Republicans are scum!

[TJones]

I agree with you on the above statements...

I'm proud to be an American, and I'm sure Tomika's proud, too. I'm also proud that we're in a democracy, and I can run for president and lose whenever I want. However, that doesn't necesarily mean that you have to be proud of the dude in charge, yo. Dixie Chicks got slammed for speaking their mind as to how unproud they were of Bush back in the day, and conservatives all over the place started bashing them for being "unamerican" and unpatriotic. Just because we live in a democracy doesn't mean we're allowed to speak our true minds without consequence.

The difference is you don't go airing your dirty laundry to some other country. You noticed Natalie didn't try to pull that Caca over here. She wouldn't have made it out of the arena if she had said those comments in an arena here in the states.

We are all sensitive to racism. It appears you aren't. Three of my best friends are black females who are all very successful. I know many others who are also very successful. Having the attitude that "we just have so little going for us" is a problem for YOU. we all have every opportunity to succeed if we choose to do that or we canjust pout that "we just so little going for us." It is YOUR choice to be successful, not the President's or anyone else. If you think otherwise, then you need to seek professional help.

Yet she makes the statement and fails to back it up with examples, just wants to turn it into a race thing. TOMIKA, are you saying you have absolutely NO opportunities while a Republican is in office ? What do you think is gonna change in 7 weeks when the Dems. get to make law ? What opportunities will suddenly arise for a middle-aged black woman ?

[nmainguy]

As of yesterday I am once again proud of being American.

I'll be one too as soon as I'm afforded the same rights as you.

[DJ V Lawrence]

The difference is you don't go airing your dirty laundry to some other country.

It's called "Iraq."

You noticed Natalie didn't try to pull that Caca over here. She wouldn't have made it out of the arena if she had said those comments in an arena here in the states.

I don't think Natalie was the only person outside the U.S. that disapproved of Bush and/or the war. I'm pretty sure there were other people protesting the war that were in nations that are allies and also have troops there in the Sandy Vacation. And there's quiet a few people that were in America singing and/or saying anti/Bush things. Some got booed, some got cheered, some got album sales, and um, some just got voted into Congress Tuesday night...

the dems took the senate and the house; the terrorists have won but jesus and diebold lost.

I know your joking, but I heard a lot of Bush supporters (including Bush) saying this during the campaign, as if the 61% that disapproved of his job in office support terrorism. Was the tactic to scare us into voting Republican? I'm an independant, and an American. Scaring me for a vote won't cut it. Showing me that you're getting positive things accomplished and Americans approve of your job probably would cut it for me, though.

Democrats aren't off the hook, either. They won a lot of elections with an overall bad campaign strategy. If many people don't like the scandal-ridden opposite party and are considering voting for you, why would you spend most of your advertisement time telling us how bad the other party is instead of telling us what you would do to fix it? We KNOW Republican congress for the past two years was corrupt. We KNOW that Foley and Delay are the two names that popped into our minds when it came to their representation. Why remind us? We're not stupid. Stick to your agenda next time, and maybe you could keep congress in 2010.

My vote for president depends on who's going to get the job done between Congress and the Executive office for the next 2 years, and who's going to be childish and try to stop the other party instead of fixing whatever needs to be fixed...

[west20th]

We are all sensitive to racism. It appears you aren't. Three of my best friends are black females who are all very successful. I know many others who are also very successful. Having the attitude that "we just have so little going for us" is a problem for YOU. we all have every opportunity to succeed if we choose to do that or we canjust pout that "we just so little going for us." It is YOUR choice to be successful, not the President's or anyone else. If you think otherwise, then you need to seek professional help.

I have to agree. I know quite a few black women and they are successful to varying degrees. What is common to all of them is that they all have college degrees. TOMIKA! Do you think there are barriers to black women getting a college education still?

[musicman]

Yet she makes the statement and fails to back it up with examples, just wants to turn it into a race thing. TOMIKA, are you saying you have absolutely NO opportunities while a Republican is in office ? What do you think is gonna change in 7 weeks when the Dems. get to make law ? What opportunities will suddenly arise for a middle-aged black woman ?

7 weeks? As of yesterday she said she's soooo happy and proud to be an American!

[TJones]

It's called "Iraq."

I don't think Natalie was the only person outside the U.S. that disapproved of Bush and/or the war. I'm

.............and let's look at the Dixie Chicks record sales Post-Natalie comments. How many arenas sold out after that ? You can't sell squat once you alienate your BASE !

[RedScare]

.............and let's look at the Dixie Chicks record sales Post-Natalie comments. How many arenas sold out after that ? You can't sell squat once you alienate your BASE !

So, you choose your political views based on how much money is in it for you? It is pretty clear why you support Republicans.

Besides, I think the Dixie Chicks alienated their base the moment they exhibited any intelligence.

[TheNiche]

So, you choose your political views based on how much money is in it for you? It is pretty clear why you support Republicans.

Do you mouth off your views at every prospective client that you come across? I know I don't.

[Guest danax]

It seems there is some movement from the Kinkys and Naders in the world to possibly establish a viable 3rd party. It's too bad that right now all issues are either one or the other, black or white, when clearly the voting public seems to be in the middle. I myself am hoping for a moderate revolution. And, no douche bags allowed!

So sensitive y'all! Ok, I'll tone it down. As an African American middle-aged female, we just have so little going for us in this country right now. My anger for what Bush has done (or not done) and how it's affected my community runs deep.

He appointed Condi Rice as Sec State. She grew up in real racism and took to heart what her Dad told her; " You have to be twice as good as everyone else".

That's the attitude to have if you feel racism directed towards you. As others have mentioned, I don't see anything that Republicans are doing that can be construed as racist. Some might mention stopping illegals; I say the racist ones are the Hispanic Dems who want to reward them with amnesty, their racial favoritism is obvious, but since they are a "minority", it doesn't qualify as racism in today's topsy-turvy world of doublespeak.

[RedScare]

As others have mentioned, I don't see anything that Republicans are doing that can be construed as racist.

While minorities may feel the sting of some Republican policies, I do not see it as institutional racism, as in the past. What is far more widespread is an economic bias, resulting in more classism than racism. It is in this form that Blacks and Hispanics may feel the boot to the neck. But, it is wise to call it what it is. The Republican majority used its clout to enhance the power and wealth of its benefactors, the rich and powerful. Rich and powerful Blacks, if they exist, were more than welcome to join the feeding frenzy.

I would hope to see Black and Hispanic leaders push for two things. One, which has been stated on this forum, though less than politely, they should strongly advocate education and self-reliance above skin color. While pushing political leaders to improve access to education, they should be pushing the Black and Hispanic communities to elevate education of their children to top priority. Second, while recognizing that minorities comprise a disproportionate share of the poor, leaders should advocate for improvements for ALL economically disadvantaged people, not just the portion that looks like them. It is in the interest of all US citizens to have an educated populace. And nothing will raise the economic fortunes of poor communities faster.

Hopefully, the new majority will use their newfound clout to do just that.

[nmainguy]

So let me get this straight: It's OK to physically threaten the DC's by saying something like "She wouldn't have made it out of the arena if she had said those comments in an arena here in the states." but it's not OK to freely express your non-violet opinion about a war you disagree with whether you say it in Paris, Hooterville or on the Moon?

It's OK to display 7th grade behavior by destroying CD's in a crass public display of thuggery but not OK to stick to your guns when it may be unpopular amoung your supposed fan base?

I suppose all of the above is perfectly legal under our system [not sure about veiled physical threats] but is there any doubt that behavior like this coupled with Limbaugh's mocking display of a Parkinson's sufferer and so many other just down-right mean-spirited antics that the Republicans were crushed last Tuesday?

Shut up and Sing? Yeah, right...

[DJ V Lawrence]

So, you choose your political views based on how much money is in it for you? It is pretty clear why you support Republicans.

Hate to say it, but when I see people like Rush Limbaugh, I picture Republicans in this sense.

Besides, I think the Dixie Chicks alienated their base the moment they exhibited any intelligence.

Couldn't agree more. The "patriotic" country singles the past three years in that industry went through the roof so long as it didn't including anything tht disagreed with the president. It's apparantly unpatriotic in the country music industry to think.

TJones, are you saying that they should never have voiced their opinions because of fear that they would have lost money?

[musicman]

While pushing political leaders to improve access to education, they should be pushing the Black and Hispanic communities to elevate education of their children to top priority. Second, while recognizing that minorities comprise a disproportionate share of the poor, leaders should advocate for improvements for ALL economically disadvantaged people, not just the portion that looks like them. It is in the interest of all US citizens to have an educated populace. And nothing will raise the economic fortunes of poor communities faster.

Hopefully, the new majority will use their newfound clout to do just that.

unfortunately what you're saying sounds feasable but isn't currently true. in the past 25 yrs or so, so much has gone into education and children are not improving. i'm not sure when you say "improving access to education" actually means, however but it seems like a nebulous term to me where money is thrown in the burocracy and nothing results. I think this is a BIG problem right now. i am so against bilingual education. it has NOT resulted in any radical improvements. I don't think that the leaders are only helping the people that "look like them." unfortunately the welfare system has a BIG following and people know how to keep it so they can avoid getting a job.

education is the solution, however our system of basic education is failing us.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Here's another turn-off to me. When Clinton was president, not only was he able to brag about a surplus in the economy in the later years, he was actively doing something to reduce our national debt. Since Bush has been in office, I haven't heard him once mention ANYTHING about trying to reduce the debt. In fact, I've never heard him asked by the media what he's doing to reduce the debt if our economy's as good as he claims it is.

Remember back in the day, when all the evening news stations would show how high our debt was that night? Now, it's not even mention, as if it's not even an issue. If we were to no longer have a debt, couldn't social security have better hope in 20 years than it curently does? Doesn't it surprise anyone here that so many old and retired people work at Walmart? Don't we want to enjoy life once we retire at 65? Why is no one asking questions about our debt, social security, and the future of Americans in the baby-boomer generation? My generation X probably won't have any social security system left by the time y'all are finished, yo.

[RedScare]

unfortunately what you're saying sounds feasable but isn't currently true. in the past 25 yrs or so, so much has gone into education and children are not improving. i'm not sure when you say "improving access to education" actually means, however but it seems like a nebulous term to me where money is thrown in the burocracy and nothing results. I think this is a BIG problem right now. i am so against bilingual education. it has NOT resulted in any radical improvements. I don't think that the leaders are only helping the people that "look like them." unfortunately the welfare system has a BIG following and people know how to keep it so they can avoid getting a job.

education is the solution, however our system of basic education is failing us.

Nowhere in my post did I advocate a specific plan. Rather than just say it won't work, I am suggesting an honest and sincere advocacy for educating our children. If that takes money, so be it. If it is cheaper to build more prisons, then I am sure fiscal conservatives like yourself will point that out.

I also did not advocate bilingual education over English immersion, or any other version of teaching. I actually advocate teaching the BEST way, which may include both versions of teaching English.

As for your sweeping, unsupported statement about welfare, I invite you to actually look up what has been happening to welfare in the last 10 years (Hint: You can find it on the president's website).

[nmainguy]

Since Bush has been in office, I haven't heard him once mention ANYTHING about trying to reduce the debt.

The most telling statement I can remember Bush saying regarding the economy was right after 9.11. He said, "Don't worry; go out and shop."

I think I heard my parents spinning in their graves that day. After Pearl Harbor, no one told them to go shopping. They sacrificed as a nation, went after the terrorists who attacked our nation and WON. Then they went on to build the greatest economy ever known and left myself and my sisters with opportunities and lifestyles they could never have dreamed of.

After 9.11, we went to war based on falsehoods while the terrorists who attacked our country have gone scott-free and we have not been called upon to make the sacrifices nessessary to capture and punsih them. We were told to "go shopping."

Now we are leaving you with nothing more than a broken economy to build your future on. I'm sorry everything my parents and subsequently myself have built on has been so recklessly squandered in the name of tax-cuts for the uber-wealthy and mega-corporations but there you have it.

[DJ V Lawrence]

The most telling statement I can remember Bush saying regarding the economy was right after 9.11. He said, "Don't worry; go out and shop."

I think I heard my parents spinning in their graves that day. After Pearl Harbor, no one told them to go shopping. They sacrificed as a nation, went after the terrorists who attacked our nation and WON. Then they went on to build the greatest economy ever known and left myself and my sisters with opportunities and lifestyles they could never have dreamed of.

After 9.11, we went to war based on falsehoods while the terrorists who attacked our country have gone scott-free and we have not been called upon to make the sacrifices nessessary to capture and punsih them. We were told to "go shopping."

Now we are leaving you with nothing more than a broken economy to build your future on. I'm sorry everything my parents and subsequently myself have built on has been so recklessly squandered in the name of tax-cuts for the uber-wealthy and mega-corporations but there you have it.

Why is no one concerned or asking questions? Has the new congress mentioned anything about our debt or saving social security being one of the top agenda the next two years? How could we have so many tax-cuts, but our spending being higher than ever, not to mention the fact that we're currently fighting two wars, and the military will need a LOT more money for equipment and personel? Why is "tax-increase" such a bad word in a time like this? We owe well over 7 TRILLION dollars, and we're STILL spending more than we're making...

[KinkaidAlum]

Tomika-

You aren't alone. While I am a white fella, I know through my past work experience and through my education that many African-American women do face barriers that most white folks couldn't even begin to fathom.

Also, while many of today's policies can be viewed as more class-based rather than race-based, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a disproportionate amount of poor people also happen to be minorities. After years of OVERTLY racist policies by our governments (Jim Crow wasn't all that long ago), it is foolish to assume that the residual effects of those policies would have already been eliminated.

Now, to satisfy the rugged individualists on this board, one of the biggest problems African-American women face comes from African-American men. Their rates of imprisonment, death rates due to violence, and the fact that so many of them are not active fathers to their children are real problems for black women.

[Mark F. Barnes]

uh oh here it comes....I am gonna duck

[DJ V Lawrence]

Tomika-

You aren't alone. While I am a white fella, I know through my past work experience and through my education that many African-American women do face barriers that most white folks couldn't even begin to fathom.

Also, while many of today's policies can be viewed as more class-based rather than race-based, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a disproportionate amount of poor people also happen to be minorities. After years of OVERTLY racist policies by our governments (Jim Crow wasn't all that long ago), it is foolish to assume that the residual effects of those policies would have already been eliminated.

Now, to satisfy the rugged individualists on this board, one of the biggest problems African-American women face comes from African-American men. Their rates of imprisonment, death rates due to violence, and the fact that so many of them are not active fathers to their children are real problems for black women.

I understand first-hand how tough it is to be the son of a single black woman in America. She remarried, has an $80,000 a year job in the medical field, raised three kids, owns a business on the side, has a house all paid for, and looks 35 when she's actually 55. DAAAMMMNNN, it's hard to be black, yo. Werd.

I'm Jamaican-American. Now THAT'S hard. Why? I'm not African-American. I'm not Hispanic. Not Asian, East Indian, Native American, or Pacific Islander. As a result, I get tired of checking the "Other" box when asked my race on a document. Like the receptionist knows where "OtherLand" is located. Man, who knew that checking a box would be so repressive?

[Mark F. Barnes]

I'm Jamaican-American. Now THAT'S hard. Why? I'm not African-American. I'm not Hispanic. Not Asian, East Indian, Native American, or Pacific Islander. As a result, I get tired of checking the "Other" box when asked my race on a document. Like the receptionist knows where "OtherLand" is located. Man, who knew that checking a box would be so repressive?

My question is this, why is there even a necessity to check anything, society likes to claim there is no racial profiling going on any more, yet the boxes are still there. Even on medical forms it should be necessary to ask. There have been some steps that make it optional to answer it on certain forms, but it is still there. If race doesn't matter as is always stated, then why ask? Why is because there are still certain amounts of racial profiling going on like it or not.

[TheNiche]

The most telling statement I can remember Bush saying regarding the economy was right after 9.11. He said, "Don't worry; go out and shop."

Actually, the Bush administration response to the economic impact of 9/11 and the recession was brilliantly orchestrated to the tune of Keynsian macroeconomic theory--he had a great economic advisor at that time. Recessions are best handled (and political instability reduced) by increasing government spending and cutting taxes. The government debt, an obvious result of these policies, will then be paid back to the lenders in better times. The result is less volatility.

[nmainguy]

Why is no one concerned or asking questions? Has the new congress mentioned anything about our debt or saving social security being one of the top agenda the next two years? How could we have so many tax-cuts, but our spending being higher than ever, not to mention the fact that we're currently fighting two wars, and the military will need a LOT more money for equipment and personel? Why is "tax-increase" such a bad word in a time like this? We owe well over 7 TRILLION dollars, and we're STILL spending more than we're making...

All good questions-and you aren't the only one asking. Maybe the real question needs to be "why aren't our elected officials listening?" Maybe because until recently [last Tuesday?] they havn't been held accountable? Maybe because no one has really addressed why in the world we would be giving tax-cuts to the wealthy while trying to fight 2 wars at once?

[DJ V Lawrence]

Actually, the Bush administration response to the economic impact of 9/11 and the recession was brilliantly orchestrated to the tune of Keynsian macroeconomic theory--he had a great economic advisor at that time. Recessions are best handled (and political instability reduced) by increasing government spending and cutting taxes. The government debt, an obvious result of these policies, will then be paid back to the lenders in better times. The result is less volatility.

I agree with you here, and I do think that was a good move by Bush at the time. But 9/11 was 5 years ago. The airline and travel industries have gone back to regular sales. Our economy has recovered as a whole from that. I understand high government spending today(we're fighting two wars), but why the tax-cuts now? I haven't heard anything from Bush about raising or leaving taxes as they are(especially when the wealthy are involved), and I haven't heard anything about Bush's plan to pay back the lenders you mentioned. When should that be addressed?

All good questions-and you aren't the only one asking. Maybe the real question needs to be "why aren't our elected officials listening?" Maybe because until recently [last Tuesday?] they havn't been held accountable? Maybe because no one has really addressed why in the world we would be giving tax-cuts to the wealthy while trying to fight 2 wars at once?

Has the new congress mentioned anything about the tax-cut or high spending being a top-priority, and if so, what's their plan?

[RedScare]

Actually, the Bush administration response to the economic impact of 9/11 and the recession was brilliantly orchestrated to the tune of Keynsian macroeconomic theory--he had a great economic advisor at that time. Recessions are best handled (and political instability reduced) by increasing government spending and cutting taxes. The government debt, an obvious result of these policies, will then be paid back to the lenders in better times. The result is less volatility.

You are half right. Recessions are best thwarted by increasing government spending. After all, all of that government money is going into the economy. But tax rates have been shown to have no effect on economic activity. The only difference between "tax and spend" and "No tax and spend" is that the deficit grows, and someone down the line must pay it.

Serious economists agree tax rates have no effect. Politicians and journalists perpetuate the myth. Every roar in the economy was started or accompanied by an increase in government spending. The same cannot be said for tax cuts.

[nmainguy]

I agree with you here, and I do think that was a good move by Bush at the time.

I really have to disagree. It is NEVER good policy to cut taxes after your country has been attacked. When your survival is seen to be at stake, the prudent thing would be to pour your resources into defeating those who attacked you. Niche and Bush have other priorities. That's fine-they should just be upfront and admit it.

But 9/11 was 5 years ago. The airline and travel industries have gone back to regular sales. Our economy has recovered as a whole from that. I understand high government spending today(we're fighting two wars), but why the tax-cuts now? I haven't heard anything from Bush about raising or leaving taxes as they are(especially when the wealthy are involved), and I haven't heard anything about Bush's plan to pay back the lenders you mentioned. When should that be addressed?

Actually Bush is pushing to make his tax-cuts permanant-they are due to expire in 2010.

Bush has no plans-or intention-to pay back anything. He and Niche are of one mind when it comes to their advocacy of corporate welfare. It's good for them and their "free-market" [well, good for Bush-probably not so much for Niche; he just doesn't know it yet] at the expense of the vast majority of those who actually work their asses off to support their families within the limits of their stagnant incomes. As far as airlines recovering, I wouldn't call chronic bankruptcy recovery. However, you and I do get to cover their pension liabilities via Niche's "free market" corporate welfare system!

[TheNiche]

Serious economists agree tax rates have no effect. Politicians and journalists perpetuate the myth. Every roar in the economy was started or accompanied by an increase in government spending. The same cannot be said for tax cuts.

In theory, you would be correct that it doesn't matter whether the government or the private sector spends/invests a nation's resources. But I'd strongly argue that the private sector makes better investments and runs things more efficiently; they have stronger incentives to not waste resources.

I'd like to see a serious and credible study to the contrary, if you can cite one.

[TheNiche]

I agree with you here, and I do think that was a good move by Bush at the time. But 9/11 was 5 years ago. The airline and travel industries have gone back to regular sales. Our economy has recovered as a whole from that. I understand high government spending today(we're fighting two wars), but why the tax-cuts now? I haven't heard anything from Bush about raising or leaving taxes as they are(especially when the wealthy are involved), and I haven't heard anything about Bush's plan to pay back the lenders you mentioned. When should that be addressed?

There are other factors at play in the present...and you'll notice that nobody is pressuring the American people to go out and consume anymore. The time for that has passed.

The big concern now that we're no longer recessionary is the matter of social security and demographic change. Contrary to anything that you'll hear from Republicans or in the media, the social security program is secure and won't go bankrupt. It is backed by the American economy, and will either end up borrowing cash to cover its expenses (crowding out the private market for loanable funds in the process) or will be allowed to tax workers at a higher rate. So folks like ourselves, generations x through z, will face a bunch of boomers that demand a bigger slice of the pie. The only solution that works well for our generations is to try and make the pie bigger by increasing the rate at which people save and invest, which leads to an expansion of our capital stock.

There are a lot of ways for the government to create an incentive for people to save and invest their money, but most of them can't help but be programs that disproportionately benefit the wealthy because the wealthy have the highest ability and propensity to save and invest. Likewise, it is the wealthy (or aspiring) that are most likely to borrow and create businesses...so the wealthy borrowers benefit as much as do the wealthy investors, if not moreso.

[RedScare]

In theory, you would be correct that it doesn't matter whether the government or the private sector spends/invests a nation's resources. But I'd strongly argue that the private sector makes better investments and runs things more efficiently; they have stronger incentives to not waste resources.

I'd like to see a serious and credible study to the contrary, if you can cite one.

There is no need to provide a study, since we agree on the government spending spurring the economy. That spending does not have to be only on government employees, though that will increase consumer spending, achieving the same result. Government contracts with private companies also spur the economy. By the way, in a recessed economy, efficiency is not the ultimate goal. Forcing more dollars into the economy is the goal. Since efficient private companies will reduce spending during a recession, government, which is not as concerned with profit and risk, spends more. This spurs industry to produce again.

[TJones]

Hate to say it, but when I see people like Rush Limbaugh, I picture Republicans in this sense.

Couldn't agree more. The "patriotic" country singles the past three years in that industry went through the roof so long as it didn't including anything tht disagreed with the president. It's apparantly unpatriotic in the country music industry to think.

TJones, are you saying that they should never have voiced their opinions because of fear that they would have lost money?

Apparently you and Red think that folks that listen to country music are just too dumb too have a different opinion from Natalie, they should just let her have her say," and so what if you don't agree, keep buying DC albums you bunch of redneck hicks. Natalie is smarter than you, you should listen to her you hillbilly." Is that how you and Red look at it? Red said it plain as day, that people who listen to country music are unintelligent, and because someone speaks out against the war, THEY are the intelligent one. So tell me why people that don't agree with Natalie's stance on the war should keep forkin' over money to keep her in a lavish lifestyle ?

Red, like Niche asked you, how often do you discuss political views with clients before defending them ?

DJ, do you usually yell out to the crowd in the middle of a mix "I wish George Bush wasn't from Texas !" ?