Post-Election Analysis

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

To be a bigot you have to be intolerant. Each of the definitions we can find inlcude that idea. Anyone can think their way is the right way and not be a bigot. It's the intolerance that makes it bigotry. So I said oppress. It seems the same to me. Maybe I should find a definition of intolerant...

How about "refusing to allow others the enjoyment of their opinions, rights, or worship"? Sounds like opperssion to me.

Seriously, I think to be a bigot you have to espouse some action to stop another person from being different from you. It's not enough just to disagree.

Where in teh definition does it say that some ACTION must be taken? That is YOUR definition - as I said - you are trying to REDEFINE the word on your own beliefs - when I have used the word properly.

But I think the right is enjoying changing the definitions of these important words. It isn't racism to oppose Condi's appointment. It isn't racist to ask if the Klansmen in the south have enough power to take votes away from the Republicans if they run a black candidate. These are just questions. I think people fear the answers and that is why they want to characterize the question in order to avoid it.

Yeah - as if the south is SWARMING with klansman. I don't think people fear the question. I think the question is stupid. There is already the website supporting her candidacy by the way - Rice 2008

[jerseydevil]

Khamul - if you read this - I just wanted to know if French news was right about Alabama - is it the most racist state in the country?

[jerseydevil]

I was going to post this yesterday - but didn't. I find this very interesting...

Canadians open arms to Americans

Monday, November 15, 2004 Posted: 9:13 AM EST (1413 GMT)

SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- Rudi Kischer wants to help those Americans who have the post-election blues after U.S. President George W. Bush's second-term victory.

The Vancouver, British Columbia, immigration lawyer plans seminars in three U.S. cities -- Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles -- to tell Americans frustrated with Bush's re-election that the grass is greener north of the border.

And that's not just an allusion to Canada's lenient marijuana laws.

"We started last year getting a lot of calls from Americans dissatisfied with the way the country is going," Kischer says. "Then after the election, it's been crazy up here. The Canadian immigration Web site had 115,000 hits the day after the election -- from the U.S. alone. We usually only get 20,000 hits."

There was so much interest that a Vancouver-based Internet company, Communicopia, set up a new Web site this month -- www.canadianalternative.com -- to suggest Canada as a viable option for its American clients, including anyone concerned about constitutional bans on gay marriage passed in 11 U.S. states this month.

"We invite you to get to know Canada," the site says. "Explore the richness and diversity of our regions. And find out why Canada is the perfect alternative for conscientious, forward-thinking Americans."

Another Web site urges Canadians: "Open your heart, and your home. Marry an American. Legions of Canadians have already pledged to sacrifice their singlehood to save our southern neighbours from four more years of cowboy conservatism."

Canada suddenly has utopian appeal for many left-leaning Americans. Its universal health care, gay rights, abortion rights, gun-control laws, drug laws, opposition to the Iraq war, ban on capital punishment and ethnic diversity mirror many values of the American left.

Immigrants, including an estimated 1 million Americans, make up nearly 20 percent of Canada's population. The United Nations named Toronto the world's most multicultural city.

And, as Michael Moore pointed out in "Bowling for Columbine" -- required viewing for many lefties -- in Canada there's apparently no reason to lock your door.

On the other hand, it's cold. The baseball's not very good -- so long, Expos. And the taxes are higher, eh?

But, as one American who has his bags nearly packed likes to say, at least the taxes go toward good causes.

"I just like their way of life a lot better, and with everything the Bush administration has done -- for the American people to give him their seal of approval, it's basically the last straw," says Ralph Appoldt, a resident of Portland, in Oregon, a state that narrowly supported Democrat John Kerry for president.

"Canada's basic population is much more intelligent, polite and civilized,"Appoldt said. "I like their way of government a lot better. Their tax dollars go to helping those who need it, instead of funneling money back up to the wealthy and feeding this huge military-industrial machine."

Appoldt, 50, a sales manager, and his wife, a nurse, figure that selling their house and getting their immigration approved could take more than a year. But they're moving, they insist. They've already hired Kischer to help them.

Though he may see a good business opportunity following the election, Kischer has no illusions of a mass American exodus to Canada.

Americans have to follow the same procedures as everybody else -- including the $500 (387 euro) application fee, the $975 (755 euro) landing tax, and the wait of six months to two years.

He only expects about 100 people at each of the how-to-move-to-Canada seminars, all scheduled in Democratic-leaning areas -- December 4 in Seattle, December 5 in Los Angeles and December 6 in San Francisco.

Nancy Bray, a spokeswoman for Citizenship and Immigration Canada, said her agency's Web site received 261,000 hits from the United States in the two days following the election, but it'll be many months before officials can guess how many of them were serious.

"Our interest, our goal, is to attract the best possible immigrants," Bray says. "If there's a lot of publicity about our country, that's to our benefit. But we're not interested in people's political leanings or political dissatisfaction."

Jason Mogus, Communicopia's chief executive, said that while his company wanted to help interested Americans, moving to Canada should be plan B.

"We strongly encourage Americans to stay and build a culture in line with their values," Mogus said. "In other words, stay and fight."

These are the people who I do not consider as Americans. We have a democracy - the people voted, because they don't like the outcome they're leaving. I didn't know that was how democracy worked. I thought you voted, hoped for you candidate to win, and if they didn't you worked with it. It seems more like these people want American democracy to be their way or no way. I think these people should have their citizenship stripped if they leave - they want to be fair weather Americans - then they're not needed here. Talk about whiners.

[edit]BTW - I forgot to put this - I wonder where these people will go after Canada becomes part of the US.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I was going to post this yesterday - but didn't. I find this very interesting...



These are the people who I do not consider as Americans. We have a democracy - the people voted, because they don't like the outcome they're leaving. I didn't know that was how democracy worked. I thought you voted, hoped for you candidate to win, and if they didn't you worked with it. It seems more like these people want American democracy to be their way or no way. I think these people should have their citizenship stripped if they leave - they want to be fair weather Americans - then they're not needed here. Talk about whiners.

[edit]BTW - I forgot to put this - I wonder where these people will go after Canada becomes part of the US.

If Canada were part of the US right now, Kerry would be PotUS and we would have national health. They consider themselves "civilized". That's what they tell me when I joke about stuff in the US. "We are a civilized country" meaning they aren't governed by the Catholic Church. Don't hit me, I'm just quoting.

I never said swarming. sigh...

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

If Canada were part of the US right now, Kerry would be PotUS and we would have national health.

Actually - not necessarily - because they would most likely not be coming over as one state - but each province would be a state - with it's own electoral votes. We would have to know how the electoral votes would have to come out.

They consider themselves "civilized". That's what they tell me when I joke about stuff in the US. "We are a civilized country" meaning they aren't governed by the Catholic Church. Don't hit me, I'm just quoting.

Catholic Church huh? It seems like they don't know much about the US - but I already knew that by going up there a ton of times and hearing the stuff they say. I especially like the "civilized country" bit - how do they figure that? Because they rely on the US for their national defense - so they don't have to spend any money there at all? Look at how their JUST BOUGHT sub burned in the North Atlantic a few weeks ago. Great navy there.

I never said swarming. sigh...

Well then - I guess if you didn't mean the klan is "swarming" in the south - then they most likely wouldn't have much of an effect on the election - now would they?

[EDIT]Quebec most likely would not come over - so you would lose the "french" vote there. :P

[Cirdan]

Do the math. In an election that was very close, what percentage of the population voting on the basis of race and/or gender would it take to change the outcome of the election?

There is a reason Obama is the first African-American in the Senate since reconstruction. There is a reason there only several females. There is a reason there has never been a female or AA president. Segregation may be in the past but racism is alive and well. Progress has been made. The greatest factor may be that whites will soon be the minority to non-whites (already are in Cali).

[Nurvingiel]

What a stupid article! This is no offence to you JD, I know you just put it for fun... at least I hope that... maybe it is kind of funny. The sad part is, I think these people think this is some sort of viable plan!

Gems like these really gave me respect for their integrity and quality of journalism...

Another Web site urges Canadians: "Open your heart, and your home. Marry an American. Legions of Canadians have already pledged to sacrifice their singlehood to save our southern neighbours from four more years of cowboy conservatism."

"Canada's basic population is much more intelligent, polite and civilized,"Appoldt said. "I like their way of government a lot better. Their tax dollars go to helping those who need it, instead of funneling money back up to the wealthy and feeding this huge military-industrial machine."

Any legitimate point they might have made with this was hamstrung by pointless insults.

And, as Michael Moore pointed out in "Bowling for Columbine" -- required viewing for many lefties -- in Canada there's apparently no reason to lock your door.

Did Michael Moore actually say that? Or do the writer's (and I use that term loosely) think that? Just because guns are less common doesn't mean we have no crime at all...

On the other hand, it's cold. The baseball's not very good -- so long, Expos. And the taxes are higher, eh?

Yes... Canada's cold... and there's a 10m wall of snow as soon as you hit the border... And so what if baseball isn't a national priority, sheesh. And that is blatant misuse of "eh".

And in a rare moment of accurate reporting...

Canada suddenly has utopian appeal for many left-leaning Americans. Its universal health care, gay rights, abortion rights, gun-control laws, drug laws, opposition to the Iraq war, ban on capital punishment and ethnic diversity mirror many values of the American left.

All this rant it to get into my real rant.

The idea that your election went badly so you're going to skip town pisses me off. At least you have elections! There is no genocide, no horrible civil war, no oppression, no starvation or pandemic illness... in the grand scheme of things, the USA is a great place to live. So you don't like the government. Boo hoo. Stay in your country and make it a better place, and leave immigration for people who legitimately need it like political refugees.

That being said, I have no problems with someone moving because they'd like to live here for a variety of reasons, but moving because of the election's outcome irritates me. I also have no issue at all with gay couples moving here to be legitimately married.

What if Stephen Harper became Prime Minister? *shudder* Would all these people up and leave again instead of trying to help get someone sensible elected?

And we are not going to join the USA, what on Earth gave you that idea? And hey, leave our navy out of this!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

Do the math. In an election that was very close, what percentage of the population voting on the basis of race and/or gender would it take to change the outcome of the election?

There is a reason Obama is the first African-American in the Senate since reconstruction. There is a reason there only several females. There is a reason there has never been a female or AA president. Segregation may be in the past but racism is alive and well. Progress has been made. The greatest factor may be that whites will soon be the minority to non-whites (already are in Cali).

Oh yeah - let's ignore the fact that most of the blacks that run are of the Al Sharpton variety and that the ones that aren't are portrayed as traitors in the black community.

By the way - when was reconstruction? Because there have been 5 black senators - so I'm not sure how you can say he's the first. He's said to be the first with "clout".

You must be getting the uS confused with Canada, the country up north who is so progressive - that they just got THEIR first black senator.

First Canadian Black Senator - Anne Cools - Leaves Liberals to Join Conservatives

OTTAWA, June 9, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Senator Anne Cools, appointed by former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau as Canada's first black Senator, announced yesterday that she will no longer be sitting as a Liberal senator and will be joining the Conservative caucus in the Senate. Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition noted Cools' efforts in defending the traditional definition of marriage and freedom of speech threatened by homosexual hate crime bill C-250.

Speaking about Cools, Hughes told LifeSiteNews.com "An outspoken and tireless defender of the family has finally crossed the floor to sit with the Tories after years of putting up with the constant harassment from the pro-abortion, anti-family feminists among her former Liberal colleagues. Although the Liberals don't know it yet she will be sadly missed." Cools stands out in Canadian politics for an attribute sorely lacking in most politicians - back-bone. "Every time her own tried to intimidate her and silence her she rose above the occasion."

Senator Cools described her decision as being driven by her inability to defend repeated Liberal spending scandals, particularly the billions wasted on the sponsorship scandal and the billions on the gun registry.

"I can no longer defend the Liberal record. Like so many Canadians, I had been hopeful that Mr. Martin would initiate a new era, a genesis and renewal in the Liberal government. I had hoped for an affirmation of responsible government, diligent stewardship of public moneys and renewed leadership, accountable to elected members and the public, not its paid advisors," said Senator Cools. "But we have seen the opposite. We now know that Mr. Martin's promised review of the gun registry was posturing and optics."

Senator Cools came to her decision after months of contemplation and introspection. Her decision to become a Conservative Senator, rather than an independent, was prompted by her personal respect for Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper.

Let's ignore this too of what is happening Goergio - let's just keep saying "racism, racism, racism"...

First Black State Senator Since Reconstruction Immortalized With. Portrait At State Capitol

Atlanta Inquirer; June 24, 1995; Christopher Weems

Atlanta Inquirer

June 24, 1995

BY CHRISTOPHER WEEMS

Former State Senator Leroy Johnson says that he has learned that "In politics, you get not what you deserve, but what you can negotiate."

Last week, Johnson, who in 1962 became the first African American since Reconstruction to be elected to Georgia's General Assembly, got what he deserved. A portrait of him, to be displayed in the State Capitol alongside other prominent legislators in the state's history, was unveiled to an overflow crowd in the Senate Chambers.

Prominent well-wishers, including present and past officeholders heaped praise upon Johnson, who many credited with paying a significant role in smoothing Georgia's transition from segregation in the 50s to the Civil Rights era and the subsequent opening of opportunities for Black people in all areas of the...

You may also be interested in this...

The Next Black Senator?

A favorite to win today's Illinois Senate primary, Barack Obama hasn't always been a favorite among Chicago's black voters. The problem? This African American wasn't seen as black enough.

The article states...

Obama will be positioned to carry the November election in this overwhelmingly Democratic state. If that happens he will join an elite club of African American US Senators, becoming the second from Illinois behind Carol Moseley-Braun, and the first black man to hold a US Senate seat since Republican Edward Brooke of Massachusetts served from 1967 to 1979.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What a stupid article! This is no offence to you JD, I know you just put it for fun... at least I hope that... maybe it is kind of funny. The sad part is, I think these people think this is some sort of viable plan!

Well I didn't put it there because it's funny - but because there are actually whiners who are leaving the US or planning to because they don't like the way a DEMOCRATIC country voted. I wasn't putting it up there as an attack against Canada, although I am pissed with what some of the Canadians had to say in it about the US.

The idea that your election went badly so you're going to skip town pisses me off. At least you have elections! There is no genocide, no horrible civil war, no oppression, no starvation or pandemic illness... in the grand scheme of things, the USA is a great place to live. So you don't like the government. Boo hoo. Stay in your country and make it a better place, and leave immigration for people who legitimately need it like political refugees.

That being said, I have no problems with someone moving because they'd like to live here for a variety of reasons, but moving because of the election's outcome irritates me. I also have no issue at all with gay couples moving here to be legitimately married.

What if Stephen Harper became Prime Minister? *shudder* Would all these people up and leave again instead of trying to help get someone sensible elected?

That's exactly how I feel. They're leaving because they don't like the way a democratic country voted. I feel so sorry for them. I was also thinking the same thing about what happens if you guys have a conservative PM - it's not like it's not unusual. They just know what the country is now - they seem to be completely ignorant that Canada goes through the same politcal swings that the US goes through.

And we are not going to join the USA, what on Earth gave you that idea?

You will - just you wait. It's only a matter of time.

And hey, leave our navy out of this!

I can't - it's sort of funny.

[inked]

Hey, what about all the Canadian nurses and doctors I have worked with in the past 20+ years? They were in SC, VA, and TX - partly because it was warmer, of course, but also so they could make some money instead of working for the Canadian government! Least that was the reason they gave!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by inked

Hey, what about all the Canadian nurses and doctors I have worked with in the past 20+ years? They were in SC, VA, and TX - partly because it was warmer, of course, but also so they could make some money instead of working for the Canadian government! Least that was the reason they gave!

Well I know when I was up in Canada in May - Brantford had in the newspaper who they have a severe doctors shortage. People don't want to be doctors there because with the amount of education required and because they're salaries are capped - it doesn't make any sense to be a doctor.

BTW - France is also in desperate problems with their health care - along with the rest of their socialist policies - but every time they try to change something there is this huge outcry.

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Did Michael Moore actually say that? Or do the writer's (and I use that term loosely) think that? Just because guns are less common doesn't mean we have no crime at all...

Yes, he did. And guns actually aren't that much less common in Canada than they are in the US...a point he made in the same film.

(did a rhetorical analysis of his movie..grumble...)

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

My question is - why wasn't this brought up with Colin Powell?

actually Ive heard many many people say Powell or ANY black president wouldn’t last 4 years in office because * wink* * wink*… implying assassination.

They're the ones misguided and blinded. Soon they will realize that all democrats want to do is keep them poor so they have a steady voting base.

keep them poor by providing them more funds for scholarships and housing? So your contention is that the republican party is actually the party of the minority? What a crock. The republicans write off blacks as a rule. Those scant few who decide to join the party are just considered bonuses and good fodder for marketing. And I find it ridiculous that you keep insisting that Cllinton only included blacks to fill quotas while republicans do it because they are “the best people for the job”. Republicans parade the tiny number of blacks they capture around in front of the cameras for political purposes all the time. Remember the 2000 Republican convention? “Hey look Buffy! We have black people in the party! Isnt that swell! How compassionate of us!”

The world isn’t filled with tons of Colin Powells and Clarence Thomases. The vast majority of blacks feel disenfranchised by the policies and ideals of the republican party. Is anyone in the party asking themselves why is that? Are you at all concerned with that or do you not care? Some blacks agree with some of the republican social issues but it tends to be overwhelmed by the anti-poor “screw you, you get no hand out from me” air that seems to surround republicans. And just saying blacks are “misguided and blinded” IS a perfect example of simply writing them off as I said. The bottom line is republicans write blacks off and democrats take blacks for granted. What a great situation to be in eh?

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The world isn’t filled with tons of Colin Powells and Clarence Thomases. The vast majority of blacks feel disenfranchised by the policies and ideals of the republican party. Is anyone in the party asking themselves why is that? Are you at all concerned with that or do you not care?

Oooh! I know! I know! Pick me!

For the same reason that the vast majority of Americans feel disenfranchised by the policies and ideals of politicians in general. Is anyone on either side stopping to consider the possibility that they've alienated most of the country?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

actually Ive heard many many people say Powell or ANY black president wouldn’t last 4 years in office because * wink* * wink*… implying assassination.

Hmmm - and there have been threats against Bush too. There are always idiots.

keep them poor by providing them more funds for scholarships and housing? So your contention is that the republican party is actually the party of the minority? What a crock. The republicans write off blacks as a rule. Those scant few who decide to join the party are just considered bonuses and good fodder for marketing. And I find it ridiculous that you keep insisting that Cllinton only included blacks to fill quotas while republicans do it because they are “the best people for the job”. Republicans parade the tiny number of blacks they capture around in front of the cameras for political purposes all the time. Remember the 2000 Republican convention? “Hey look Buffy! We have black people in the party! Isnt that swell! How compassionate of us!”

The world isn’t filled with tons of Colin Powells and Clarence Thomases. The vast majority of blacks feel disenfranchised by the policies and ideals of the republican party. Is anyone in the party asking themselves why is that? Are you at all concerned with that or do you not care? Some blacks agree with some of the republican social issues but it tends to be overwhelmed by the anti-poor “screw you, you get no hand out from me” air that seems to surround republicans. And just saying blacks are “misguided and blinded” IS a perfect example of simply writing them off as I said. The bottom line is republicans write blacks off and democrats take blacks for granted. What a great situation to be in eh?

NO - actually - most blacks who support the democrats seem to like handouts, expect to live off the government - instead of actually making a better life for themseleves through their own actions and education. Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice were both able to do this - although Colin Powell does support affirmative action - I disagree with it. It's time we stopped the "us versus them" attitude and stopped living in the past.

As for what democrats have done - hwat have they done? You think democrats have actually made life better for most blacks? You think anything has changed with them constantly supporting the democrats? Give me a break. As you said - the democrats just take them as a guaranteed vote and don't care about them at all. Republicans expect people to work for what they get and earn it- not just expect it to be handed to them by the government.

[Elfhelm]

We are not a party to serve one constituent, we are MADE UP of the constituents. We ARE the people of color, and the gays, and the single moms, and the minimum wage workers. We are also the peaceniks, and the tree-huggers, and the artists. So don't propose to speak on our behalf. The Democratic Party is our alliance. Our constituents determine our platform and, when we are in power, establish policy. We're people, not just points to be scored.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

We are not a party to serve one constituent, we are MADE UP of the constituents. We ARE the people of color, and the gays, and the single moms, and the minimum wage workers. We are also the peaceniks, and the tree-huggers, and the artists. So don't propose to speak on our behalf. The Democratic Party is our alliance. Our constituents determine our platform and, when we are in power, establish policy. We're people, not just points to be scored.

You actually BELIEVE that? Hahahahah

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

NO - actually - most blacks who support the democrats seem to like handouts, expect to live off the government - instead of actually making a better life for themselves

hmm… so since 88% of all the black voters in this country voted for Kerry your contention is that “most” of these millions and millions of people just want hand outs and to live off the government? Even for you this is a ridiculous generalization. What was that you were saying earlier about making ignorant blanket assumptions on races?

Contrary to your statement, MOST democratic blacks in this country are NOT in fact crack head welfare cheats looking for hand outs. MOST blacks support the democrats because they view republican policies as anti-civil rights and directly against blacks as a group. And why would you vote for something that seems stacked against you? They see republicans trying hard to cut off scholarships for blacks, shut down housing for blacks, being more lenient on businesses that red line and maintain dual borderline unequal approaches to how minorities are treated (did you know the average black pays significantly higher for auto loans and home loans when they get them then the average white pays?) Plenty of middle class even upper class blacks wanted nothing to do with Bush and his conservative cronies because there is a conceptualization that “they” are against “us” from past experience. Are you going to ridicule an entire people based on legitimate past experience jersey?

It's time we stopped the "us versus them" attitude and stopped living in the past.

the past as in Reagan? Yeah get real. You want to stop an us versus them attitude then you cant undermine the very programs that would make blacks more likely to vote republican. You cant really stomp on a mans hand then condemn him for not shaking yours.

As for what democrats have done - hwat have they done? You think democrats have actually made life better for most blacks? You think anything has changed with them constantly supporting the democrats?

oh so you agree nothing has changed for blacks and yet you are still against any form of affirmative action? Interesting…

Blacks don’t think much of democrats OR republicans. But they realize they are much better off with feeble powered democrats right now then they are with republicans who cut them off from everything and tell them I don’t care how much harder it is for you. Pull your own damn self up by yourself. Don’t look to me. And its such a shock that blacks go to democrats?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

hmm… so since 88% of all the black voters in this country voted for Kerry your contention is that “most” of these millions and millions of people just want hand outs and to live off the government? Even for you this is a ridiculous generalization. What was that you were saying earlier about making ignorant blanket assumptions on races?

Contrary to your statement, MOST democratic blacks in this country are NOT in fact crack head welfare cheats looking for hand outs. MOST blacks support the democrats because they view republican policies as anti-civil rights and directly against blacks as a group. And why would you vote for something that seems stacked against you? They see republicans trying hard to cut off scholarships for blacks, shut down housing for blacks, being more lenient on businesses that red line and maintain dual borderline unequal approaches to how minorities are treated (did you know the average black pays significantly higher for auto loans and home loans when they get them then the average white pays?) Plenty of middle class even upper class blacks wanted nothing to do with Bush and his conservative cronies because there is a conceptualization that “they” are against “us” from past experience. Are you going to ridicule an entire people based on legitimate past experience jersey?

You can disagree with me all you want. But you know what - you basically confirmed my statements with...

...and why would you vote for something that seems stacked against you? They see republicans trying hard to cut off scholarships for blacks, shut down housing for blacks..

The thing is here is they WANT unequal treatment - that is what affirmative action is. It's not about the most qualified - it's about the color of your skin. That is what republicans are against. It's isn't against blacks - it's for EVERYONE being treated equal.

the past as in Reagan? Yeah get real. You want to stop an us versus them attitude then you cant undermine the very programs that would make blacks more likely to vote republican. You cant really stomp on a mans hand then condemn him for not shaking yours.

Agaion your statement confirms that the reason why they vote democratic is becuase youy support their goverment programs - instead of looking at this in a colorblind society. Unless we stop giving people benefits because of their color - there will never be a color blind society.

oh so you agree nothing has changed for blacks and yet you are still against any form of affirmative action? Interesting…

Yeah I'm against affirmative action - not because it helps blacks - because it does NOT help blacks. Sorry - why do blacks need affirmative action? Aren't they good enough to get in on their own merits? Aren't they smart enough? I believe they are and don't need affirmative action to get into schools and get ahead.

Blacks don’t think much of democrats OR republicans. But they realize they are much better off with feeble powered democrats right now then they are with republicans who cut them off from everything and tell them I don’t care how much harder it is for you. Pull your own damn self up by yourself. Don’t look to me. And its such a shock that blacks go to democrats?

Again thank you for confirming my statements so wonderfully.

By the way - the democrats feel that GIVING a money to person is much more beneficial than actually TEACHING them to care for themselves. As long as they continue to adhere to the democratic programs of "give give give" they will never be able to support themselves and they will always expect these handouts.

[Elfhelm]

I'm a Democrat and I don't feel that giving money to underprivileged people is more beneficial than teaching them. Teaching is a great idea. There should be plenty of job training programs for poor people. But I wonder, do you expect the teachers to volunteer? Because you know, it costs money to teach people, and the Republicans seem unwilling to spend that money.