I (a black person) voted for Kerry, but I actuallly voted against Bush. I actually would have voted for Paul Reubens over Bush Jr.


GW is a warmonger. We are in Iraq because of WMD but there are no WMD. I won't take time to explain why this is a bunch of bullshit.

Suffice it to say that GW and all the jingoists who support him are bloodthirsty savages. You don't care wether or not there is a good reason for war, you seem to revel in the very fact of war itself (although you revel in it from America in the safety of your internet message board).

Everybody keeps using the word "moral" these days. Killing thousands of civilians for no good reason is wrong.

(Please don't waste the internet ether with rants about terrorism. Iraq didn't attack us.)

Can I ask you one question please? What do you feel President Clinton did for the African American population? I've always wondered about the hype.


PS - don't write off Reubens in 2008. He travelled cross country to find a bike. HE would have found the WMDs

PSS - I've never heard anybody "revel".

7 entries found for revel.
rev·el ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rvl)
intr.v. rev·eled, also rev·elled rev·el·ing, rev·el·ling rev·els, rev·els
To take great pleasure or delight: She reveled in her unaccustomed leisure.
To engage in uproarious festivities; make merry.

n.
A boisterous festivity or celebration; merrymaking. Often used in the plural.



Ok genius.

Clinton didn't do anything in particular for Black people. Conservatives have contempt for Black people. Conservatism is necessarily against all minorities (racial, cultural, gender, age). You are trying to "conserve" white male dominance.

If my demographic were dominant I might try to "conserve" as well, but as a minority (this word "minority" speaks of power not population) I try to gain power for my demographic.

This story is as old as Humanity.

I don't understand why even 11% of Black people would vote for a conservative.

Originally posted by Ed Blank
Conservatives have contempt for Black people.

If you were a fat white bigot that kind of generalizing would be called profiling. But of course you would never do that.

Also thanks for the definition of "revel". You made my point.

Ed Blank, if you were in Canada, would you vote N.D.P.? They are about equal rights for all people. The P.C.'s were known for being bogoted and for showing favortism to white people.

Conservatives are not agaisnt black people, thats a load of crap. conservatives are all about self reliance for all. its the liberals who want a permanent lower class to take care of so they feel needed and good about helping people. Conservatives want black people to be independently succesful in life. if you think free money from the government is compassion you are seriously wrong. one day the poor blacks will wake up and realize they are being held down by the very people who say to be on their side, and the ones they have been told to fear are actually trying to help them more then they could have believed.

Originally posted by Travh20
Conservatives are not agaisnt black people, thats a load of crap. conservatives are all about self reliance for all. its the liberals who want a permanent lower class to take care of so they feel needed and good about helping people. Conservatives want black people to be independently succesful in life. if you think free money from the government is compassion you are seriously wrong. one day the poor blacks will wake up and realize they are being held down by the very people who say to be on their side, and the ones they have been told to fear are actually trying to help them more then they could have believed. travh, im black, and i couldnt agree more. a political party doesnt mean you have or dont have a propensity to hate or love, i think that shit comes in all political parties, i mean, they (dems) could be using us to just get in.......but all in all, i understand where ed blank is coming from, but you make a good point and it would apply to some, but not this administration, i dont think they have a love for me or you, they love money !!! lol

I (a black person) voted for Kerry, but I actuallly voted against Bush. I actually would have voted for Paul Reubens over Bush Jr.

GW is a warmonger. We are in Iraq because of WMD but there are no WMD. I won't take time to explain why this is a bunch of bullshit.

This individual's opinion does nothing to explain why 88% of blacks voted for Kerry this election, and 90% for Gore in the last election. Unless all blacks had a premonition that the US was going to war against Iraq...

In response to Ed Blank,

God, I hate having to do this over and over, but here goes:

First off, ever since the Gulf War ended, it was widely believed that Saddam had WMDs. It was believed by the Bush Sr Administration, it was believed by the Clinton Administration and it was believed by W. Gore believed Saddam had WMDs, KERRY believed Saddam had WMDs. Also, the U.N. had some 14 resolutions calling for Saddam to disarm. Do you really want to try your line of bilge that Bush was making stuff up just to go and have a war?

What Bush did, was to put some teeth into the U.N. resolution(s), calling on Hussein to disarm. He took 14 months before the invasion, he went before Congress to get authorization to attack Iraq, he went before the U.N. to get authorization to invade Iraq. 14 MONTHS! Doesn't sound like jumping into a war to me.

About this so-called killing of thousands of civilians. First off, it ain't true, secondly you accuse us of wanting a war when we are so far away tapping happily on our keyboards. How comfortable were YOU when Saddam was happily filling mass graves with innocent victims? How comfortable were YOU when Saddam was gassing the Kurds with WMDs he didn't have? I guess it isn't a problem so long as it ain't got to see it on TV, right? The libs fell all over themselves trying to help starving Ethiopians in the 80s, but let such help involve fighting for other's freedoms and they go awfully quiet. (Actually they don't, they just get loud when it's a Republican doing it, or is there a lib here who can explain the difference between Bosnia/Kosovo and Iraq/ Afghanistan.)

In the mid 90s, Clinton sent tomahawk missles to destory terrorist training camps in Iraq. (funny how the U.N. was silent on THAT). Terrorist TRAINING CAMPS, ED. What are you saying, that harboring terrorists is A-ok so long as they don't attack us?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
First off, ever since the Gulf War ended, it was widely believed that Saddam had WMDs. It was believed by the Bush Sr Administration, it was believed by the Clinton Administration and it was believed by W. Gore believed Saddam had WMDs, KERRY believed Saddam had WMDs. Also, the U.N. had some 14 resolutions calling for Saddam to disarm. Do you really want to try your line of bilge that Bush was making stuff up just to go and have a war?
First of all, when Clinton, Kerry and Gore believed Saddam had weapons, the latest UN Inspection Report hadn’t come out. That is what showed that Saddam had no weapons past 1992. The last UN Inspection (which happened during the Bush Administration) showed that Iraq posed no threat, and had no weapons. Of course everyone believed Saddam had weapons, prior to 2000…for we didn’t have the latest reports.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
First off, it ain't true, secondly you accuse us of wanting a war when we are so far away tapping happily on our keyboards. How comfortable were YOU when Saddam was happily filling mass graves with innocent victims? How comfortable were YOU when Saddam was gassing the Kurds with WMDs he didn't have?
First of all, we gave Saddam the weapons he used against the Kurds. That happened in 1988 (when he gassed the Kurds). That was the same year he was attacking Iran, which we supported. Which we gave him the weapons for. So actually, we didn’t mind him gassing the Kurds. We even gave him the weapons that he used against the Kurds.

Also, no one said Saddam was a good guy. But just because he was a murderer, that doesn’t mean we can just go and launch war against him. This is a war on terrorism, not murderers. We should be focusing on terrorism, and ridding the threats to the United States in the world. This was not the time or place to be dealing with Saddam. Iran, NK, Pakistan, and many other nations were far more threatening to our security. We should have taken care of them, before moving onto Iraq.

Dose,

I refuse to believe that we gave Saddam the poison gas he used on the Kurds. In fact, Saddam made the gas himself.

Yes we did aid Saddam at one point. Just like we aided the mujahideen in Afghanistan. The United States aided Iraq, a secular country in order to stop a greater threat, which was Iran and its radical Islam. The U.S. did as much in Afghanistan. We gave aid to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan because they were fighting a greater (in our view) threat, which was Soviet Communism. When the situation changed, America turned on both Iraq and on the Mujahideen. The United States did what was in our own best interests by supporting the LESSER of two evils.

Also, Pakistan, Iran North Korea, are threats, but Saddam had over a dozen U.N. resolutions hanging over his head, so the United States did what it could at the time and got rid of Saddam. The United States can't fight against every tyrant in the world, but it can do the best it can when the oppurtunity arises.

Iraq had NO WEAPONS past '92? Then why were weapon inspectors in the country AFTER 2000? Why did Clinton/Gore/Kerry say Saddam had weapons in the late 90s? Why was Saddam so evasive when it came to WMDs? Your argument doesn't hold water. Dammit.

Overdosed!!!!

Every single thread? What is wrong with you?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Yes we did aid Saddam at one point. Just like we aided the mujahideen in Afghanistan. The United States aided Iraq, a secular country in order to stop a greater threat, which was Iran and its radical Islam. The U.S. did as much in Afghanistan. We gave aid to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan because they were fighting a greater (in our view) threat, which was Soviet Communism. When the situation changed, America turned on both Iraq and on the Mujahideen. The United States did what was in our own best interests by supporting the LESSER of two evils.
Yes, we aided Saddam when he was killing the Kurds. Period. The fact is, you don’t launch war against Saddam for something he did almost a decade ago. If it wasn’t important then, then it isn’t important now. We have, and had more imminent threats to deal with before invading Iraq.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Also, Pakistan, Iran North Korea, are threats, but Saddam had over a dozen U.N. resolutions hanging over his head, so the United States did what it could at the time and got rid of Saddam. The United States can't fight against every tyrant in the world, but it can do the best it can when the oppurtunity arises.
Wrong. Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea had weapons. Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia were sponsoring terrorism and are/were gigantic threats to America.

We should have dealt with them before moving onto Iraq. The fact is, Iraq didn’t have weapons. The inspections showed that Saddam had no weapons. He was not a threat to the United States. Yes, we can’t fight everything at once. Which is why you go for the larger threats first. The larger threats included Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The Bush Administration didn’t do that, and we are now more vulnerable then we were before 9/11.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Iraq had NO WEAPONS past '92? Then why were weapon inspectors in the country AFTER 2000? Why did Clinton/Gore/Kerry say Saddam had weapons in the late 90s? Why was Saddam so evasive when it came to WMDs? Your argument doesn't hold water. Dammit.
Yes, the latest UN Reports showed that he didn’t have weapons past 92.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Overdosed!!!!

Every single thread? What is wrong with you?
That you republicans don't understand anything. If they can post on the Iraq War, I sure as hell can. Deal with it.

You do know, that getting you pissed off, only makes me more happy. Thanks for the reassurance, though.

It does piss me off. I see that you are following through with your promise to de-rail every single thread, including threads about black voting, to deliver your message that Saddam never had WMD. Good for you. I will be asking that moderation put a stop to this. You, sir, are out of control.

Originally posted by Karankawa
It does piss me off. I see that you are following through with your promise to de-rail every single thread, including threads about black voting, to deliver your message that Saddam never had WMD. Good for you. I will be asking that moderation put a stop to this. You, sir, are out of control.
Yes, cry to the moderators.

Now, lets think about this...shall we?

You post on the Iraq War (in another thread), I respond on why you are incorrect. Yet, I get in trouble for posting on the Iraq War, when you brought it up in the first place.

Darth Be'lal posts on the Iraq War, I respond on why he is incorrect. Yet, I get in trouble for posting on the Iraq War, when he brought it up in the first place.

Make sense? No, it does not. I suggest you get a life. Put me on ignore if I'm such an issue for you.

Also, go cry me a river, build a bridge and get the fuck over it. I'll reply, and post whatever I want to. If the topic is brought up (Iraq War), I'll sure as hell reply.

I'm glad it pisses you off, because that is what I like doing. Pissing off conservatives. I'm glad it's working.

Now, do me a favor, and attack everyone else who posts on the Iraq War, in a thread that is not specifically designated for the Iraq War. Oh, wait; if they are conservatives you let them get away with it. Nice try, but your bias is showing.

Yes, the latest UN Reports showed that he didn’t have weapons past 92.

Then why did the UN pass a resolution mere months before we went into Iraq saying "disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences?"

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Then why did the UN pass a resolution mere months before we went into Iraq saying "disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences?"

Because in 92' we didn't know if Saddam had weapons or not, for we didn't have inspectors in Iraq (at least I don't believe we did) And after all the inspections throughout the 90's and 2000-2003 we have now found that Saddam did disarm.

Originally posted by Overdose
Because in 92' we didn't know if Saddam had weapons or not, for we didn't have inspectors in Iraq (at least I don't believe we did) And after all the inspections throughout the 90's and 2000-2003 we have now found that Saddam did disarm.

I'm not sure how this answers my question unless you mistakenly thought I was refering to the first Gulf War. I was talking about the current Iraq war. Months before Bush II went into Iraq, the UN passed this resolution. Not sure why they would do that if we knew at the time that Saddam had no weapons.

Sorry, I was confused. Would you care to cite that? Because the inspectors were in Iraq months before we launched the war. Their reports cited that Saddam had no weapons. I’m not sure what you are referring to.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

Yep, that was in 2002....the inspectors were in Iraq in 2003…and they reported that Saddam had disarmed.

Here is a recap of my exchange with Overdose in a thread quite a while back that covered this same topic, in which I clearly showed Overdose where Clinton was fully convinced that that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had WMD. It also shows where the UN (Mr. Keyes) states that Iraq intelligence "outclassed" the UN weapons inspectors by infiltrating the UN itself. He also states that the UN did not have the resources to win a cat and mouse game with Iraq intell.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Karankawa:

Clinton said in 1998:

"Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

I'm trying to be patient, I realize you probably were not aware of what was going on back then. The UN inspectors were basically being led on a wild goose chase, and it was very conceivable that the reason Iraq was doing that was so that they could continue to hide their WMD. Since they were not getting rid of them throughout the 90s in the wake of the Gulf War, it is very logical to assume that he could have easily held onto them until it was obvious that the US was about to invade.


quote (from Overdose):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, who cares? This is between Kerry and Bush. I don’t care about Clinton…so who cares? Good for him…if you are right or if I am right, who cares? Clinton isn’t going to be President nor does it matter what he thinks right now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You, Kerry, and some others insist almost everyday that Bush "lied" about intelligence. Remember, you just said that on page one of this thread? I'm simply trying to show you (and Democrats in general) that you are very likely wrong.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overdosed:

Karankawa I’ve heard that argument a million times. I’m fully aware that the United Nations was lead on by Saddam Hussein throughout the 90’s. When have I ever denied that? No one has ever said Saddam was a good man.

And since he was playing this “goose chase”, the entire world stopped trade with Iraq in the later 90's. Which forced Saddam to start complying with all demands in the United Nations. That is exactly what happened.

Saddam promised to disarm, and so we gave him time to disarm and we started trade again. What happened was, he told the United Nations that he disarmed. Since we didn’t believe him, as with previous encounters, we inspected Iraq yet again. This time, if he didn’t disarm and lead us on a “wild goose chase” he was going to face serious consequences.

And the fact is, David Kay stated this in the UN...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saddam is complying with all demands and cooperating 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Which thus shows that Saddam in the last UN inspection was complying. He ended up having no weapons, and was no threat.

The fact is, yes, he previously was not complying. But in the last inspection he was complying. So why would we attack him, once he was complying?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Karankawa:


But if Saddam lied to inspectors and misled them over and over and over again, why makes you think that he would not do the same thing in 2002?

And can you link where David Kay said that Saddam is cooperating 100%? I can't find that anywhere. Here is a quote from Mr. Kay in 2003 that leads me to believe you are full of shit:

"We UNSCOM inspectors simply did not have the resources to win a game of hide and seek. The same is true today. The number of inspectors was always terribly small -- seldom more than 300 in the country at any one time. And we were totally outclassed by Iraqi security, which had managed to infiltrate the United Nations in Vienna and New York, as well as the Bahrain office of UNSCOM. "

http://www.useu.be/Categories/Globa...kingGunKay.html

I guess we can both simply post the same things over and over until moderation finally steps in. *shrug* I would like to point out that moderation has allowed Overdose to post and re-post for months now. This is my first time. I'm looking into my crystal ball, and I'm seeing my hands get slapped while Overdose receives no consequences. We will see.

Originally posted by Karankawa
It does piss me off. I see that you are following through with your promise to de-rail every single thread, including threads about black voting, to deliver your message that Saddam never had WMD. Good for you. I will be asking that moderation put a stop to this. You, sir, are out of control.

Karankawa, OD did not "derail" this thread, he was responding to a post by Darth. It would also seem that there are others who wish to discuss the Iraq War.

So be it, oh wise moderator.

You can use this “goose chase” as your reasoning, but David Kay in 2004 has said that “Iraq never had the weapons” Reports have shown that Saddam didn’t have weapons. And we have not found any weapons. Proving that Saddam was never a threat.

You can use this “goose chase” as your validation for war (which is a fairly weak reason for war) But if you want to get real about this, we kicked the UN Inspectors out before they were done with their searching. We know now that Saddam didn’t have weapons, so why would he lead us on a goose chase? One can on speculate.

But going to war based on him leading us on this “goose chase” is weak. We had imminent threats out in the world, and we go after a man we “think, might, could” have weapons? Give me a break.

Originally posted by Karankawa
I'm looking into my crystal ball, and I'm seeing my hands get slapped while Overdose receives no consequences. We will see.

You should clean off that ball...it's a little foggy.

Originally posted by Karankawa
So be it, oh wise moderator.

Karankawa, I can read a thread...if you want to bitch at someone about derailing the thread, bitch at Darth. If you have a problem with me, bitch to DrewM.

Done. Frankly, I found it frustrating enough to see that you, of all people, were made moderator, after posting spelling corrections and grammar corrections many, many times in a clear manner so as to agitate myself and other posters. And when you also go so far as to turn a deaf ear when someone has threatened to, and carried out their threat, to post the same information over and over, then I have no choice but to fight fire with fire.

I think the real reason that you choose to moderate the way you do is because you have a very biased political opinion yourself. Your long time buddy, Overdosed, is allowed to post over and over and over again, while anoyone moderate or conservative, I would imagine, would quickly be stopped or possibly banned.

Awww, so conservatives can bring up the Iraq War all they want, but liberals (like me) can’t? It’s funny because in this thread and many others the conservatives have brought up the Iraq War, I’ve replied to their repetitive reasons for why we should support it, with my repetitive reasons for why we shouldn’t support it.

Yet, I get in trouble for always talking about it? Yet, in the past two threads it was the republicans that have brought it up. Oh, the irony.

I'm not happy about Darth bringing it up either. But you do it all the time. That's the first time I can remember Darth doing it.

That's the difference.

EDIT: I probably need to point out that Overdose de-railed this thread yesterday with the same exact subject:

http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8432

There have been other examples, but I have only just yesterday begun to keep track. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm sick of this crap.

In any case, you should be very proud of yourself. You, me and our buddies the moderators have allowed everyone here to totally and completely annhiliate what was an interesting thread. Maybe we can make every there here on the Politics forum about the Saddam Hussein, and the war in Iraq. Let's not talk about blacks and their 88% bias and why that is, oh no. Saddam, Iraq, more more!

I'm finding it difficult to restrain myself from posting that response to your "Saddamn had no WMD" BS on every single thread that you posted that in. After all, you were allowed to do it. Why shouldn't I?

Originally posted by Karankawa
I'm not happy about Darth bringing it up either. But you do it all the time. That's the first time I can remember Darth doing it.

That's the difference.

Actually Karankawa, this is from the post that started this thread:

GW is a warmonger. We are in Iraq because of WMD but there are no WMD. I won't take time to explain why this is a bunch of bullshit.

Suffice it to say that GW and all the jingoists who support him are bloodthirsty savages. You don't care wether or not there is a good reason for war, you seem to revel in the very fact of war itself (although you revel in it from America in the safety of your internet message board).

Everybody keeps using the word "moral" these days. Killing thousands of civilians for no good reason is wrong.

It seems to me that this thread is about the War in Iraq. I take back my statement that Darth may have derailed the thread. It hasn't been derailed at all.

Originally posted by Overdose
Yep, that was in 2002....the inspectors were in Iraq in 2003…and they reported that Saddam had disarmed.

November 2002. Mere months before we went into Iraq. You're saying that between November 2002 and March 2003, Saddam fully complied with the inspectors and the resolutions, and the UN completed their inspections and said Saddam was in total compliance? No, I don't believe that was the case.

The subject of the thread is "Why Black people voted for Kerry." The posts ensuing the original post point out why the original post is BS. The reason that Black people voted for Kerry has nothing to do with the Iraq war, obviously.

If I have to point out to you when a thread is getting screwed up, then maybe you have no business being a moderator.

im sorry to stay off topic.....but OD pretty much admits how lame clinton, gore, kerry, and edwards are.

With OD's outrageous claim that Saddam didnt have WMD's since 1992.....even though Kerry and edwards have been quoted THIS YEAR saying he did, it doesnt all add up.

OD is so intent on trying to say that "Bush hated the middle east and went to war because he likes it".

I never hear him talk about allllll the delaying, all the games, all the BS saddam put out there BEFORE he even let weapons inspectors in. That alone sets off an alarm that SOMETHING is wrong. If he had nothing to hide, why would he do that OD?

And then OD wants me to believe UN weapons inspectors, the very same UN which i believe to be corrupt and made millions off saddam. Yea, i bet THEY would blow the whistle and sacrafice their cash flow on behalf of the U.S.

And then OD wants me to just wipe the slate clean of his previous boys. IF IRAQ DIDNT HAVE WMD'S...THAN WHY DID CLINTON SAY THEY DID? If you rip on bush for "not knowing"...than what do you have to say about your former president? Are Kerry, edwards, gore and clinton all idiots too??? If you admit that, then i have no problem.

Originally posted by Karankawa
If I have to point out to you when a thread is getting screwed up, then maybe you have no business being a moderator.

Since I don't discuss your complaints in the open forum, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't discuss your opinions of my moderating here. If you have a problem with my moderating, either send me a PM, or contact DrewM.

Originally posted by Decka

And then OD wants me to just wipe the slate clean of his previous boys. IF IRAQ DIDNT HAVE WMD'S...THAN WHY DID CLINTON SAY THEY DID? If you rip on bush for "not knowing"...than what do you have to say about your former president? Are Kerry, edwards, gore and clinton all idiots too??? If you admit that, then i have no problem. if i told you that i wanted to punch you in the face, but the guy standing next to me actually punched you in the face, you dont blame me ! you blame the guy that actually did it. the problem with you guys always bringing up clinton and what other dems thought is that THEY DIDNT DO IT !!!! REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY THOUGHT. ! SUE THE GUY THAT PUNCHED YOU !!

I used the Iraq war as a particular.

I then went to the general (the whole thing about conservatives nescessarily being against minority groups).

I agree that handouts are not going to help poor people. Nothing America is going to do will undo what She has done to Black people. We have to use our own hands to build our own community before we can put the 'neighbor' back in the 'hood'.

the problem with you guys always bringing up clinton and what other dems thought is that THEY DIDNT DO IT !!!!

I disagree. When you guys claim Bush "lied," bringing up Clinton, etc is very relevant. If Bush lied, then so did Kerry, Clinton, etc. Makes no difference who did anything about it, a lie is a lie. No one lied.

I think this thread was doomed to drift when the thread title didn't relate to the initial post.

I am a black person. I told why I voted the way I voted.

Originally posted by Ed Blank
Nothing America is going to do will undo what She has done to Black people. We have to use our own hands to build our own community before we can put the 'neighbor' back in the 'hood'.
You chuckle me. Here's an idea: instead of looking for a national apology, do something really profound - make a difference.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
You chuckle me. Here's an idea: instead of looking for a national apology, do something really profound - make a difference.

Like an arrogant fool like you could ever make a difference. It's people like you who make the world in the mess it is in now.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
You chuckle me. Here's an idea: instead of looking for a national apology, do something really profound - make a difference.

My post stated that BLACk PEOPLE need to get THEMSELVES out from under America's jackboot.

You have deeper issues than being amused by me. You have on Jim Crow colored glasses. You just keep regurgitating the party line.

Take a moment to actually read the stuff you are trying to rebut.

Originally posted by the J Man
Like an arrogant fool like you could ever make a difference. It's people like you who make the world in the mess it is in now.
This would mean something to me if I actually cared what you thought.

I'll tell you one thing, making a difference in society isn't usually accomplished by aspiring to be a "machine operator". Congrats on that one. Maybe someday, I'll head up to Canada, and we'll have a deep conversation while we mix cement together. How's that sound, chooch?

Originally posted by Ed Blank
My post stated that BLACk PEOPLE need to get THEMSELVES out from under America's jackboot.

You have deeper issues than being amused by me. You have on Jim Crow colored glasses. You just keep regurgitating the party line.

Take a moment to actually read the stuff you are trying to rebut.
Excuse me, sir, but your verbosity is exceeded only by your inanity.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
This would mean something to me if I actually cared what you thought.

I'm just telling you the truth about yourself.

I'll tell you one thing, making a difference in society isn't usually accomplished by aspiring to be a "machine operator". Congrats on that one.

What a person's occupation is,doesn't determine what they can accomplish or what difference they can amke. It only takes a little common sense to fgure that out.

Maybe someday, I can head up to Canada, and we'll have a deep conversation while we mix cement together. How's that sound, chooch?

It seems that you alread are mixed up.

First off, apologies for seeming to be a one subject poster. Specifically about Iraq. That is not my intention.

Secondly, I must publicly thank Vile Pagan. We'll never agree on the same issues, and he has been a downright pain in the ass when it comes to posting rebutalls, BUT he is fair and he did come to my defense on this particular posting thread. I think he is a good example of someone should be on these boards. Thank you Vile Pagan.