Why I Hate Conservatives!!!

:roll:

That was a not so subtle dig at any middle or working class people who vote Republican because of economic issues. George Bush and Republican Congress turned budget surpluses into the biggest deficits in history and disproportionately redistributed the burden of our national debt down onto the middle class and the working in this country with their ridiculous tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations while this country is spending billions a week on two wars. I certainly don't think that it's fair to claim that all conservatives are racists, but I have absolutely no compunction about making the statement that after seven years of the Bush administration, any working or middle class American who still votes Republican because of economic issues is either completely and utterly ignorant, incredibly naive or just fucking stupid.

 

This is why I hate conversations about Republicans vs. Democrats. Neither party is very stellar and people can just go back and forth arguing semantics until the cows come home.

It's the lesser of two evils, IMO. I vote Republican and I vote Democrat - whomever I feel will fuck up this country less in the time they have to run it.

:lol:

Because every politician does, in one way or another, no matter what side of the fence they're on.

 

Okay, seems is if your sarcasm radar is still a bit off. Come on, it's 2008, NOT 1968. I come from a family of liberal democrats which preach the same things you do. I've attempted to listen to the conservative side to see what they have to offer. Probably not much--that's why I'm an independent/moderate. But just cause I choose not to be 'militant' or resort to violence doesn't make me less 'black' than you.

We may have different opinions on certain things, but we should still be able to respect each other's point of view. However, I do appreciate that you ARE willing to be angry on my part.

And as for Laura, i just happen to find her attractive. No shame in that.

 

For all these years conservatives and Republicans had done nothing for IR couples. Democrats too but it mostly the conservatives.

 

In response to the allegation that Ann Coulter is "playing on fear" in making a reference to Barack Hussien Obama as President Hussien, it should be pointed out that Mr. Obama's middle name is in fact "Hussien".
I would venture to say that like many Conservatives - Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, or what have you, Ms Coulter is simply responding to Mr. Obama's stand on things like abortion (the deliberate, premeditated, willful slaughter of innocent babies) which is troubling. And, Mr. Obama has stated publicly, on numerous occassions, that he FAVORS this type of deliberate murder. (Murder, or the threat of it was one of Saddam Hussien's favorite "governing" tools during his dictatorship).

As for Al (I eat too much) Sharpton, and the "I hope they nail down the valuables" comment alledgedly made by Laura Ingram; it should be pointed out that Al seems to have proclivities toward self agrandizement. He only seems to show up to "protest", something that will burden the general public with his presence. In other words, Al likes to be seen. He rarely has any legitimate reasonable answers to any real problems. Often, Unfortunately, Al's agenda seems to be, "how can I get some publicity today"? :lol: Phrased another way, to many, Al is a modern day version of a "snake oil" salesman. He seems to promise "cures" for everything, when he infact knows his "solutions" only serve to highlight his presence.

And, finally, to address the postulated suggestion that, All Republican Black Men involved with a Conservative White Woman are indeed consorting with a racist, makes about as much sense as stating that anyone who disagrees with Louis Farrakhan (A Ricist) must be the Anti-Christ. We each have the right to our opinions. And we also have the right and responsibility to INTELLIGENTLY discuss, and possibly persuade those of differing view points. 8)

 

The man's last name is Obama, not Hussien, which is his middle name. And the only reason she did it is because it is Hussien. If it was Alex, Jim, or Peter, she wouldn't have done it. Why, because she was looking to make inferences to his muslim heritage poking at America's current prejudice against muslims.

So a legal abortion is equal to genocide? Which means that Obama is only a few steps from Saddam Hussien? Yeah...thats sounds about right. :roll:
I will tell you what I have said here in the past...abortion is a woman's issue and until men can biologically get pregnant, we should just step to the back and S.T.F.U. NO MAN has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body, PERIOD!

I would be the last person to defend Al Sharpton (or Jesse Jackson, for that matter,) but what's funny is that while you have decided to attack Al, you failed to attack Ms. Ingram for her racist statements.
Do you know why Al Sharpton exists? Because some bigot has popped up and decided to spout his venom or a black person has become to victim of some racist act. Does he throw gas on the fire? Hell yes! But Sharpton is the reactionist(?), not the instigator.

-Imus says something dumb - here comes Al.
-Police gun down unarmed black man on the steps of his own porch - Al is the first person on the news.
-Black kids beat up white kid, which is very wrong, and they should go to jail, but crazy-ass DA decides to charge them with attempted murder which is insane...and well...you know who shows up.
Al only pops up when "shit happens." (Have you noticed when all's quiet he's nowhere to be found?)

You dont like Al, fine. But lets attack the problem where it really starts. Lets improve things here in this country where police dont get off killing blacks, we dont have to deal with racial profiling, and the displaying of nooses is covered under federal hate crime laws.

 

Has anyone read this opinion piece by a columnist that appeared in the Feb 22nd issue of USA Today? If not I will find it.

 

41 million babies "legally" killed since Roe v. Wade.
Yes, that's genocide.

 

i dont mean to burst your bubble....but you do realize that one of the MAIN reasons things are they way they are today is from overpopulation?

Humans are a force of nature upon the earth, we cannot continue to live the lives that we've lived for so many decades. I don't think its an issue of it being moral in as much as the living vs. the not, i think the real moral issue is giving our future generations a decent world to live in.

We have 6 billion plus people in the world. Do you think we would still be worried about peak oil production or lack of potable water and natural resources if we had 4 billion people? 3 billion? Would be as a worried about our growing piles of post consumer waste?

Think about it.

I dont think the people that are having abortions are the people you want to have kids anyway. If the issue is SOOOOOOOOOOO important that we are killing innocent babies, then please, I encourage you to adopt an innocent kid that will most likely grow up with abandonment issues. How about adopting a kid in Africa who's parents were killed in war or from AIDS or how about a street kid from South America? Or how about a kid from the Middle East who's family has been killed in the war?


I'm very very very very pro choice if you havent noticed.

 

Well, you can afford to be "pro-choice" you survived the womb.

To hell with anyone else still in there though, right?

Overpopulation is NOT the reason for problems.

SELFISHNESS and HATE , MURDERING HATE are the reasons.

Overpopulation is just an excuse, a poor, easily disproved, selfish excuse for murder.

Just like racism, ageism, theism, totalitarianism and any other friggin'
"ism" that "people" use to kill other people.

My personal life and who I would and would not adopt is soooooo easily a way to turn your ridiculous argument on it's head, but my personal life is not your business. Suffice it to say, women posting on this board are probably not the racist, classist folks you want to peg them as.

The only people who are calling others unwanted, bottom of the barrel or other dehumanizing things, are the "men".

You arguments are hollow and sick, when you really think about what it is you are defending.

Perhaps you have never really thought about it. Perhaps you are only regurgitating that foolish screed in order to prop up your "chosen" lifestyle.

Have you ever watched a video of a baby (viable-able to exist outside the womb-baby) being partial birthed, it's head remaining in utero and a "doctor" shoving a sharp object into it's brain to KILL IT before removing it the rest of the way. Why? So the "mother" and anyone else couldn't hear it's screams. THAT is late-term abortion, and THAT is what Mr. Obama is o.k. with. Anytime, anyone, for any "reason" they want. Abortion on demand. Sucks to be a baby in America.

If I was to get personal and attack you with wild suppositions, as you did me. I could easily believe you are perfectly fine killing anyone so long as you can fuck liberal women.

So if you get your squeeze pregnant, you can feel perfectly morally O.K. so long as you contribute to the cost of the murder of the baby that you both created. I'm sure you can pat you self on the back and say, "Heck, I did my part to end world "overpopulation". I killed my child. I'm a great guy."

Edit: BTW if you are a woman, same thing, in reverse.

 

This debate on abortion is precisely why I have a problem with conservatives. As I said before, abortion is a woman's issue and as a man, my only choice is Trojan or Lifestyle (Lifestyle XL are the sh*t, by the way). But anyway, conservatives love to play both sides of the fence and refuse to see the hypocrisy of their views.

-Conservatives love to harp about the ills of social programs that help the poor and underprivileged, but have no problem with corporate welfare (Reagan's bullsh*t "trickle-down theory") and school vouchers (taking public school, government, money so people can subsidize their children's private school tuition.)

-Loki stated earlier that he wants the government to "stay out of his pocket." Well our current republican president is spending almost 300 MILLION A DAY on the Iraq War (not to mention the greater cost of thousands of lives and families needlessly destroyed by the war). How does he think the federal government is eventually going to pay the bill for the war? By raising taxes...by digging in his pocket! The first Bush lost his reelection bid because he had to raise taxes because Reagan more than tripled the nation's debt with tax cuts for the rich and out of control government spending.

-Conservatives dont like government interference, but want the government to tell a woman what she can do with her body???

Let me ask you, Effie, lets say that abortion is outlawed, what happens to all of the unwanted babies that are born to mothers who dont want them. Realistically, there are two destinies for these kids. These kids go to adoption, foster care, and any number of other social programs that would have to be created for the huge increase...oh wait, government intervention is bad. The government getting involved in social problems. We cant have that!
On the other hand, lets say these parents do keep the children. These kids would more than likely be neglected, abused, and mistreated by unfit parents. And hold on to their kindergarten pictures because you would be looking at the next generation of criminals to hit our streets. And do you blame a kid for how he turns out when he is raised by really bad parents? (Its a big slippery slope, but you get the idea.)

 

The mans' last name is Obama - You got that part right.

So Legal abortion is equal to genocide - Yes, it is! I remind everyone here that SLAVERY was once also LEGAL. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. The "argument" is not about controlling someone's body. The real issue is protecting those who cannot protect themselves. To put this in perspective, let's pose the question; "For the sake of convenience, does another person have a so-called "right" to, mince, chop, slice, hack, & dice YOU to death, solely because THEY deem it inconvenient to let YOU live? Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. For Centuries Women DID NOT have the right to vote in this country. Which was also dead wrong. A stamp of legality never makes something morally correct.

"but what's funny is you decided to attack Al" - You got this one wrong too. Stating my opinion about a self promoting "Snake Oil Salesman", based on HIS behavior has nothing to do with attacking said "Snake Oil Salesman". If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, & quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck! (Or in this case, a Snake Oil Salesman) By your own admission, you wouldn't even try to defend this clown.

"lets attack the problem where it really starts" - Good idea, but the problem did NOT start at this forum where White Woman & Black Men are trying to have an amiable exchange of interest and ideas. The sane people here WANT to connect. It has to be obvious that fewer and fewer Women are bothering to post here specifically because of the incendiary, whiney posts made at this site. You don't ATTRACT women by attacking, disparaging, & belittling them. Or imputing the "sins" of some, onto the entire group. I think (or certainly hope) most men WANT the Women here to feel safe, and comfortable conversing. So, to use you words, "lets attack the problem where it really starts", by putting the brakes on the complaining, bitchy sounding whining posts, about things these ladies have NO control over. Ladies (those who haven't been scared away) thank you for coming. We're (most of us) glad you're here.

 

Darryl1954....nice to see a man with a backbone in here for a change. It certainly does not go unnoticed and is greatly appreciated.

Your intelligence and willingness to speak up is refreshing. It reminds me of why I was interested in this forum originally.

Unfortunately there has been a lot of damage done in here over the recent weeks/months and many of us really got sick of feeling like we were beating our heads against the wall. This should be a place where white women and black men are able to connect with each other and hopefully support each other. There are just too many who are too verbal who have some major issues. Most of us (ww) are over it. There is really no point to continually trying when things are so negative.

 

KnCa,

Thank you. You are RIGHT, this should be a place where we can meet comfortably. Exchange our opinions and ideas, and even RESPECTFULLY disagree on some issues without becoming disagreeable. :wink: I suspect you and I aren't the only ones here effectively communicating. It's just sad that there are so many possible exchanges that won't be made because of the irrate,viscerating banter of a few tactless blow-hards, that apparently never learned how to speak to Women :wink:

 

Actually Jelly - Most adoptions in our country are private adoptions where is no government involvement. Typically all costs are taken care of privately...often medical expenses as well.

As someone who has adopted a child who's birth mother was one of those people that some on here may think should NOT be having babies.....I think you may want to educate yourself a bit more before spouting such things. The ignorance and arrogance is mind blowing. Talk about stereotypes.

But then I guess you probably believe that most babies placed for adoption are from drug addicted uneducated young girls too right?

Amazingly enough too....a very high percentage of people who are adopting children in our country are indeed conservatives.

As far as the issue of vouchers - the ignorance in that conversation is overwhelming. Obviously not any real experience or original thought involved in those comments.

Personally, I just find it fascinating when people want to jump on the "we hate conservatives" band wagon until the point in time when they are running their own businesses, become more successful, and so on and then suddenly their tune changes.

I'm not really interested in a political debate here. I just think many of the things posted on here are extremely limiting and clearly inaccurate.

 

The legality or righteousness of abortion isnt for you or I to decide as men. Its a woman's issue. Let them decide.

And as for attacking women...I didnt attack, disparage, or belittle women in gereral. I attacked conservatives! (And as for your line about the sins of one...didnt you just call women who get abortions "murderers?"

The same reason the women stopped posting here is the same reason I stopped. Listening to people like malikom refering to women as "bottom of the barrel." Watching guys drool over celebrity pics and girls in the pic section like school kids.

 

I agree with you and I know there are others out there. There are still a few of us who communicate with each other off this forum.

For me personally....I value my time and I would rather spend it in a more supportive environment. Thankfully there are other areas out there and there have been some people who have been able to connect with each other on here and move to more direct conversations off this area where we don't have to deal with the endless garbage. It's a great thing...rather than continually cycling through the same conversations and being stuck at the basics...we can converse on a deeper level. Isn't that a novel idea?!

 

The situation I described would be if abortions became illegal. If abortions became illegal it would take the government stepping in to deal with the social consequences of such an act.

No, I dont think today's babies in adoption situations are from drug addicts or the uneducated. I honestly dont know and dont pretend to know. But I do know this...if abortion became illegal those who could afford it would leave the country and still continue to get them as they did in the 60's. And it would be the poor and uneducated who would suffer.

And as far a school vouchers. That is something I am very well educated on. Which is really a non-issue. School vouchers are wrong and have no place in our school system. Before you take a select few students out of a inadequate school and put him in a "better" school, why dont you fix the bad school? And if you say its not possible, I say your wrong. Our government just isnt willing to commit the resources (read:money) to fixing the problem.

 

The situation I described would be if abortions became illegal. If abortions became illegal it would take the government stepping in to deal with the social consequences of such an act.

No, I dont think today's babies in adoption situations are from drug addicts or the uneducated. (I didnt say that.) I honestly dont know and dont pretend to know. But I do know this...if abortion became illegal those who could afford it would leave the country and still continue to get them as they did in the 60's. And it would be the poor and uneducated who would suffer.

And as far a school vouchers. That is something I am very well educated on. Which is really a non-issue. School vouchers are wrong and have no place in our school system. Before you take a select few students out of a inadequate school and put him in a "better" school, why dont you fix the bad school? And if you say its not possible, I say your wrong. Our government just isnt willing to commit the resources (read:money) to fixing the problem.

 

I know that the US military, alongside with various school districts, plan on creating many more junior reserve officer's training corps programs. One of our "very" bad highschools around here, has just started their JROTC program up, however, I have not looked to see current statistics about decreases in violence, more participation in school functions, etc.

I know JROTC was a big deal with Chicago schools. Apparently, their public schools were in very bad shape, and the school district worked with various branches of the Armed Forces, to get ROTC programs there.

You can google JROTC to see what it's about, but I'll just briefly touch upon it. JROTC programs are installed within schools, to teach students discipline, the value of working as a team, and of course, leadership. These programs are generally open to anyone, as your kid does not have to meet any current military health requirements. They just have to be willing to wake up an hour earlier to drill, do PT (physical training), listen and learn.

One of the arguments against this, is the idea that JROTC is doing nothing but getting more teenagers interested in joining the military, instead of going to college. While many cadets do join the military after JROTC ( if you had 2+ years of JROTC in high school, you can qualify to enter the military at a higher "enlisted" paygrade, than everyone else, such as Privates), others go onto college and get involved in Senior ROTC, which leads to a commision as an officer, in the US military. And of course, others, like myself, don't join the military. Instead, we take what we learned from ROTC, and apply it to life in the civilian world.

Another argument against this, is the prospect that students will lean towards using force and strength, to solve problems, rather than peaceful solutions. Again, I been through the program, and I never been suspended in high school. And, of course, I know others like me, who are not quick to fight, but quick to think about the consequences of their actions, if they do choose violence.

This is just one way our government is "comitting resources" to help out school districts. Organizations such as JROTC, give students a good place to meet friends and join a "brotherhood," if you will. I know I was friends with just about everyone in my battalion. We performed in field competitions at Fort Dix, took trips to Washington, D.C., helped Temple with security duty for a function the Mayor had back in 2000, and so on.

late edit - I just wanted to touch upon how JROTC helps to build leadership and discipline, within students. Every high school ROTC is referred to as a "battalion." My battalion had 2 companies. Each company had around 2 platoons. Each platoon had around 2 squads. Of course, this all depends on how many students are enrolled in the program, so some schools may have more than 2 platoons, etc. When you first start off in JROTC, you will be in a squad, but you won't have too many leadership functions. As you progress through high school, you may find yourself leading a squad, or a platoon. If you find yourself in one of those positions, you will be expected to look after the newer guys. It will be your job to make sure they can drill, wear a uniform properly, etc.

This teaches cadets the value of leadership; something that they may not have learned anywhere else. You become a role model for the younger guys. And, of course, their expected role as a leader increases each year they are in JROTC, all the way to company and battalion commander.

food for thought.