What vote?

U.S. Mulling How to Delay Elections in Case of Attack

WASHINGTON (July 11) - U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the November presidential election in case of an attack by al-Qaida, Newsweek reported Sunday.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network may attack within the United States to try to disrupt the election.

The magazine cited unnamed sources who told it that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the election if an attack occurred on the day before or the day of the election.

The department was asked to review a letter to Ridge from DeForest Soaries, who is the chairman of the new U.S. Election Assistance Commission, the magazine said.

The commission was created in 2002 to provide funds to the states to the replace punch card voting systems and provide other assistance in conducting federal elections.

In his letter, Soaries pointed out that while New York's Board of Elections suspended primary elections in New York on the day of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election."

Soaries wants Ridge to ask Congress to pass legislation giving the government such power, Newsweek reported in its latest issue that hits the newsstands Monday.

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Rochrkasse told the magazine the agency is reviewing the matter "to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election."

Republican Rep. Christopher Cox of California, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, told CNN that the idea of legislation allowing the election to be postponed was similar to what had already been looked at in terms of how to respond to an attack on Congress.

"These are doomsday scenarios. Nobody expects that they're going to happen," he said. "But we're preparing for all these contingencies now."

07/11/04 11:50 ET

>U.S. Mulling How to Delay Elections in Case of Attack

>

>WASHINGTON (July 11) - U.S. counterterrorism officials are

>looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to

>postpone the November presidential election in case of an

>attack by al-Qaida, Newsweek reported Sunday.

>

>Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that

>Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network may attack within the

>United States to try to disrupt the election.

>

>The magazine cited unnamed sources who told it that the

>Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department

>last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay

>the election if an attack occurred on the day before or the

>day of the election.

>

>The department was asked to review a letter to Ridge from

>DeForest Soaries, who is the chairman of the new U.S. Election

>Assistance Commission, the magazine said.

>

>The commission was created in 2002 to provide funds to the

>states to the replace punch card voting systems and provide

>other assistance in conducting federal elections.

>

>In his letter, Soaries pointed out that while New York's Board

>of Elections suspended primary elections in New York on the

>day of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "the federal government

>has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and

>reschedule a federal election."

>

>Soaries wants Ridge to ask Congress to pass legislation giving

>the government such power, Newsweek reported in its latest

>issue that hits the newsstands Monday.

>

>Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Rochrkasse told

>the magazine the agency is reviewing the matter "to determine

>what steps need to be taken to secure the election."

>

>Republican Rep. Christopher Cox of California, who chairs the

>House Homeland Security Committee, told CNN that the idea of

>legislation allowing the election to be postponed was similar

>to what had already been looked at in terms of how to respond

>to an attack on Congress.

>

>"These are doomsday scenarios. Nobody expects that they're

>going to happen," he said. "But we're preparing for all these

>contingencies now."

>

>

>07/11/04 11:50 ET

This really has nothing to do with your post but rather one name that you happen to mention and he is Republican Rep Christopher Cox. He represents part of Orange County in California. He resides in Newport Beach and he has represented his district now for over two decades. He represents one of the most conservative areas in the U.S and I think sometimes he has some interesting things to say and other times he says things which are very moronic. As a politician I really don't like him. Earlier this year the company that I work for sponsored a campain luncheon in his honor. Most of my co-workers including myself wanted to be somewhere else for lunch. We ended up going and I was seated at the table next to his. It was embarrassing for him because he's very social but no one really wanted to talk to him about politics. So he goes up the podium to make a speech and he talked for something like twenty minutes. I thought that he was absolutely boring, I was yawning a few times and the person next to me kept nudging me everyime I closed my eyes. I remember thinking if he can bore an audience to death imagine what he would be like as Speaker Of The House. I believe he is still third in line to succeed House Speaker Denny Hassert, if he were to fall ill or be removed from offic. I've said and vented my piece on Chris Cox.

Rohale

RE: What post?

"This really has nothing to do with your post"

So why did you cut and paste his post in yours?

RE: What post?

>"This really has nothing to do with your post"

>

>So why did you cut and paste his post in yours?

Well I made a mistake, I'm human and I'm prone to have a lack of judgement every now and then. Still there was no harm done to anyone, afterall I haven't committed a crime.

Rohale

I've got it now...

It all makes sense:

Suspend the election to preserve democracy.

Makes as much sense as going to war to 'keep the peace'.

>

>The department was asked to review a letter to Ridge from

>DeForest Soaries, who is the chairman of the new U.S. Election

>Assistance Commission, the magazine said.

>

If you took genetic material from Jerry Falwell and Clarence Thomas, and created new life, the likely result would be DeForest "Buster" Soaries. Here is a guy who is only too happy to play "step and fetch it" for the Bush Administration. Since the Bush Administration has no concern about legal qualifications for judges nor the separation of church and state, one of these days Soaries could become the first black clergyman with no legal training on the Supreme Court. If so, God help us all.

Liberal racism

>If you took genetic material from Jerry Falwell and Clarence

>Thomas, and created new life, the likely result would be

>DeForest "Buster" Soaries. Here is a guy who is only too happy

>to play "step and fetch it" for the Bush Administration.

>Since the Bush Administration has no concern about legal

>qualifications for judges nor the separation of church and

>state, one of these days Soaries could become the first black

>clergyman with no legal training on the Supreme Court. If so,

>God help us all.

LOL!! Look at this - every disgusting racist stereotype packed succinctly into one short post!

I LOVE when liberals talk about black people who refuse to fall into line like they're supposed to and spout liberal dogma. The hatred that ensues towards such individuals makes liberals so enraged ("HOW DARE A BLACK MAN THINK INDEPENDENTLY!") that they don't even bother to mask their grotesque racism.

So here's "Bucky" - such a good, nice liberal - who is discussing a black politician whom he dislikes (because he's not a liberal) and, in one short post, Bucky:

* disparages this black individual's "genetic material";

* compares him to another conservative political figure whom liberals love to call stupid and who - surprise! - also happens to be black (in the end, they're all alike, right Bucky?);

* invokes the ugliest racist imagery by accusing Soaries of playing "step and fetch it" for the Bush Administration;

* and, worst and most transparently racist of all, laments that Soaries may "become the first black clergyman with no legal training on the Supreme Court" - as though it would somehow make it worse if a clergyman with no legal training were appointed to the Supreme Court AND, on top of all these bad things, were also black.

Are there any fair-minded liberals who are willing to condemn this disgusting display of bigotry and racism, or do all you think it's ok because it's directed at a black conservative so anything is fair game?

Could you even imagine the outcry if a conservative columnist talked about some black liberal and, in doing so, criticized his "genetic material," compared him to black prisoners, accused him of performing a minstral act, and listed a whole set of derogatory characteristics rendering the person unfit for office and unconsciously included "black" as one of the disqualifying attributes? How long would it be before that person was ostracized as an unmitigated racist? But when it's a liberal attacking a black conservative with this sort of naked racism, it seems to be just fine.

This reminds me a lot of the rather revealing and unquestionably racist obssession with depicting Clarence Thomas as a mentally impaired, unspeakably stupid puppy dog who is capable of doing nothing except what his white Master, Justice Scalia, tells him to do. Aside from being repugnantly racist, this suggestion is also factually false, as the fact is that are at least several other pairs of Justices in agreement with one another in Supreme Court decisions more frequently than Scalia/Thomas, and the frequency with which Justice Thomas differs from Justice Scalia is roughly average for Supreme Court justices. The most significant case in the last 5 years issued by the Supreme Court (the ones concerning the rights of Guantanomo prisoners and "illegal combatants") was one where Justice Thomas dissented alone.

But none of that matters. Justice Thomas, just like DeForest "Buster" Soaries, has committed the ultimate sin of refusing to advocate the liberal ideology, and therefore, they must -at all costs, and no matter what the facs are -- be depicted as stupid, mindless, genetically defective monkeys who dance and shuffle for their white Masters.

More naked racism than this post by Bucky is hard to find. And yet, most liberals will never condemn it, because it's directed at a black man who happens to have divergent political views. What a fucking disgrace.

More stupidity from Doug

Why didn't you take Lucky to task for the criticism of Jerry Falwell? It's obvious from the what Lucky wrote that he is equally as much of a racist against white people as against black people.

And what racial stereotypes are you referring to? I certainly don't see all of them there. Perhaps you were too busy writing down what Karl Rove and Ann Coulter told you to say and you forgot a few.

No rational person (ie non-repiglican) would get racism from Lucky's post. You repigs are so anxious to repudiate the institutionalized racism of the Repiglican Party that you will grasp any straw to try and show that others are racist as if that somehow absolves you of being racist Repiglican bastards.

Stop towing the party line Doug and try thinking for yourself for a change. Oh wait, if your President can't, why should you bother?

I don't understand why a delay in the election would be needed in the case of a terrorist attack. What likely scenario would prevent people from voting?

Even if Washington DC were nuked, couldn't votes still be counted in the rest of the country?

It might take months after such an attack to validate the vote counts and complete the transfer of authority, but we've lived through that before.

...Hoover

>I don't understand why a delay in the election would be

>needed in the case of a terrorist attack. What likely scenario

>would prevent people from voting?

If there were massive terrorist attacks staged in multiple cities across the nation on the night before the election, or on the morning of the election, that could have the effect of preventing tens or even hundreds of thousands of people from voting - maybe more - which could severely affect, or alter, the outcome of the election.

In New York City, September 11, 2001 was originally scheduled to be either the Democratic mayoral primary or the run-off election between Mark Green and Fernando Ferrer (I forget which). On the morning of 9/11, Mayor Guiliani cancelled the primary and re-scheduled it (for about a month later, as I recall), and nobody - including the candidates - questioned whether that was the right thing to do. The impact of 9/11 was so great that it would have enabled only a tiny fraction of the electorate to vote, and would have rendered the election, had it gone forward that day, a complete sham. Do you think that the cancellation of this primary endangered democracy?

It's childish to think there's anything wrong with planning for a catastrophic terorist attack which is designed to disrupt the election. In fact, if such an attack did occur on the night before the election, or on the morning of Election Day, I have no doubt at all that the same people harping about the creation of these contingency plans would be complaining that the Bush Administration was reckless for not having devised plans for the postponment of the election in the event of such attacks.

I agree that if any plans are devised for postponment of a national election, the power to do so ought to be vested in a very bi-partisian and highly respected commission - and certainly not in some GOP political hack. That is a valid criticism to make. But the mere fact that such contingency plans are in place, particularly given the obvious target which Election Day provides, is hardly grounds for suggesting that there is some imminent dictatorship on the horizon.

Obviously, the disclosure of these plans feeds into the extreme paranoia of the fringe "Bush is Hitler" fanatics who are convinced that Bush is trying to make himself President for Life. But I think that the sane adults will understand that such planning is not just desirable but necessary, and will simultaneously demand that it be done with safeguards so as to ensure that these powers are not abused.

RE: More stupidity from Doug

>And what racial stereotypes are you referring to? I certainly

>don't see all of them there.

Right - accusing black Republicans of playing "Step and fetch it" (do you understand that reference); disparaging a black person's "genetic material"; comparing them to Clarence Thomas; and specifically mentioning their race as a reason to lament their appointment . . . In his latest post, and with painful predicability, he called Soaries (and, of course, Clarence Thomas) an "Uncle Tom" . . .. no racist sterotypes there at all. Nope.

He managed to include some derogatory or bigoted reference to Soaries' race in every single sentence he wrote about him.

He could have placed a burning cross in the middle of his

post and you still wouldn't see racism in it. That's because liberals can't be racists, can they? Name one who is. If you want to understand how disgusting it is how white liberals convince themselves that they are so good and pure that they can't possibly be racist, just ask Black Democrats. They complain about this behavior quite frequently.

>Stop towing the party line Doug and try thinking for yourself

>for a change. Oh wait, if your President can't, why should

>you bother?

I'm not voting for George Bush and I oppose his re-election. One does not even need to ask whom you're voting for in order to know; not a molecule of doubt is possible. I admire many things about Bill Clinton's presidency and detest many about George Bush's. By contrast, you are anatomically incapable of identifying a single positive thing about the Bush Presidency, and capable of expressing yourself only in base liberal cliche and name-calling.

I think that says all that needs to be said about who is capable of independent thought and who is enslaved to a partisan world-view.

RE: Liberal racism

>

>So here's "Bucky" - such a good, nice liberal - who is

>discussing a black politician whom he dislikes (because he's

>not a liberal) and, in one short post, Bucky:

>

>* disparages this black individual's "genetic material";

Doogie: You really should buy some new reading glasses. Or at least stop and think before you post. Of course, you get a hardon every time you think you're presented an opportunity to be clever. When it comes to an advantage, I have one here. I actually know Buster Soaries, but I rather doubt you do. Trust me on this, Buster, like Clarence, is an Uncle Tom of the first order. I can say this, and not be a racist, but if you said it, you clearly would be.

Now I'm going to really throw you a curve. Do you know what my ethnic background is? Since you like to act as if you know everything, why don't you tell us so I can show the readers here how you have just made an ass of yourself by assuming you know. Come on, humor me,take a wild guess. I gave you a hint in the prior paragraph.

>

>* compares him to another conservative political figure whom

>liberals love to call stupid and who - surprise! - also

>happens to be black (in the end, they're all alike, right

>Bucky?);

You would say they're all alike, because that is official Republican ideology. I would say nothing of the sort.

>

>* invokes the ugliest racist imagery by accusing Soaries of

>playing "step and fetch it" for the Bush Administration;

I'm not accusing him of anything, I'm just stating a well-known fact.

>

>* and, worst and most transparently racist of all, laments

>that Soaries may "become the first black clergyman with

>no legal training on the Supreme Court" - as though it would

>somehow make it worse if a clergyman with no legal training

>were appointed to the Supreme Court AND, on top of all these

>bad things, were also black.

Dumbass, this is merely making the distinction between him and Clarence Thomas, as Thomas does have legal credentials. Buster has none. Such subtleties would clearly zip right over your head.

>

>Are there any fair-minded liberals who are willing to condemn

>this disgusting display of bigotry and racism, or do all you

>think it's ok because it's directed at a black conservative so

>anything is fair game?

Your point is now rendered moot, so get over it.

>

>Could you even imagine the outcry if a conservative columnist

>talked about some black liberal and, in doing so, criticized

>his "genetic material," compared him to black prisoners,

>accused him of performing a minstral act, and listed a whole

>set of derogatory characteristics rendering the person unfit

>for office and unconsciously included "black" as one of the

>disqualifying attributes? How long would it be before that

>person was ostracized as an unmitigated racist? But when it's

>a liberal attacking a black conservative with this sort of

>naked racism, it seems to be just fine.

It does my heart good to see you typing all your supposed outrage when I've pulled the rug right out from under you. You've definitely been punked!!!!

>

>This reminds me a lot of the rather revealing and

>unquestionably racist obssession with depicting Clarence

>Thomas as a mentally impaired, unspeakably stupid puppy dog

>who is capable of doing nothing except what his white Master,

>Justice Scalia, tells him to do. Aside from being repugnantly

>racist, this suggestion is also factually false, as the fact

>is that are at least several other pairs of Justices in

>agreement with one another in Supreme Court decisions more

>frequently than Scalia/Thomas, and the frequency with which

>Justice Thomas differs from Justice Scalia is roughly average

>for Supreme Court justices. The most significant case in the

>last 5 years issued by the Supreme Court (the ones concerning

>the rights of Guantanomo prisoners and "illegal combatants")

>was one where Justice Thomas dissented alone.

You're raising an issue nobody raised.....I never mentioned Scalia. Of course, you needed to, because you see everything in liberal/conservative terms. That's typical of small minded people, like you and our appointed president.

>

>But none of that matters. Justice Thomas, just like DeForest

>"Buster" Soaries, has committed the ultimate sin of refusing

>to advocate the liberal ideology, and therefore, they must -at

>all costs, and no matter what the facs are -- be depicted as

>stupid, mindless, genetically defective monkeys who dance and

>shuffle for their white Masters.

No, Dipshit, the issue is that Soaries is pushing for a way to stop the elections in case of a terrorist attack. Now who do you think would benefit from that ploy?

>

>More naked racism than this post by Bucky is hard to find.

>And yet, most liberals will never condemn it, because it's

>directed at a black man who happens to have divergent

>political views. What a fucking disgrace.

If you want to scream racism, I suggest you aim it at your hero Dubya who has snubbed the NAACP Convention for four years in a row.

Now go lick your wounds and Dubya's ass and be quiet.

And what was Rudy's goal after 9-11? To have himself remain Mayor and cancel the election for several months. I bet that even he is happy that that did not happen, as he has subsequently cashed in for millions off of this tragedy.

RE: Liberal racism

>When it comes to an advantage, I have one here. I

>actually know Buster Soaries, but I rather doubt you do.

>Trust me on this, Buster, like Clarence, is an Uncle Tom of

>the first order.

The fact that you (claim to) know him doesn't make your statements any less racist. To the contrary, the fact that you know him and yet can't refrain from criticizing him without making derogatory references to his race -- the tired, vile "Uncle Tom" label being only the latest -- makes your racism even clearer.

> I can say this, and not be a racist, but if

>you said it, you clearly would be.

This is one of the dumbest, sickest sentiments plaguing our political culture - the notion that an idea can be racist if expressed by a white person, but the same, identical idea is somehow perfectly acceptable as long as the speaker is black.

That idea is itself repugnant and racist. An idea is racist or not based on the content, not based upon the race of the speaker expressing the idea.

How ironic - and sad - that the core of Martin Luther King's vision - judging people based upon the content of their character rather than the color of their skin - has been so fundamentally rejected by self-styled liberals like you, for whom - as you just admitted - the color of a person's skin is EVERYTHING. Why, it even determines whether or not an idea being expressed is or is not racist.

>Now I'm going to really throw you a curve. Do you know what

>my ethnic background is? Since you like to act as if you know

>everything, why don't you tell us so I can show the readers

>here how you have just made an ass of yourself by assuming you

>know. Come on, humor me,take a wild guess. I gave you a hint

>in the prior paragraph.

I don't give a fuck what the color of your skin is. Unlike you, I believe your race has no bearing on the content of your ideas. Your post and the ideas in it are racist to the core, and the fact that you're one race rather than another doesn't change that in the slightest.

How revealing that you actually think tha the color of your skin is supposed to immunize your ideas from criticism, and that people of different races have different rules governing what they can and can't say. That is the very definition of racism - the very antithesis of the principles articulated by Dr. King - and it is so richly ironic that you admit to these views -- the very views that DEFINE racism -- while claiming that it is unfair to call you a racist.

>>* invokes the ugliest racist imagery by accusing Soaries of

>>playing "step and fetch it" for the Bush Administration;

>

>I'm not accusing him of anything, I'm just stating a

>well-known fact.

So do white political appointees who advocate the positions of the Bush Administration also play "step and fetch it" for the Administration - or is just the black ones who do that?

>It does my heart good to see you typing all your supposed

>outrage when I've pulled the rug right out from under you.

>You've definitely been punked!!!!

Only a complete racist would think that the color of their skin somehow, by itself, renders someone else's arguments invalid. In other words, you are a complete racist.

>You're raising an issue nobody raised.....I never mentioned

>Scalia. Of course, you needed to, because you see everything

>in liberal/conservative terms. That's typical of small minded

>people, like you and our appointed president.

Have you haerd of the concept of an "analogy"? That's where one person raises an issue that hasn't been raised in order to illustrate a principle applicable to the issue that has been raised.

The fact that liberals try to depict Clarence Thomas as being too stupid to think on his own without obeying the orders of his White Master - even though the facts negate that disgusting accusation - shows that liberals attempt to baselessly smear black conservatives as being stupid and corrupt-- just like you're doing with Soaries. Now do you understand the connection?

>If you want to scream racism, I suggest you aim it at your

>hero Dubya who has snubbed the NAACP Convention for four years

>in a row.

There has never been a President in history- not even close - who relies as heavily on high-level Black and Latino advisers as George Bush does. I don't mean token political appointees to head some obscure agencies -- like Bill Clinton would do with his minority appointments relegated HHS and Education and various obscure commissions, while the advisers with true access to him were as white as the driven snow. For George Bush, his most important national security advisors are Black, and his closest legal advisor is Latino.

But Clinton went to speak to the LIBERAL NAACP and Bush didn't. Therefore, Bush is a racist and Clinton wasn't.

Good thing you don't judge people and make accusations of racism based on cheap symbolism rather than on substance. Then again, given your race, it doesn't matter what you do, since you can't possibly be racist. Your skin color immunizes you from that.

"Stepnfetchit" is an African American character stereotype who usually embodies the most negative stereotypes of African Americans (oafish, happy go lucky, loud, gaudy, subservient, etc.)."

Stepnfetchit not "step and fetch it", but I suppose that could be a typo on your part, except that it entailed more than merely transposing a couple of letters.

Just which of the characteristics stated above apply in this case again?

RE: Liberal racism

>>When it comes to an advantage, I have one here. I

>>actually know Buster Soaries, but I rather doubt you do.

>>Trust me on this, Buster, like Clarence, is an Uncle Tom of

>>the first order.

>

>The fact that you (claim to) know him doesn't make your

>statements any less racist. To the contrary, the fact that

>you know him and yet can't refrain from criticizing him

>without making derogatory references to his race -- the tired,

>vile "Uncle Tom" label being only the latest -- makes your

>racism even clearer.

You don't even begin to know what racism is, but you're really quick on the trigger to aim it at anyone who doesn't worship your narrow view of the world. You think it is racist for a person of one ethnic group to criticize the actions of another of that same group? You're full of shit, as usual. The real issue for you is ideology. It's ok for conservatives to criticize anyone they please, and to institute policies that have oppressed poor people of all racial backgrounds, but liberals must adhere to a totally different standard....that seems to be your current lunacy.

>

>> I can say this, and not be a racist, but if

>>you said it, you clearly would be.

>

>This is one of the dumbest, sickest sentiments plaguing our

>political culture - the notion that an idea can be racist if

>expressed by a white person, but the same, identical idea is

>somehow perfectly acceptable as long as the speaker is black.

Racism is largely determined by who holds power. You'll be free to label any other group racist when whites no longer control things in this country. Until then, live with it.

>

>

>How ironic - and sad - that the core of Martin Luther King's

>vision - judging people based upon the content of their

>character rather than the color of their skin - has been so

>fundamentally rejected by self-styled liberals like you, for

>whom - as you just admitted - the color of a person's skin is

>EVERYTHING. Why, it even determines whether or not an idea

>being expressed is or is not racist.

Utterly ridiculous, as usual. I never said skin color is everything, those are only words you attribute to me, which I never said. I doubt Martin Luther King would have considered your ideology as anything consistent with his vision for this nation and the world. Unlike you, he wasn't a social Darwinist. Your political ideology is the very essence of racism. It worships at the altar of unbridled capitalism and sees those who are devoid of political or economic power as merely cogs in the great money-making machine. This is why the very notion of "compassionate conservatism" is a total lie. You can't be compassionate, if you only care about people just like you. The only love conservatives have for the poor is that they comprise the work force that makes them money. For conservatives, the poor are expendable, just as civilians who get killed are just "collateral damage" in the wars we wage.

>

>>Now I'm going to really throw you a curve. Do you know what

>>my ethnic background is? Since you like to act as if you

>know

>>everything, why don't you tell us so I can show the readers

>>here how you have just made an ass of yourself by assuming

>you

>>know. Come on, humor me,take a wild guess. I gave you a

>hint

>>in the prior paragraph.

>

>I don't give a fuck what the color of your skin is. Unlike

>you, I believe your race has no bearing on the content of your

>ideas. Your post and the ideas in it are racist to the core,

>and the fact that you're one race rather than another doesn't

>change that in the slightest.

Oh ignorant one, enlighten me as to how it is racist for a member of one ethnic group to criticize the ideas or actions of another member of that same group?

>

>How revealing that you actually think tha the color of your

>skin is supposed to immunize your ideas from criticism, and

>that people of different races have different rules governing

>what they can and can't say. That is the very definition of

>racism - the very antithesis of the principles articulated by

>Dr. King - and it is so richly ironic that you admit to these

>views -- the very views that DEFINE racism -- while claiming

>that it is unfair to call you a racist.

The very views that define racism, according, of course, to Doug69. And, of course, we're all supposed to believe you are a great disciple of Martin Luther King? Now that's rich!

>

>>>* invokes the ugliest racist imagery by accusing Soaries of

>>>playing "step and fetch it" for the Bush Administration;

>>

>>I'm not accusing him of anything, I'm just stating a

>>well-known fact.

>

>So do white political appointees who advocate the positions of

>the Bush Administration also play "step and fetch it" for the

>Administration - or is just the black ones who do that?

>

>>It does my heart good to see you typing all your supposed

>>outrage when I've pulled the rug right out from under you.

>>You've definitely been punked!!!!

>

>Only a complete racist would think that the color of their

>skin somehow, by itself, renders someone else's arguments

>invalid. In other words, you are a complete racist.

>

>>You're raising an issue nobody raised.....I never mentioned

>>Scalia. Of course, you needed to, because you see

>everything

>>in liberal/conservative terms. That's typical of small

>minded

>>people, like you and our appointed president.

>

>Have you haerd of the concept of an "analogy"? That's where

>one person raises an issue that hasn't been raised in order to

>illustrate a principle applicable to the issue that has been

>raised.

>

>The fact that liberals try to depict Clarence Thomas as being

>too stupid to think on his own without obeying the orders of

>his White Master - even though the facts negate that

>disgusting accusation - shows that liberals attempt to

>baselessly smear black conservatives as being stupid and

>corrupt-- just like you're doing with Soaries. Now do you

>understand the connection?

>

>>If you want to scream racism, I suggest you aim it at your

>>hero Dubya who has snubbed the NAACP Convention for four

>years

>>in a row.

>

>There has never been a President in history- not even close -

>who relies as heavily on high-level Black and Latino advisers

>as George Bush does. I don't mean token political appointees

>to head some obscure agencies -- like Bill Clinton would do

>with his minority appointments relegated HHS and Education and

>various obscure commissions, while the advisers with true

>access to him were as white as the driven snow. For George

>Bush, his most important national security advisors are Black,

>and his closest legal advisor is Latino.

Nothing but tokenism, pure and simple. They wouldn't have those positions if they didn't share his facist views.

>

>But Clinton went to speak to the LIBERAL NAACP and Bush

>didn't. Therefore, Bush is a racist and Clinton wasn't.

Bush is a racist because of his policies, which have wreaked havoc on poor people here and abroad. It goes much beyond issues of race.

>

>Good thing you don't judge people and make accusations of

>racism based on cheap symbolism rather than on substance.

>Then again, given your race, it doesn't matter what you do,

>since you can't possibly be racist. Your skin color immunizes

>you from that.

Race involves a lot more than skin color. It involves history. Only a true racist wouldn't understand that fact. That means you.

>"Stepnfetchit" is an African American character stereotype

>who usually embodies the most negative stereotypes of African

>Americans (oafish, happy go lucky, loud, gaudy, subservient,

>etc.)."

Yes, this description is precisely accurate. That's why I generously assumed that people (such as BoN) who had the audacity to pretend not to see any racist stereotypes in Bucky's post were simply ignorant of the reference.

>Stepnfetchit not "step and fetch it", but I suppose that could

>be a typo on your part, except that it entailed more than

>merely transposing a couple of letters.

Wheter it was a typo or an ignorant misspelling for him to apply this term, it was unquestionably racist to do so (even though he will tell you that since he's black, or not white, he can't be racist - a consummately racist notion itself).

>Just which of the characteristics stated above apply in this

>case again?

He's black but not liberal. That's all that's needed. Any black person who doesn't fall into line and become a liberal Democrat is labelled Uncle Tom, stepnfetchit, a stupid monkey, and every other vicious accusation - ALWAYS based on their race -- that racist leftists can think of.

Recently, a liberal cartoonist had his syndicated cartoon cancelled by multiple newspapers after a week-long series depicting Condaleeza Rice as a black, illiterate maid serving her White Masters in the White House. Just disgusting beyond words. If you can find a liberal political discussion board which discusses Colin Powell without referring to him as Uncle Tom, please let me know. I've never seen one.

But somehow, even though all of the insults aimed at black conservatives are race-based --- and all are based on the noxious idea that their race is supposed to mandate that they belong to one political party (just like this same crowd thinks that one's sexual orientation does as well) -- lots of people have been snowed into thinking that these overtly racist attacks are somehow acceptable.

The irony, of course, is that it's the indepenent-minded black people -- i.e., the ones who DON'T fall into line with the liberal orthodoxy and who bravely adhere to their political views even in the face of these vicious, racist insults and attacks -- who get depicted by oh-so-well-meaning liberals to be mindless, shufflin' caricatures straight out of minstral shows.

Hence, someone like Bucky can come here and unlesah this disgusting attack on a black political official - where EVERY criticism of that official makes overt or implicit reference to his race -- and other liberals can actually come along and say "I don't see any racial referneces in what he said." It's all based on the notion that liberals, by virtue of the very fact that they're liberal, can't possibly be racist - an idea which is not only stupid and offensive on its face, but is also one that has angered black Democrats for decades.

Check out the comments in this thread if you want to understand why that is.

RE: More stupidity from Doug

>

>I'm not voting for George Bush and I oppose his re-election.

Sounds like a lie to me. Doug will vote for Bush because he embodies everything Doug believes as a true Republican.

I admire many

>things about Bill Clinton's presidency and detest many about

>George Bush's. By contrast, you are anatomically incapable of

>identifying a single positive thing about the Bush Presidency,

>and capable of expressing yourself only in base liberal cliche

>and name-calling.

OK, here's something positive about George Bush: The good news is that he hasn't yet destroyed the planet. The bad news: he's working on it.

>"Stepnfetchit" is an African American character stereotype

>who usually embodies the most negative stereotypes of African

>Americans (oafish, happy go lucky, loud, gaudy, subservient,

>etc.)."

>

>Stepnfetchit not "step and fetch it", but I suppose that could

>be a typo on your part, except that it entailed more than

>merely transposing a couple of letters.

Glad to see our resident Dixie Boy has taken a time out from licking Doug's ass to give us a trailer park spelling lesson. Moron, you merely shared your ignorance with us again. Thanks for sharing.

>

>Just which of the characteristics stated above apply in this

>case again?

>

None!

RE: Liberal racism

BRAVO! Well said! But I still don't know why you insist on calling BuckyXTC a liberal, as most liberals believe in "live and let live" and don't BRAND everyone who disagrees with their beliefs or ideas as racist, ignorant, white trailer park trash, as our esteemed colleague ALWAYS does. Of course, NONE of that is the least bit racist!

"But Clinton went to speak to the LIBERAL NAACP and Bush didn't. Therefore, Bush is a racist and Clinton wasn't."

I thought this was the first year of Bush's tenure that he has not spoken to the NAACP and that he did so in his prior years.

"Good thing you don't judge people and make accusations of racism based on cheap symbolism rather than on substance. Then again, given your race, it doesn't matter what you do, since you can't possibly be racist. Your skin color immunizes you from that."

This is PC America where, don't you know, where ONLY white people are racists and accountable for their words of hatred and punished for making the "slightest, unintentional gaffe, or joke". Meantime, all other races of Americans are allowed to make the most outrageously racist remarks and jokes they feel like making and are allowed to have as many events and clubs, etc. exclusive to their race! For just one example, the Black Entertainment Awards are perfectly fine, but I wonder what the fallout would be if there was a corresponding White Entertainment Awards limited to white entertainers.

>He's black but not liberal. That's all that's needed. Any

>black person who doesn't fall into line and become a liberal

>Democrat is labelled Uncle Tom, stepnfetchit, a stupid monkey,

>and every other vicious accusation - ALWAYS based on their

>race -- that racist leftists can think of.

You seem to know all the racist words....could that be because you're so accustomed to using them, or is it because your buddy VAHawk taught them to you during one of your little lovefests?

>

>Recently, a liberal cartoonist had his syndicated cartoon

>cancelled by multiple newspapers after a week-long series

>depicting Condaleeza Rice as a black, illiterate maid serving

>her White Masters in the White House. Just disgusting beyond

>words. If you can find a liberal political discussion board

>which discusses Colin Powell without referring to him as Uncle

>Tom, please let me know. I've never seen one.

>

>But somehow, even though all of the insults aimed at black

>conservatives are race-based --- and all are based on the

>noxious idea that their race is supposed to mandate that they

>belong to one political party (just like this same crowd

>thinks that one's sexual orientation does as well) -- lots of

>people have been snowed into thinking that these overtly

>racist attacks are somehow acceptable.

No, Dumbass, it's because racism is an essential part of conservatism.

Racism and conservatism.....perfect together.

>

>The irony, of course, is that it's the indepenent-minded black

>people -- i.e., the ones who DON'T fall into line with the

>liberal orthodoxy and who bravely adhere to their political

>views even in the face of these vicious, racist insults and

>attacks -- who get depicted by oh-so-well-meaning liberals to

>be mindless, shufflin' caricatures straight out of minstral

>shows.

>

>Hence, someone like Bucky can come here and unlesah this

>disgusting attack on a black political official - where EVERY

>criticism of that official makes overt or implicit reference

>to his race -- and other liberals can actually come along and

>say "I don't see any racial referneces in what he said." It's

>all based on the notion that liberals, by virtue of the very

>fact that they're liberal, can't possibly be racist - an idea

>which is not only stupid and offensive on its face, but is

>also one that has angered black Democrats for decades.

>

Black conservatives are cultural oddities. They don't even begin to represent the majority view of their ethnic group. Most blacks have gravitated toward the Democratic Party because it best represents their interests.

RE: Liberal racism

>I thought this was the first year of Bush's tenure that he has

>not spoken to the NAACP and that he did so in his prior

>years.

No, stupid....four years in a row. Don't you read anything but Tractor Pull Monthly?

>

For just one example,

>the Black Entertainment Awards are perfectly fine, but I

>wonder what the fallout would be if there was a corresponding

>White Entertainment Awards limited to white entertainers.

For many years, Entertainment Awards Programs were limited to white entertainers only, because the only role blacks were given in the entertainment world was as buffoons.

>

>

>

To follow Doug's logic, if a white person were to criticize David Duke, then that would be racist. (Actually, if Doug were honest, he would tell us that person wasn't being a racist, just a good Republican.)

Thanks for your ignorant, hateful drivel in return. You are the epitome of bigotry with all your racist name calling and calling others dumbass, morons, etc. Would it be alright if I call you Buckwheat or Doughboy or Oreo in return?

That would depend on how the criticism was leveled. If such criticism were to make its points using terms "white trash", or "cracker", which is equivalent to "stenfetchit" that you attempted to use, then it would be racist, just as your remarks were. Not to mention, when you made your point about a clergyman ignorant of the law being appointed by Bush to the Supreme Court, in violation of the principle of separation of church and state, it was you who stated "black clergyman". It was that qualification of "black" that is just one of many racists remarks in your post.