unfairly characterizing the connections between Reagans and the beginning of this whole mess, I would want to be corrected. I'm not indebted to any political ideal enough that I would prefer being blind.


Very true, but in support of the current Bush administration (which, you most likely are playing devil's advocate), you are at least partially supporting that the idea that the UN really doesn't matter in the first place. So I do not see how you can use this in a defense.


The date placement. It would have been the Clinton administration who would have had to carry that out. Yet, we as a country, were more wrapped up in cigars and blue dresses... happier times, it makes me wonder we all thought it mattered so much.


"Indeed"? A guess at best. It could have fueled public and terrorist rage to a boiling point. And what mandate did we have to launch a war before the destruction of the Twin Towers? At least this "pre-emptive action" (which wasn't used by Bush in Afghanistan at all... only in Iraq, which harbors about as many terrorists as... well... Canada and the US itself does). The UN may have disagreed, but they at least partially understood why Iraq was a target (although based on incorrect data, oops!).

But I guess where we are getting caught up is in "pre-emptive action". What do you exactly mean by that? Is pre-emptive action political, social, undercover or do you subscribe to the Bush administration's idea of striking fast with bombers and ground troops?


Noted.


Hey, and that is a fair critisism of a man who has not proved that he can make ANY decision.

But I can't imagine that people feel comfortable enough with Bush's foreign policy, which is so mired in this war and the utter contempt that most of the world has for our government right now, that they feel comfortable voting for him based on this issue.

Someone with NO HISTORY of foreign relations, or even a shaky one, is in my judgement an improvement, or at least a chance at improvement, that we do not have if we re-elect Bush.

Or should I say... if the electoral college re-elects Bush.