Racists tend to be Pro-Bush?

[Arch Enemy]

Ok, so Edward Kennedy thinks less of these 3 nominees... doesn't mean they're racist. If I call someone a "Neanderthal", no matter what the race is, it's not considered racist.. it'd be like me calling James Brown a "hobbit", I'd probably get the "Frown" but it's not being racist.



Uhh.. Being sexist is totally different from being racist. Yes it's a bad thing, but it doesn't have anything to do with the topic of that article.
Neanderthal, the new "N" word? Hahah! There's no evidence that shows that Neanderthals were of colored. Calling someone a Neanderthal might hurt their self-esteem but it doesn't show any kind of racism.. hell, I'd love to be called a Neanderthal.



Notice the "TO", that means Sen. Durbin didn't say that Estrada was especially dangerous because he's latino. It means the DURBIN RECIEVED a memo saying that, from someone else..

So we're calling the Democratic Party as "racist" because of ONE PERSON and a MEMO? I don't have a soft-spot for the Democratic party, but that doesn't mean they're racist people.

Let us not forget that Bush doesn't speak in-front of the NAACP during his campaigns.. they somehow get over schedueled.

I believe I have already Debated against the appointed article.

... You've yet to respond!

 

[MiamiFlorida]

I believe I have already Debated against the appointed article.

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy
Ok, so Edward Kennedy thinks less of these 3 nominees... doesn't mean they're racist. If I call someone a "Neanderthal", no matter what the race is, it's not considered racist.. it'd be like me calling James Brown a "hobbit", I'd probably get the "Frown" but it's not being racist.



Uhh.. Being sexist is totally different from being racist. Yes it's a bad thing, but it doesn't have anything to do with the topic of that article.
Neanderthal, the new "N" word? Hahah! There's no evidence that shows that Neanderthals were of colored. Calling someone a Neanderthal might hurt their self-esteem but it doesn't show any kind of racism.. hell, I'd love to be called a Neanderthal.



Notice the "TO", that means Sen. Durbin didn't say that Estrada was especially dangerous because he's latino. It means the DURBIN RECIEVED a memo saying that, from someone else..

So we're calling the Democratic Party as "racist" because of ONE PERSON and a MEMO? I don't have a soft-spot for the Democratic party, but that doesn't mean they're racist people.

Let us not forget that Bush doesn't speak in-front of the NAACP during his campaigns.. they somehow get over schedueled.

... You've yet to respond!

Now you're talking!

Actions speak louder than words. The Democrat's "political and ideological hostility (led by Teddy Kennedy and company) whether that hostility is justified or excessive ..... towards pro-life judicial candidates amount to "religious bigotry" against devout Catholics or Evangelicals.

(Note here that I am agnostic)

Overt evidence of bigotry is not required to find that someone has discriminated. Bigotry is better hidden than it used to be. The Democrats are just better at it than the Republicans.

Tell me about the confirmation procedures for the Democratic Judicial Nominees of the past, including during Clinton's administration. Tell me if Kennedy et al.... asked the nominees about their pro-life stance, etc...Tell me that this double standard is not discriminatory.

Now a bit of news: http://judicialnetwork.com/cgi-data/press_releases/files/29.shtml

"The New York Times told the liberal group NARAL to apologize for unfairly smearing Judge Roberts. Democratic Senators, remarkably, demonstrated they had less integrity and ethics than The New York Times when they uttered not a peep over the lying NARAL ad last week. Kennedy and Leahy obviously stand with the liberal extremists in their attempt to politicize the confirmation process, just as they have politicized the federal courts. They are trying to twist memos written by John Roberts as a lawyer for the Reagan and first Bush administrations. These writings reflect legal not political judgments made by lawyer John Roberts. But Leahy and Kennedy want to make these legal analyses into a liberal checklist of pet issues to create a voter's guide against Judge Roberts."

It is obvious among to anyone but the most fanatical liberal that the Democrats are a party of secularists who object to putting people of faith - especially people of traditionalist religious views (whether Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, etc...) in positions of power. Excellent candidates for the judiciary are being excluded because they believe in a certain interpretation of the Word of God. It may not be a religious test in the strict sense, but these good men and women are flunking the test because of their religious beliefs.

If that's not bigotry, tell me what it is.

I have to run, but I'll be back tomorrow for rebuttal of your other statements..

 

[FinnMacCool]

You might be right Miami but I actually started this thread cause I was curious about the fact that so many Bush supporters were racist. Your the only person who brought up something about racist democrats. You didn't bother to try to rebuke me and/or give an opinion. The only evidence to support you was an article that was very, very dumb. If you want to take cheap shots at deomcrats, please start your own thread but don't come here.

 

[Connecticutter]

You might be right Miami but I actually started this thread cause I was curious about the fact that so many Bush supporters were racist. Your the only person who brought up something about racist democrats. You didn't bother to try to rebuke me and/or give an opinion. The only evidence to support you was an article that was very, very dumb. If you want to take cheap shots at deomcrats, please start your own thread but don't come here.

How can you say that "so many" Bush supporters are racist? Do you have any evidence besides personal anecdotes?

 

[FinnMacCool]

What you want me to start a poll?

I'm not trying to prove anything. I was just seeing if anyone else noticed the same things that I did and now everyones just taking cheap shots.

It would be impossible for me to prove anyways.

 

[Keepstar1331]

Do you really refuse to call them African Americans? How does that go over, i would have gotten beat up in school.

 

[Keepstar1331]

The article wasn't about Neanderthals...it was about Democrats.

Since you seem to keep avoiding the question, let's start again:

" many of the leading Democratic politicians in America are racist to the core."

His opinion, i can take it or leave it as i may. Not to mention a major part of his article talks about sexism. Hey, but many of the leading Republicans are racists too. My opinion, take it or leave it as you may.

"It is rooted in a visceral feeling that minorities really aren't capable of achieving on their own."

Again his take on what is happening. I may be mistaken but show me proof that any Democratic leader has every flat out said "Minority's can't do anything. We carry them along out of the goodness of our hearts. If it wasn't for us they would be nowhere. They don't deserve positions of power."

"When Senate Democrats successfully blocked three of President Bush's nominees for federal appeals-court judgeships in a 40-hour debate initiated by Republicans, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., told reporters that he would continue to oppose any "Neanderthal that is nominated by the president for any federal court."

Yes, they blocked these three nominees. They actually blocked another two more also. Five out of 219 nominees. Not bad figures if you ask me. Also Neanderthal is not a racist slang. At least outside of that Geico commercial...

"Kennedy was referring to men and woman like Miguel Estrada, a Hispanic, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, a woman, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl, a woman, and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, a black woman."

"Kennedy had demonstrated his utter contempt for women in the past – for instance, by leaving a drowning woman and the scene of an accident. But it seems to me Kennedy was speaking in racist code language here. Could "Neanderthal" be the new "N" word he and his colleagues use to discuss minorities who are disloyal to their Democratic Party patrons and others who leave the "progressive plantation"?"

Debate, please

God forbid anyone vote down candidates they don't feel follow the same political platform as them. Maybe, just maybe, these candidates were against some issues thats Kennedy was for. Therefor he wouldnt want them to be stacked against him. *gasp* how appalling!

"In one communication to Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, Estrada was singled out as "especially dangerous" because "he is Latino."

"It seems to me this memo and Kennedy's racist exhortations were proof positive that the Democratic Party has nothing but contempt for minorities who can think for themselves, who are ruled by their own consciences and who fail to pledge allegiance to the so-called "progressive" political agenda."

Debate, please

Just because Durbin got a memo doesn't mean he is going to follow it. Or even believes in it's message. Yes, two people make up the entire democratic mindset. I totally forgot everyone else is mindless zombies who follow Kennedy no matter what he says/thinks.

"What the Democrats like Durbin and Kennedy have managed to do is to immunize themselves against racism charges by currying favor with those hand-picked minorities who pledge absolute loyalty to their party."

Debate, please

Yes, and how many nominees did Bush put up that were strongly Liberal? Nominees that go against every issue he so fervently supports?
Maybe then Bush is racist towards liberal minorities. There politicians of course they are going to "curry favor" with minorities that are loyal to their party.
?

 

[MiamiFlorida]

Finally....debate!!!


His opinion, i can take it or leave it as i may. Not to mention a major part of his article talks about sexism. Hey, but many of the leading Republicans are racists too. My opinion, take it or leave it as you may.

No argument there.

Again his take on what is happening. I may be mistaken but show me proof that any Democratic leader has every flat out said "Minority's can't do anything. We carry them along out of the goodness of our hearts. If it wasn't for us they would be nowhere. They don't deserve positions of power."

Democrats are not in the business of political suicide


Yes, they blocked these three nominees. They actually blocked another two more also. Five out of 219 nominees. Not bad figures if you ask me. Also Neanderthal is not a racist slang. At least outside of that Geico commercial...

I believe I was referring to the Supreme Court....REAL power, you know...

God forbid anyone vote down candidates they don't feel follow the same political platform as them. Maybe, just maybe, these candidates were against some issues thats Kennedy was for. Therefor he wouldnt want them to be stacked against him. *gasp* how appalling!

Did Republicans vote down Clinton's nominees?

Just because Durbin got a memo doesn't mean he is going to follow it. Or even believes in it's message. Yes, two people make up the entire democratic mindset. I totally forgot everyone else is mindless zombies who follow Kennedy no matter what he says/thinks.

Do we live in the same country?

Yes, and how many nominees did Bush put up that were strongly Liberal? Nominees that go against every issue he so fervently supports?
Maybe then Bush is racist to wards liberal minorities. There politicians of course they are going to "curry favor" with minorities that are loyal to their party.

Duh.....Bush wasn't elected by a majority of liberals was he? I repeat the question: When Democrats were in power, did the Republicans throw a wrench into his appointment process? Yes or no would do.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

You might be right Miami but I actually started this thread cause I was curious about the fact that so many Bush supporters were racist. Your the only person who brought up something about racist democrats. You didn't bother to try to rebuke me and/or give an opinion. The only evidence to support you was an article that was very, very dumb. If you want to take cheap shots at deomcrats, please start your own thread but don't come here.

The post was: Do racists tend to be pro-Bush?

Oh, I bothered to give an opinion all right, and I think my answer was clear....and by the way, the article was no dumber than the question.
Illustration by example. You know what that means, right?

Now, if YOU believe Republicans are racists, that's your problem.

Racists come in every race, religion and political persuasion....and in my humble opinion....IN EQUAL PROPORTIONS.

If you have some information to the contrary, enlighten me.

And my friend, if you don't want your ideas debated....then perhaps you should find a "yes masta" forum. I welcome you to debate mine...anytime, anywhere.

 

[Keepstar1331]

I believe I was referring to the Supreme Court....REAL power, you know...

the Supreme Court only handels about 90 cases a year. the remaining cases (a staggering 99%) are held in the appeals courts. so which court has more power?

Just because Durbin got a memo doesn't mean he is going to follow it. Or even believes in it's message. Yes, two people make up the entire democratic mindset. I totally forgot everyone else is mindless zombies who follow Kennedy no matter what he says/thinks.

Do we live in the same country?

i was being sarcastic.

No, but the issues being brought up before the courst were not the same as they are today. if abortion, gay rights, and capitialism were not the focus of attention would Bush need these fervently right-wing candidates.

Also i believe Priscilla Owen is now occupies a seat in the 5th circuit court; William Pryor is now in the 11th circuit court; Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit court). *gasp* look women! Owen and Pryor are outspoken corporate backers. Who often chose corporate rights over basic human ones (god bless NAFTA chapter 11...NOT). Also Pryor highly religious. Maybe those are the reasons the democrats said no the first few go arounds

 

[MiamiFlorida]

the Supreme Court only handels about 90 cases a year. the remaining cases (a staggering 99%) are held in the appeals courts. so which court has more power?



i was being sarcastic.

No, but the issues being brought up before the courst were not the same as they are today. if abortion, gay rights, and capitialism were not the focus of attention would Bush need these fervently right-wing candidates.

Also i believe Priscilla Owen is now occupies a seat in the 5th circuit court; William Pryor is now in the 11th circuit court; Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit court). *gasp* look women! Owen and Pryor are outspoken corporate backers. Who often chose corporate rights over basic human ones (god bless NAFTA chapter 11...NOT). Also Pryor highly religious. Maybe those are the reasons the democrats said no the first few go arounds

No contest. I would say the Supreme Court has more power because it supersedes every other court in the land.

Well, you obviously believe NAFTA is not good for our country. I would like to know why.

There is clearly a double standard when comparing the Democrats' vs. the Republicans' nominees.

A few weeks ago Henry Belafonte had some nasty things to say about Jews in WWII, along with alot of other people present at a rally celebrating the 40 Anniversery of the Civil Rights Voting Act.
(http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200508/CUL20050811b.html, here's the webpage if you want to read the entire article.

Anyway, Nancy Pelosi and Senator Dick Durbin were there.... Now I just wonder would we be hearing about this if say ...oh Trent Lott had been at an event and derogatory things had been said about Democrats and other people in our Diverse country. What if at a similar rally Prominent Republicans called Democrats ,Nazis, thieves and criminals. Gee I bet an apology would be demanded... Funny I haven't seen anything about this in the MSM. I'm sure they over looked this Rally... let me do a google check.... Washington Post Article, nothing on these remarks, CNN nothing on these remarks, Atlanta Journal constitution... no mention.... my my I'm so surprised!

 

[FinnMacCool]

Wow okay Miami. Your an interesting fellow. I don't mind a debate but I have absolutely no idea what your talking about. I'm willing to bet that many other people don't have any idea what your talking about either. So may I ask, what are you talking about?

Besides, if you think the thread is so dumb why must you post in it?

 

[Keepstar1331]

:rofl FinMacCool, we always seem to agree on things lol.

Why don't i like NAFTA? ill give you a few reasons. I'm all for economic growth, but i dont think that economic growth should superceed human rights. isn't it our right to work in clean, safe, working environments? or for that matter, shouldn't we, as a leading economic/developed country push those values onto companies ran out of America?

Why should we condone sweatshop labor? Why should we let companies like EXXON spill oil and kill thousands of organisms and ruin a peoples livelyhood? they still have not payed a dime of the fine they were convicted to pay. 16 years ago...

NAFTA has robbed our country of more than 2 million jobs. Major corporations can now move jobs overseas to maxamize profits, all good and fine, but our country and those countries are suffering. Also Chapter 11 says that a company can sue for compensation if their profits are directly compromised.

ex. UPS is claiming that the delivery of parcels by Canada's postal service is an illegal subsidary under the terms of NAFTA. Now UPS is sueing to get the Canadian tax payers to give them $160 million. Isn't part of basic human rights being able to pick the services you want to employ? Doesn't that seem like UPS is trying to make a monopoly in the Canadian parcel delivery business?

Anyway, Nancy Pelosi and Senator Dick Durbin were there.... Now I just wonder would we be hearing about this if say ...oh Trent Lott had been at an event and derogatory things had been said about Democrats and other people in our Diverse country. What if at a similar rally Prominent Republicans called Democrats ,Nazis, thieves and criminals. Gee I bet an apology would be demanded... Funny I haven't seen anything about this in the MSM. I'm sure they over looked this Rally... let me do a google check.... Washington Post Article, nothing on these remarks, CNN nothing on these remarks, Atlanta Journal constitution... no mention.... my my I'm so surprised!

OK, just because they were at this rally doesn't mean they support what Belafonte and Mathis said. These two people are not major roleplayers in the Democratic party. They were attending the 40 Anniversery of the Civil Rights Voting Act. Not the "Bash the Republican Party and Call Them Names Parade". Where does it say that either of them supported the claims made by these people?

 

[MiamiFlorida]

Wow okay Miami. Your an interesting fellow. I don't mind a debate but I have absolutely no idea what your talking about. I'm willing to bet that many other people don't have any idea what your talking about either. So may I ask, what are you talking about?

Besides, if you think the thread is so dumb why must you post in it?

I don't think you stop to read what I write, do you?

You're the one who brought up dumbness....not me....and frankly, I found a lot more substance in that article (regardless of who wrote it) than in your post. No offense intended.

"I'm not trying to prove anything. I was just seeing if anyone else noticed the same things that I did..."

Remember that? Well....no, I didn't notice the same things that you did, and I don't agree.

Second time you invite me to get off your post. Do you want to hear only from people who agree with you? I'm not Republican, you know.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

Why don't i like NAFTA? ill give you a few reasons. I'm all for economic growth, but i dont think that economic growth should superceed human rights. isn't it our right to work in clean, safe, working environments? or for that matter, shouldn't we, as a leading economic/developed country push those values onto companies ran out of America?

Yes, I agree. So the answer is abolish NAFTA or abolish those conditions you talk about? Do you know about the child labor laws and minimum wage laws that free-trade partners must institute in their countries? Hint: Some of these countries had no such laws before.

Why should we condone sweatshop labor? Why should we let companies like EXXON spill oil and kill thousands of organisms and ruin a peoples livelyhood? they still have not payed a dime of the fine they were convicted to pay. 16 years ago...

We shouldn't and we shouldn't. You are straying off the topic with Exxon.

NAFTA has robbed our country of more than 2 million jobs. Major corporations can now move jobs overseas to maxamize profits, all good and fine, but our country and those countries are suffering. Also Chapter 11 says that a company can sue for compensation if their profits are directly compromised.

Actually, you are totally wrong. Get some research facts:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/BG1462.cfm

ex. UPS is claiming that the delivery of parcels by Canada's postal service is an illegal subsidary under the terms of NAFTA. Now UPS is sueing to get the Canadian tax payers to give them $160 million. Isn't part of basic human rights being able to pick the services you want to employ? Doesn't that seem like UPS is trying to make a monopoly in the Canadian parcel delivery business?

And you suppose of course that the dumb Canadians signed a unilateral agreement that benefits only the U.S.? Where's the other side of the story? What happens when a Canadian company sues the U.S. for breach of agreement?

OK, just because they were at this rally doesn't mean they support what Belafonte and Mathis said. These two people are not major roleplayers in the Democratic party. They were attending the 40 Anniversery of the Civil Rights Voting Act. Not the "Bash the Republican Party and Call Them Names Parade". Where does it say that either of them supported the claims made by these people?

I suppose that democrats didn't mean to invite Al Sharpton and Michael Moore to the convention either, right?

Both evangelicals and liberals (and both equally distastefully to me) say they are increasingly concerned about what is happening to the poor in this country and across the globe. Prove it. Maybe we could agree to disagree about some of the issues that both the right and left say are so important, and actually work together to do something about poverty.....and stop making ignorant generalizations about each other.

 

[FinnMacCool]

whoops double post

 

[FinnMacCool]

Um. . .you haven't really helped me out any haha. How am I supposed to debate with you if I don't understand what kind of points your supposed to be making?

 

[Keepstar1331]

1. So why don't we just make all laws up to the American standards? Make there be NO child labor, NO unsafe working conditions, and a appropriate working wage? NAFTA makes it that these companies can do these things. We should abolish both.

2. you research comes from the Heritage Foundation, a think-tank i will never agre with. I got my information from an liberl subscription called the Hightower Lowdown. I'll stick to my facts, thank you.

3.Is that right either way? why should tax payers be forced to pay? we didn't think up these stupid laws.

4. I dont care who was invited or what was said by some people! it was a convention for a good cause! Just because some people made rude remarks doesn't mean everyone beleived them! i repeat the invitation was not for "The bash the republicans and call them names parade"

 

[MiamiFlorida]

So why don't we just make all laws up to the American standards? Make there be NO child labor, NO unsafe working conditions, and a appropriate working wage? NAFTA makes it that these companies can do these things. We should abolish both.

And peace on earth and goodwill towards all men. Do you really expect the Third World to come up to our standards overnight? Took us a couple of hundred years, you know. I suppose you think they are better off if we close our markets to their products....or impose heavy tariffs...for their benefit, you see...

you research comes from the Heritage Foundation, a think-tank i will never agre with. I got my information from an liberl subscription called the Hightower Lowdown. I'll stick to my facts, thank you.

I'm waiting for the first link to those facts. And while you are at it, get the government published facts...unless you think they've been tampered with, that is.

I took a look at your Hightower Lowdown page. Social Security is not in trouble?????????????? Pleeeeeeeeeeeease!

Is that right either way? why should tax payers be forced to pay? we didn't think up these stupid laws.

I suppose keeping 150 nations on the welfare roll of foreign aid is cheaper. Of course, taxpayers don't pay for that.

I dont care who was invited or what was said by some people! it was a convention for a good cause! Just because some people made rude remarks doesn't mean everyone beleived them! i repeat the invitation was not for "The bash the republicans and call them names parade

Just as long as they're Democrats.:lol:

 

[Keepstar1331]

1. How about heavily tax companies that use slave labor? that seems fair. They wanna dismiss human morality...we'll dismiss their right to fair taxation. They're profit expands when they use slave labor, they can afford it.

2. I'm sorry i dont really feel the need to link all my facts. This is my oppinion, ive never portrayed it as rock hard facts. And i do believe the statistics are tampered with! the government had lied before! why should i trust them now!

3. Social security has nothing to do with this topic....

4. How about this. We worry about ourselves. American companies stay in America. We don't outreach, we just worry about fixing our economy, making the average standard of living in America better. Then we cant start worrying about other countries problems. And everyone should stop sueing eachother! ther're already millionaire! why do they need another million! the're doing fine.

5. I'm sorry, do you have the complete list of attendees? i'd love the link. are you positive no republicans were in attendance?

 

[ElGringo17]

Re: Racists tend to be Anti-Bush?

Racists tend to be anti-Bush

 

[ludahai]

Franklin Roosevelt headed up and implemented one of the most horrible
racist policies of the 20th Century: the Japanese Internment Camps
during World War II. Roosevelt unilaterally and knowingly enacted
Japanese Internment through the use of presidential Executive Orders
9066 and 9102 during the early years of the war. These orders
single-handedly led to the imprisonment of an estimated 120,000 law
abiding Americans of Japanese ancestry, the overwhelming majority of
them natural born second and third generation American citizens.
Countless innocents lost their property, fortunes, and, in the case of
an unfortunate few, even their lives as a result of Roosevelt's
internment camps, camps that have been accurately described as America's
concentration camps.

Tell me anout Robert Byrd....William Fullbright (Clinton's mentor)..Smathers, Long, Thurmond...George Wallace, Lester Maddox...etc...

Do you remember that 40% of Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Acts vs 20% of Republicans?

Wouldn't you call Al Sharpton a racist?

No group has a monopoly on prejudice.

As for the Japanese Internment, the majority of those interred were NOT U.S. citizens. All those who were interred actually had the option to settle outside the restricted zone, and many did. Your numbers are WAY inflated. No where NEAR 120,000 American citizens were interred.

Let's also not forget to other relevant facts.

1. It wasn't only Japanese, but also Germans, Italians, and Bulgarians who were interred.
2. Many Japanese (including Nisei with dual nationality) answered no to either question 27 or 28, some of them choosing to renounce U.S. citizenship as a result.

 

[Connecticutter]

What you want me to start a poll?

I'm not trying to prove anything. I was just seeing if anyone else noticed the same things that I did and now everyones just taking cheap shots.

It would be impossible for me to prove anyways.

No - Relax . I wasn't accusing you of anything, I just wanted to make sure about what we were trying show here. I, like you, have met Bush supporters who are racially insensitive, perhaps racist. However, I've never heard of a full-blown supremesist that likes Bush.

Personally, I think that racism is incompatible with Bush's vision.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

As for the Japanese Internment, the majority of those interred were NOT U.S. citizens. All those who were interred actually had the option to settle outside the restricted zone, and many did. Your numbers are WAY inflated. No where NEAR 120,000 American citizens were interred.

Let's also not forget to other relevant facts.

1. It wasn't only Japanese, but also Germans, Italians, and Bulgarians who were interred.
2. Many Japanese (including Nisei with dual nationality) answered no to either question 27 or 28, some of them choosing to renounce U.S. citizenship as a result.

I beg to differ. 62% were born in the United States

Copy of Executive Order 9066:

http://bss.sfsu.edu/internment/executiorder9066.html

Summary of violations:

http://bss.sfsu.edu/internment/rightsviolated.html

Encyclopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

And from our own government (122,000 my friend)

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=74

76,000 of these victims were BORN in the United States of America.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

How about heavily tax companies that use slave labor? that seems fair. They wanna dismiss human morality...we'll dismiss their right to fair taxation. They're profit expands when they use slave labor, they can afford it.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm sorry i dont really feel the need to link all my facts. This is my oppinion, ive never portrayed it as rock hard facts. And i do believe the statistics are tampered with! the government had lied before! why should i trust them now!

And you are entitled to your opinions....but when you start throwing figures at me based on opinion I am going to respond with facts. Call me old fashioned, but I still trust the U.S. Department of Commerce over some liberal publication....or conservative thinktank.

Social security has nothing to do with this topic....

No, but it had everything to do with the source you cited. Even the most liberal Democrat will laugh at the suggestion that there's nothing wrong with Social Security. Let's just say I wouldn't get my facts on the economy from those chaps.

How about this. We worry about ourselves. American companies stay in America. We don't outreach, we just worry about fixing our economy, making the average standard of living in America better. Then we cant start worrying about other countries problems. And everyone should stop sueing eachother! ther're already millionaire! why do they need another million! the're doing fine.

Good idea! Follow that plan and we'll be a Third World Country before the end of the decade. Maybe we should start applying for foreign aid now. Who do you suggest we start with.....France?

:roll: