|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Then maybe the solution is to have net neutrality AND remove commercial ISP influence from regulation. Wishful thinking though, probably.
|
On March 07 2015 00:36 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2015 23:52 Ryuhou)aS( wrote: Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between Black people and White people.
This was a weird test. It felt like they were conditioning me what to think and not trying to find what i actually think. But then the results were what i felt my results would be based on what i think so i just donno.
edit: I would also like to add I'm so sick of all this black or white nonsense. We're all humans for goodness sake. There are significant challenges blacks face in America. At the top of the list is the toxic culture young black males have crafted.
Toxic culture is a significant challenge but it sure wasn't crafted by young black males.
On March 07 2015 01:26 xDaunt wrote: I'll just leave this thought out there as it pertains to Hillary: there's a significant chunk of democrats that really don't want her to run for president. There's a reason why she was so easily torpedoed by Obama in 2008. I don't see why she'll do better this time around. Her quality as a politician is no where near the same as her husband's. She is not equipped to deal with her ever-growing baggage train, and many democrats know it, which is why the defense of Hillary on this email issue has been so tepid. Just watch and wait.
As was said she would need a viable competitor, Warren is the only one who would stand a chance and I'm pretty sure a deal has already been cut there.
The 'tepid' defense is because Democrats recognize it's a shady thing to do and are more inclined to be consistent about it. As opposed to the "Freedom Caucus" that couldn't have less to say about the freedom of Americans being stripped by the people they pay to protect them in Ferguson and elsewhere around the country. "Freedom Caucus" my ass.
Republicans have done nothing to try to close the gap on anyone who isn't a white male. In fact they have alienated more minorities and women since 2012. Looking at turnout and minority support models it's hard to see how Republicans could win. Expect more efforts to do whatever to reduce the minority vote. Republicans have no plan to get minority voters so their only options are to lose them and the election handily or try to keep minorities from voting en mass.
|
On March 07 2015 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 00:36 heliusx wrote:On March 06 2015 23:52 Ryuhou)aS( wrote: Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between Black people and White people.
This was a weird test. It felt like they were conditioning me what to think and not trying to find what i actually think. But then the results were what i felt my results would be based on what i think so i just donno.
edit: I would also like to add I'm so sick of all this black or white nonsense. We're all humans for goodness sake. There are significant challenges blacks face in America. At the top of the list is the toxic culture young black males have crafted. Toxic culture is a significant challenge but it sure wasn't crafted by young black males. Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 01:26 xDaunt wrote: I'll just leave this thought out there as it pertains to Hillary: there's a significant chunk of democrats that really don't want her to run for president. There's a reason why she was so easily torpedoed by Obama in 2008. I don't see why she'll do better this time around. Her quality as a politician is no where near the same as her husband's. She is not equipped to deal with her ever-growing baggage train, and many democrats know it, which is why the defense of Hillary on this email issue has been so tepid. Just watch and wait. As was said she would need a viable competitor, Warren is the only one who would stand a chance and I'm pretty sure a deal has already been cut there. The 'tepid' defense is because Democrats recognize it's a shady thing to do and are more inclined to be consistent about it. As opposed to the "Freedom Caucus" that couldn't have less to say about the freedom of Americans being stripped by the people they pay to protect them in Ferguson and elsewhere around the country. "Freedom Caucus" my ass. Republicans have done nothing to try to close the gap on anyone who isn't a white male. In fact they have alienated more minorities and women since 2012. Looking at turnout and minority support models it's hard to see how Republicans could win. Expect more efforts to do whatever to reduce the minority vote. Republicans have no plan to get minority voters so their only options are to lose them and the election handily or try to keep minorities from voting en mass. The republicans need to drop the neocons and the religious right, and get back to their libertarian roots or they will continue to lose presidential elections for the foreseeable future. Libertarianism is wholly opposed to the kind of police state bullshit going on in Ferguson, which could win the republicans some minority vote. Libertarianism is also not anti-immigration, winning more minority votes. Libertarianism is pro legalization of marijuana, possibly pulling some democrats and fence sitters. Libertarianism is also fine with gay marriage, pulling more democrats and fence sitters.
|
On March 07 2015 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 00:36 heliusx wrote:On March 06 2015 23:52 Ryuhou)aS( wrote: Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between Black people and White people.
This was a weird test. It felt like they were conditioning me what to think and not trying to find what i actually think. But then the results were what i felt my results would be based on what i think so i just donno.
edit: I would also like to add I'm so sick of all this black or white nonsense. We're all humans for goodness sake. There are significant challenges blacks face in America. At the top of the list is the toxic culture young black males have crafted. Toxic culture is a significant challenge but it sure wasn't crafted by young black males. Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 01:26 xDaunt wrote: I'll just leave this thought out there as it pertains to Hillary: there's a significant chunk of democrats that really don't want her to run for president. There's a reason why she was so easily torpedoed by Obama in 2008. I don't see why she'll do better this time around. Her quality as a politician is no where near the same as her husband's. She is not equipped to deal with her ever-growing baggage train, and many democrats know it, which is why the defense of Hillary on this email issue has been so tepid. Just watch and wait. As was said she would need a viable competitor, Warren is the only one who would stand a chance and I'm pretty sure a deal has already been cut there. The 'tepid' defense is because Democrats recognize it's a shady thing to do and are more inclined to be consistent about it. As opposed to the "Freedom Caucus" that couldn't have less to say about the freedom of Americans being stripped by the people they pay to protect them in Ferguson and elsewhere around the country. "Freedom Caucus" my ass. Republicans have done nothing to try to close the gap on anyone who isn't a white male. In fact they have alienated more minorities and women since 2012. Looking at turnout and minority support models it's hard to see how Republicans could win. Expect more efforts to do whatever to reduce the minority vote. Republicans have no plan to get minority voters so their only options are to lose them and the election handily or try to keep minorities from voting en mass. How can they? Democrats violated blacks' constitutional rights in Ferguson and still got 80%+ of the black vote.
|
On March 07 2015 04:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 00:36 heliusx wrote:On March 06 2015 23:52 Ryuhou)aS( wrote: Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between Black people and White people.
This was a weird test. It felt like they were conditioning me what to think and not trying to find what i actually think. But then the results were what i felt my results would be based on what i think so i just donno.
edit: I would also like to add I'm so sick of all this black or white nonsense. We're all humans for goodness sake. There are significant challenges blacks face in America. At the top of the list is the toxic culture young black males have crafted. Toxic culture is a significant challenge but it sure wasn't crafted by young black males. On March 07 2015 01:26 xDaunt wrote: I'll just leave this thought out there as it pertains to Hillary: there's a significant chunk of democrats that really don't want her to run for president. There's a reason why she was so easily torpedoed by Obama in 2008. I don't see why she'll do better this time around. Her quality as a politician is no where near the same as her husband's. She is not equipped to deal with her ever-growing baggage train, and many democrats know it, which is why the defense of Hillary on this email issue has been so tepid. Just watch and wait. As was said she would need a viable competitor, Warren is the only one who would stand a chance and I'm pretty sure a deal has already been cut there. The 'tepid' defense is because Democrats recognize it's a shady thing to do and are more inclined to be consistent about it. As opposed to the "Freedom Caucus" that couldn't have less to say about the freedom of Americans being stripped by the people they pay to protect them in Ferguson and elsewhere around the country. "Freedom Caucus" my ass. Republicans have done nothing to try to close the gap on anyone who isn't a white male. In fact they have alienated more minorities and women since 2012. Looking at turnout and minority support models it's hard to see how Republicans could win. Expect more efforts to do whatever to reduce the minority vote. Republicans have no plan to get minority voters so their only options are to lose them and the election handily or try to keep minorities from voting en mass. How can they? Democrats violated blacks' constitutional rights in Ferguson and still got 80%+ of the black vote.
My gut reaction is "Try"? What are you talking about?
|
Jonny wants to pretend that the locality/county exists independent of the state in which it operates in order to point at locally elected Democrats and say nanana booboo.
|
On March 07 2015 03:43 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 03:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:When Joyce Coltrin emails local customers of her wholesale garden nursery, she makes sure to keep her messages brief and doesn’t attach photos or documents. “I try not to write lengthy emails, because people here are using very expensive ways of reading them,” she says. With no reliable broadband service available, many residents of this small community in rural Bradley County, Tennessee, rely exclusively on 3G cellular networks for Internet access. “People are paying in the range of $300 a month using their cellphones,” she estimates, and service can be slow. “Students have to go all the way into town to a McDonald’s or Starbucks and use their Wi-Fi networks just to do schoolwork.”
Even more frustrating for Coltrin and her neighbors is that just down the road, in the same county, communities have access to a publicly owned fiber optic broadband network that delivers speeds of up to 1 gigabit per second. That network is financed and operated by EPB, a local electric utility that has been selling affordable high-speed broadband to residential and business customers since 2009.
EPB has a fiber optic line just half a mile from her office Coltrin, said, so she was surprised to learn that they can’t sell their service to her. That’s because a 1999 Tennessee law prohibits a public operator like EPB from expanding broadband services beyond its utilities footprint. EPB’s network may be offered only to its electricity customers.
Tennessee is hardly an outlier when it comes to limiting what’s known as municipal broadband, networks run by public entities or in public-private partnerships like Google Fiber. Nineteen states have laws significantly restricting or effectively banning municipal broadband. And each year new bills surface in statehouses across the country in attempts to increase that number. Supporters of these laws argue that capital-intensive projects like fiber broadband are too risky for local communities to pursue, given that taxpayers are left to foot the bill should a project fail.
A look at the legislative process in some of these states, however, reveals very close collaboration between the cable industry and lawmakers where the primary goal is simply to protect private companies from public competition.
In May 2011, North Carolina passed H129, a bill that effectively blocks new municipal broadband efforts with strict limits on financing methods and minimum retail pricing while requiring municipal broadband networks to pay state and local taxes as if they were for-profit businesses. The bill’s House sponsor was Rep. Marilyn Avila, R-40th District. In February of that year she arranged a meeting to bring opponents and proponents together for negotiation over the legislation. Avila, according to multiple people who attended that meeting, shocked opponents of the bill by quickly handing over the proceedings to Marcus Trathen, a lobbyist for Time Warner Cable whose law office also houses the North Carolina Cable Telecommunications Association, the industry’s trade group.
“Everybody on our side was like, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me,’” says Catherine Rice, a community broadband advocate. “[Trathen] ran the meeting, asked what was in the bill that people didn’t like and justified all the different pieces of it that he thought were fine. He was doing this without even looking at the bill, reciting it from memory. So we knew he was deeply involved in it.”
A second person that attended the meeting corroborated Rice’s account, speaking on condition of anonymity. Source This is a big reason I'm afraid of net neutrality. Making the internet a publicly regulated utility sounds like a good idea, until you realize the people doing the regulation are ISP employees.
But this has nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality is a very simple concept: a bit is a bit, and you cannot charge more for one bit than for another (or throttle speeds selectively). It has nothing to do with laws governing utilities, and who is allowed to lay down cables where.
If what you mean is that the article in question is the reason that you are afraid of the package of laws that, in addition to guaranteeing net neutrality said some stuff about how ISPs will be governed like utilities and the like, then who knows, I may even agree with you: I don't know enough about the law. However, net neutrality, in and of itself, has nothing to do with the article above.
|
|
Elizabeth Warren is too polarizing to be a realistic contender; IMO electing her would be conceding the election. That doesn't mean I'm not glad to have someone of her anti-establishment ferocity and raw intelligence on Capitol Hill, but her unwillingness to play ball with the good ole boys effectively eliminates any chances of a meaningful candidacy.
Libertarianism is the most reasonable sect of the GOP because it's the most moderate. Bill Maher said not too long ago, "Over the past ten years the Democrats have moved to the center, and the Republicans have moved into a mental asylum (paraphrasing)" which of course is hyperbolic but nonetheless a fairly accurate representation of the extreme right.
Rand Paul did incredibly well at CPAC, which is a notoriously far-right audience. Like his father he's not afraid to challenge extreme ideology within his own party, but unlike his father he's gaining far more support from within it. As a libertarian he will certainly attract more independents, possibly even some Democrats as Hillary is quite polarizing herself. Even his erroneous claims about vaccinations were taken pretty far out of context, and as someone who's become somewhat disillusioned with the near-comical state of the Republican party, my vote is still up in the air.
|
I just find it ironic when government itself becomes a victim of corrupt over regulation. Just the unintended consequences of well intentioned policy that gets hastily applied and thus isnt well thought out.
|
On March 07 2015 04:23 farvacola wrote: Jonny wants to pretend that the locality/county exists independent of the state in which it operates in order to point at locally elected Democrats and say nanana booboo. GH has been blaming Republicans in rural Nevada for Ferguson's police tactics. I'm trying to use a bit of exaggeration to remind him that Fergie is a liberal / democrat town. The state plays a role, sure, but police departments are largely a local affair.
Edit: also, police brutality in liberal NYC which is in liberal NY state.
Edit 2: MO has had a Democratic Governor since 2009.
On March 07 2015 04:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 04:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 07 2015 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 00:36 heliusx wrote:On March 06 2015 23:52 Ryuhou)aS( wrote: Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between Black people and White people.
This was a weird test. It felt like they were conditioning me what to think and not trying to find what i actually think. But then the results were what i felt my results would be based on what i think so i just donno.
edit: I would also like to add I'm so sick of all this black or white nonsense. We're all humans for goodness sake. There are significant challenges blacks face in America. At the top of the list is the toxic culture young black males have crafted. Toxic culture is a significant challenge but it sure wasn't crafted by young black males. On March 07 2015 01:26 xDaunt wrote: I'll just leave this thought out there as it pertains to Hillary: there's a significant chunk of democrats that really don't want her to run for president. There's a reason why she was so easily torpedoed by Obama in 2008. I don't see why she'll do better this time around. Her quality as a politician is no where near the same as her husband's. She is not equipped to deal with her ever-growing baggage train, and many democrats know it, which is why the defense of Hillary on this email issue has been so tepid. Just watch and wait. As was said she would need a viable competitor, Warren is the only one who would stand a chance and I'm pretty sure a deal has already been cut there. The 'tepid' defense is because Democrats recognize it's a shady thing to do and are more inclined to be consistent about it. As opposed to the "Freedom Caucus" that couldn't have less to say about the freedom of Americans being stripped by the people they pay to protect them in Ferguson and elsewhere around the country. "Freedom Caucus" my ass. Republicans have done nothing to try to close the gap on anyone who isn't a white male. In fact they have alienated more minorities and women since 2012. Looking at turnout and minority support models it's hard to see how Republicans could win. Expect more efforts to do whatever to reduce the minority vote. Republicans have no plan to get minority voters so their only options are to lose them and the election handily or try to keep minorities from voting en mass. How can they? Democrats violated blacks' constitutional rights in Ferguson and still got 80%+ of the black vote. My gut reaction is "Try"? What are you talking about? They have been trying. They've put black candidates forward and when Bush was still in office he put blacks in his cabinet (insert joke here). NCLB tried to close the minority gap (rich whites weren't the ones being left behind).
|
On March 06 2015 01:31 Velr wrote:How should I ever have learned to "read" these faces? My whole experience when it comes to black people is being robbed (by force) twice while i was in france...
That's the point.
:-/
On March 06 2015 13:54 xDaunt wrote: I'm trying to figure out why we're talking about nigh-irrelevant oil spills and last year's news (Ferguson) instead of the possible political demise of Hillary.
She'll ride it out. The Clintons (and their large, well funded team) have so much scandal experience they'll be fine. She's committed nearly every imaginable violation while in power and out of it. She's gonna be fine about hiding her emails from historians/investigators.
And oil spills aren't irrelevant to Keystone XL...
On March 06 2015 01:26 Nyxisto wrote: strong preference for whites, strong preference for homosexuals.. well shit I'm going to have trouble finding an organisation for that
Broadway?
|
On March 07 2015 04:31 always_winter wrote: Elizabeth Warren is too polarizing to be a realistic contender; IMO electing her would be conceding the election. That doesn't mean I'm not glad to have someone of her anti-establishment ferocity and raw intelligence on Capitol Hill, but her unwillingness to play ball with the good ole boys effectively eliminates any chances of a meaningful candidacy.
Libertarianism is the most reasonable sect of the GOP because it's the most moderate. Bill Maher said not too long ago, "Over the past ten years the Democrats have moved to the center, and the Republicans have moved into a mental asylum (paraphrasing)" which of course is hyperbolic but nonetheless a fairly accurate representation of the extreme right.
Rand Paul did incredibly well at CPAC, which is a notoriously far-right audience. Like his father he's not afraid to challenge extreme ideology within his own party, but unlike his father he's gaining far more support from within it. As a libertarian he will certainly attract more independents, possibly even some Democrats as Hillary is quite polarizing herself. Even his erroneous claims about vaccinations were taken pretty far out of context, and as someone who's become somewhat disillusioned with the near-comical state of the Republican party, my vote is still up in the air. Pity there aren't any libertarians in congress. Rand Paul is a tea party LINO.
|
On March 07 2015 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 04:23 farvacola wrote: Jonny wants to pretend that the locality/county exists independent of the state in which it operates in order to point at locally elected Democrats and say nanana booboo. GH has been blaming Republicans in rural Nevada for Ferguson's police tactics. I'm trying to use a bit of exaggeration to remind him that Fergie is a liberal / democrat town. The state plays a role, sure, but police departments are largely a local affair. Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 04:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 04:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 07 2015 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 00:36 heliusx wrote:On March 06 2015 23:52 Ryuhou)aS( wrote: Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between Black people and White people.
This was a weird test. It felt like they were conditioning me what to think and not trying to find what i actually think. But then the results were what i felt my results would be based on what i think so i just donno.
edit: I would also like to add I'm so sick of all this black or white nonsense. We're all humans for goodness sake. There are significant challenges blacks face in America. At the top of the list is the toxic culture young black males have crafted. Toxic culture is a significant challenge but it sure wasn't crafted by young black males. On March 07 2015 01:26 xDaunt wrote: I'll just leave this thought out there as it pertains to Hillary: there's a significant chunk of democrats that really don't want her to run for president. There's a reason why she was so easily torpedoed by Obama in 2008. I don't see why she'll do better this time around. Her quality as a politician is no where near the same as her husband's. She is not equipped to deal with her ever-growing baggage train, and many democrats know it, which is why the defense of Hillary on this email issue has been so tepid. Just watch and wait. As was said she would need a viable competitor, Warren is the only one who would stand a chance and I'm pretty sure a deal has already been cut there. The 'tepid' defense is because Democrats recognize it's a shady thing to do and are more inclined to be consistent about it. As opposed to the "Freedom Caucus" that couldn't have less to say about the freedom of Americans being stripped by the people they pay to protect them in Ferguson and elsewhere around the country. "Freedom Caucus" my ass. Republicans have done nothing to try to close the gap on anyone who isn't a white male. In fact they have alienated more minorities and women since 2012. Looking at turnout and minority support models it's hard to see how Republicans could win. Expect more efforts to do whatever to reduce the minority vote. Republicans have no plan to get minority voters so their only options are to lose them and the election handily or try to keep minorities from voting en mass. How can they? Democrats violated blacks' constitutional rights in Ferguson and still got 80%+ of the black vote. My gut reaction is "Try"? What are you talking about? They have been trying. They've put black candidates forward and when Bush was still in office he put blacks in his cabinet (insert joke here). NCLB tried to close the minority gap (rich whites weren't the ones being left behind).
lol what? Would voting Republican have helped them with the racial/Constitutional rights issues?
You can't just slap a black face on shitty policy and think that's "Trying".... That mentality is paper thin and seen right through.
If conservatives wanted to actually "try" they could easily get tons of support from the libertarians and minorities alike by creating/supporting a comprehensive plan to deal with racial prejudice, police brutality, and the justice system.
No one (with any sense) denies that it exists and is clearly a problem, so if they just actually tried to do something about it they would instantly gain credibility. But as long as Republicans think that having black people say the same bs they usually spew is somehow 'reaching out' or 'trying' they are going to continue to get virtually no support from black people and will enjoy ever-waning Hispanic support.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
dont think libertarians in the republican party are the most moderate. the theoretical framework of the ideology is just limited, unless you are talking about highly sophisticated libertarians who do recognize the importance of empiricism and treat libertarianism as a statement on the value of individual rights rather than the sole framework for a worldview.
i guess people take not being a troglodyte on social issues as being moderate but that stuff will just be taken as a bare baseline pretty soon
|
See I must of missed this effort to reach out to the black community from Republicans....
GOP leaders to skip Selma event
Scores of U.S. lawmakers are converging on tiny Selma, Alabama, for a large commemoration of a civil rights anniversary. But their ranks don’t include a single member of House Republican leadership — a point that isn’t lost on congressional black leaders. None of the top leaders — House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy or Majority Whip Steve Scalise, who was once thought likely to attend to atone for reports that he once spoke before a white supremacist group — will be in Selma for the three-day event that commemorates the 1965 march and the violence that protesters faced at the hands of white police officers. A number of rank-and-file Republicans have been aggressively lobbying their colleagues to attend, and several black lawmakers concurred. Story Continued Below
“It is very disappointing that not a single Republican leader sees the value in participating in this 50th commemoration of the signing of the Voting Rights Act. I had hoped that some of the leadership would attend, but apparently none of them will,” said Congressional Black Caucus Chairman G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina. “The Republicans always talk about trying to change their brand and be more appealing to minority folks and be in touch with the interests of African-Americans. This is very disappointing.”
Former CBC Chair Marsha Fudge (D-Ohio) agreed. “Not only do they have an opportunity to participate in something that is historic in this country, but certainly they’ve lost an opportunity to show the American people that they care,” she said. “Their loss.”
Source
It's impressively disturbing. I mean Mitch McConnell was of voting age at the time the damn law was passed.
Republican's leadership is pathetic (something both sides agree on, although for different reasons).
|
On March 07 2015 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote:See I must of missed this effort to reach out to the black community from Republicans.... Show nested quote +GOP leaders to skip Selma event
Scores of U.S. lawmakers are converging on tiny Selma, Alabama, for a large commemoration of a civil rights anniversary. But their ranks don’t include a single member of House Republican leadership — a point that isn’t lost on congressional black leaders. None of the top leaders — House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy or Majority Whip Steve Scalise, who was once thought likely to attend to atone for reports that he once spoke before a white supremacist group — will be in Selma for the three-day event that commemorates the 1965 march and the violence that protesters faced at the hands of white police officers. A number of rank-and-file Republicans have been aggressively lobbying their colleagues to attend, and several black lawmakers concurred. Story Continued Below
“It is very disappointing that not a single Republican leader sees the value in participating in this 50th commemoration of the signing of the Voting Rights Act. I had hoped that some of the leadership would attend, but apparently none of them will,” said Congressional Black Caucus Chairman G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina. “The Republicans always talk about trying to change their brand and be more appealing to minority folks and be in touch with the interests of African-Americans. This is very disappointing.”
Former CBC Chair Marsha Fudge (D-Ohio) agreed. “Not only do they have an opportunity to participate in something that is historic in this country, but certainly they’ve lost an opportunity to show the American people that they care,” she said. “Their loss.”
SourceIt's impressively disturbing. I mean Mitch McConnell was of voting age at the time the damn law was passed. Republican's leadership is pathetic (something both sides agree on, although for different reasons). If they went you'd say:
You can't just slap a black face on shitty policy and think that's "Trying".... That mentality is paper thin and seen right through.
|
On March 07 2015 05:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote:See I must of missed this effort to reach out to the black community from Republicans.... GOP leaders to skip Selma event
Scores of U.S. lawmakers are converging on tiny Selma, Alabama, for a large commemoration of a civil rights anniversary. But their ranks don’t include a single member of House Republican leadership — a point that isn’t lost on congressional black leaders. None of the top leaders — House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy or Majority Whip Steve Scalise, who was once thought likely to attend to atone for reports that he once spoke before a white supremacist group — will be in Selma for the three-day event that commemorates the 1965 march and the violence that protesters faced at the hands of white police officers. A number of rank-and-file Republicans have been aggressively lobbying their colleagues to attend, and several black lawmakers concurred. Story Continued Below
“It is very disappointing that not a single Republican leader sees the value in participating in this 50th commemoration of the signing of the Voting Rights Act. I had hoped that some of the leadership would attend, but apparently none of them will,” said Congressional Black Caucus Chairman G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina. “The Republicans always talk about trying to change their brand and be more appealing to minority folks and be in touch with the interests of African-Americans. This is very disappointing.”
Former CBC Chair Marsha Fudge (D-Ohio) agreed. “Not only do they have an opportunity to participate in something that is historic in this country, but certainly they’ve lost an opportunity to show the American people that they care,” she said. “Their loss.”
SourceIt's impressively disturbing. I mean Mitch McConnell was of voting age at the time the damn law was passed. Republican's leadership is pathetic (something both sides agree on, although for different reasons). If they went you'd say: Show nested quote +You can't just slap a black face on shitty policy and think that's "Trying".... That mentality is paper thin and seen right through. Pretty much. Democrats have devolved racial discourse into petty partisan politics. Not that I expect GreenHorizons to understand, but his cause that he holds so dear has been reduced to a "get out the vote tool." The Democrat party isn't interested in fixing the problem. They're only interested in using it.
|
On March 07 2015 05:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote:See I must of missed this effort to reach out to the black community from Republicans.... GOP leaders to skip Selma event
Scores of U.S. lawmakers are converging on tiny Selma, Alabama, for a large commemoration of a civil rights anniversary. But their ranks don’t include a single member of House Republican leadership — a point that isn’t lost on congressional black leaders. None of the top leaders — House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy or Majority Whip Steve Scalise, who was once thought likely to attend to atone for reports that he once spoke before a white supremacist group — will be in Selma for the three-day event that commemorates the 1965 march and the violence that protesters faced at the hands of white police officers. A number of rank-and-file Republicans have been aggressively lobbying their colleagues to attend, and several black lawmakers concurred. Story Continued Below
“It is very disappointing that not a single Republican leader sees the value in participating in this 50th commemoration of the signing of the Voting Rights Act. I had hoped that some of the leadership would attend, but apparently none of them will,” said Congressional Black Caucus Chairman G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina. “The Republicans always talk about trying to change their brand and be more appealing to minority folks and be in touch with the interests of African-Americans. This is very disappointing.”
Former CBC Chair Marsha Fudge (D-Ohio) agreed. “Not only do they have an opportunity to participate in something that is historic in this country, but certainly they’ve lost an opportunity to show the American people that they care,” she said. “Their loss.”
SourceIt's impressively disturbing. I mean Mitch McConnell was of voting age at the time the damn law was passed. Republican's leadership is pathetic (something both sides agree on, although for different reasons). If they went you'd say: Show nested quote +You can't just slap a black face on shitty policy and think that's "Trying".... That mentality is paper thin and seen right through.
Well that's actually something totally different. Going to Selma isn't a policy issue although it would be a good place for Republicans to reveal their plan to stop the abuse of Americans at the hands of the police.
Going to Selma is about showing reverence. Their absence shows their lack of it for those that fought for the rights the constitution (Republicans claim to hold so dear) was supposed to guarantee them.
On March 07 2015 05:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 05:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 07 2015 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote:See I must of missed this effort to reach out to the black community from Republicans.... GOP leaders to skip Selma event
Scores of U.S. lawmakers are converging on tiny Selma, Alabama, for a large commemoration of a civil rights anniversary. But their ranks don’t include a single member of House Republican leadership — a point that isn’t lost on congressional black leaders. None of the top leaders — House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy or Majority Whip Steve Scalise, who was once thought likely to attend to atone for reports that he once spoke before a white supremacist group — will be in Selma for the three-day event that commemorates the 1965 march and the violence that protesters faced at the hands of white police officers. A number of rank-and-file Republicans have been aggressively lobbying their colleagues to attend, and several black lawmakers concurred. Story Continued Below
“It is very disappointing that not a single Republican leader sees the value in participating in this 50th commemoration of the signing of the Voting Rights Act. I had hoped that some of the leadership would attend, but apparently none of them will,” said Congressional Black Caucus Chairman G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina. “The Republicans always talk about trying to change their brand and be more appealing to minority folks and be in touch with the interests of African-Americans. This is very disappointing.”
Former CBC Chair Marsha Fudge (D-Ohio) agreed. “Not only do they have an opportunity to participate in something that is historic in this country, but certainly they’ve lost an opportunity to show the American people that they care,” she said. “Their loss.”
SourceIt's impressively disturbing. I mean Mitch McConnell was of voting age at the time the damn law was passed. Republican's leadership is pathetic (something both sides agree on, although for different reasons). If they went you'd say: You can't just slap a black face on shitty policy and think that's "Trying".... That mentality is paper thin and seen right through. Pretty much. Democrats have devolved racial discourse into petty partisan politics. Not that I expect GreenHorizons to understand, but his cause that he holds so dear has been reduced to a "get out the vote tool." The Democrat party isn't interested in fixing the problem. They're only interested in using it.
For the record I don't disagree that Democrats in some instances are just as bad/guilty as Republicans but bad behavior is not an excuse for more bad behavior. Republicans need to grow up and not blame Democrats shitty race-related policies for their own much worse or non-existent ones.
|
The Department of Justice is getting ready to bring corruption charges against Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) over allegedly using his position to help a Democratic donor's business interests in exchange for gifts, CNN reported on Friday.
A formal announcement about the charges is expected to come "within weeks," according to CNN.
Citing anonymous sources who were "briefed on the case," CNN said Attorney General Eric Holder had approved prosecutors' request to charge Menendez.
The donor at the center of the charges, according to CNN, is Salomon Melgen, an ophthalmologist in Florida who's been a friend and supporter of Menendez for years.
Source
|
|
|
|