A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
What does this mean, because the sheeple are duped into "choosing" corrupt oppressors that ratifies the corruption?

My sock, George Bush Whacked Me, plans on cutting and pasting this reply for use the next time you say that the American public had a referundum on the president's take on the war in 2004.

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Millions of people live in rural america too, neither is signficant as cultutal or political influences in the way that cities and political entities from cities are.

One could argue that the millions of people in rural America determine our future -- such as who our President is (because of the Electoral College) and federal legislation (because of the two senators per state thingy). Machine control of these voters, should it exist, is perhaps more important to the country as a whole than machine control of Cook County or DC city government.

Originally posted by Penske_Account
As for d'Amato, what is your point? I would say he is corrupt and I would also say that he is mob influenced. I didnt' know him personally, but aside from what general media influenced observation, I used to socialise with one of his chief aides. d'Amato was corrupt and mob influenced. You like him why?

Oh, sure -- successful Italian American businessman/politician equals "Mafia" to you?

Kidding aside, I point him and Nassau County out to show that machine politics is nonpartisan.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This post?

Given the overwhelming supermajority of poor inner city people of colour who vote D, do you think there is any one or a common set of motivators, incentives or other rationales that explain (in whole or part) the outcome of their electoral analysis and decision making?

Assuming, at a base human nature level (not predicated on race) that there is some significant (albeit not necessarily a majority) measure of self interest that guides them, as somewhat of a common community (sharing common community values and influenced by common community leaders) in reaching their electoral decision, and assuming, on a gross generalisation, that such self-interest might include the promise or hope of (i) better jobs, (ii) better housing, (iii) other general socio-economic opportunity, (iv) racial equality, (v) social justice, (vi) safety and (vii) better education, objectively, what kind of RoI do you think that they are getting for providing what essentially amounts to a guaranteed demographic voting bloc for the Ds?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't know where you get this from. Many city voters are driven by black leaders in the cities. In Detroit, I believe ministers go a long way in getting out people to vote, and making sure they vote Democratic. Obviously they do a very good job.

Perhaps the ministers get some political clout from the Party in payback for the work. Perhaps they don't but do the work simply because they honestly believe the Dem party is the best solution for their people.

Whatever their motivation I think they should be expecting something more for the votes. As GGG said the massive voting percentages have existed for at least 40 years. Here the schools in the city are basically complete failures, much worse then they were 40 years ago. Entire generations of kids are simply not educated. I don't think it is racist for me to say this- I think it is racist for you to accept it, or act like it is inevitable.

Or do you think we are doing a good job educating kids in the cities?

This is a sober, reasoned post. Not a load of snarling, Dems-are-racists-who-get-the-black-vote-through-lies garbage.

A discussion on this level is interesting. It doesn't require denial of reality (i.e., pretending the Southern strategy didn't exist).

It's worlds apart from what you've been doing the last two days.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Not Bob
My sock, George Bush Whacked Me,..

Were you blue triangle? The fake one?

Originally posted by Not Bob


One could argue that the millions of people in rural America determine our future -- such as who our President is (because of the Electoral College) and federal legislation (because of the two senators per state thingy). Machine control of these voters, should it exist, is perhaps more important to the country as a whole than machine control of Cook County or DC city government.
.

Yes, sure, tell that to the poor underclass in the inner cities who are oppressed by Dem machines. I am sure they will appreciate the distinction.

Originally posted by Not Bob



Oh, sure -- successful Italian American businessman/politician equals "Mafia" to you?

It's no secret on this board that I am of swarthy southern european descent, and in such ethnic capacity chafe as much the next politically correct namby pamby sensitive Eye-tal-American person of 21st century when someone attempts to make us all out as mobsters. Truth be told, I wish it true, because from watching the Sopranos it looks like a more funner job than mine, but, that said, I point that d'Amato was mob influenced not because of his ethnic background but because I trust the people who told me about it in a "statement against interests" sort of way (amongst other reasons).

Originally posted by Not Bob


Kidding aside, I point him and Nassau County out to show that machine politics is nonpartisan.

I stipulate that there are corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle. Does that work?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Given the overwhelming supermajority of poor inner city people of colour who vote D, do you think there is any one or a common set of motivators, incentives or other rationales that explain (in whole or part) the outcome of their electoral analysis and decision making?

I can't think of a good reason to treat inner-city blacks differently than any other set of voters for these purposes. There are a number of different things that influence how people vote, including economic self-interest and values. I would expect that these factors strongly coincide here, given the large share of votes that Democrats get.

Assuming, at a base human nature level (not predicated on race) that there is some significant (albeit not necessarily a majority) measure of self interest that guides them, as somewhat of a common community (sharing common community values and influenced by common community leaders) in reaching their electoral decision, and assuming, on a gross generalisation, that such self-interest might include the promise or hope of (i) better jobs, (ii) better housing, (iii) other general socio-economic opportunity, (iv) racial equality, (v) social justice, (vi) safety and (vii) better education, objectively, what kind of RoI do you think that they are getting for providing what essentially amounts to a guaranteed demographic voting bloc for the Ds?

I don't know how to evaluate RoI, but I would expect voters to be rational, and so I would expect that they perceive Democrats to better serve their interests than the alternatives. If your point is that they are not as well served as, say, the residents of Redmond or Mamaroneck, that's almost certainly correct, but the decisions are made on the margin.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I can't think of a good reason to treat inner-city blacks differently than any other set of voters for these purposes.

Are you saying that politicians and parties don't do demographic studies and analysis to determine who is voting which way and then tailor, to an extent, messages, ads and candidates to appeal to those specific demographics? If not, then I think an analysis or a discussion of an analysis of the same is a perfectly legitimate, reasonable and rationale discussion topic. Do you disagree?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There are a number of different things that influence how people vote, including economic self-interest and values. I would expect that these factors strongly coincide here, given the large share of votes that Democrats get.

What does this mean, what are the factors? Do you not think that there are different factors that motivate one relatively cohesive and demographically non-diverse community to vote in similar fashion that is distinguishable from the way a different relatively cohesive and demographically non-diverse community votes? In that vein, what factors motivate inner city poor people to vote in a remarkably similar fashion?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't know how to evaluate RoI, but I would expect voters to be rational, and so I would expect that they perceive Democrats to better serve their interests than the alternatives. If your point is that they are not as well served as, say, the residents of Redmond or Mamaroneck, that's almost certainly correct, but the decisions are made on the margin.

Why can't you answer the questions? Are you that much in denial that race is a factor that both plays a role and is exploited in politics by Democrats as well as Republicans? Or are just willing to turn a blind eye to the destruction that the Ds have visited on generations of poor inner city communities because the Ds have the inner city vote and there is no reason to upset the apple cart if the victims are not willing to speak up for themselves?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
What's really classy is for a two-bit no-body to insult a war hero.

I'll talk to Senator Kerry, but I'm not sure he'll accept this apology.

S_A_M

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Unfortunately, both you and I will be dead long before the full efficacy of stem cells is fully understood, let alone approved for therapeutic use. But I appreciate your contribution to the cause.

I don't think that's the case given what I've seen over the last six months or so. I'm sitting on an ESCRO now, and the research is pretty damned impressive.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I don't think that's the case given what I've seen over the last six months or so. I'm sitting on an ESCRO now, and the research is pretty damned impressive.

Believe me, nobody here hopes more than me that I'm wrong about this.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I'll talk to Senator Kerry, but I'm not sure he'll accept this apology.

S_A_M

1. I am not a two-bit no-body, I invented this board, so, in comparison, if nothing else, I am a one-bit nobody or a two-bit somebody. Also I have showered or sauna'd naked with both of Jesse Jackson and Michael Barone and further, cockblocked Warren Rudman, when he was still a Senator and scored the girl who was the object of his, apparently, drunken lust, all of which, I believe, confers some special PB statii on me.

2. How are you defining "hero"? I think perhaps you confused it with the compound wourd, "lying loser".

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You tell me Rs lie, why would I believe Mehlman?

Admission Against Interest.

S_A_M

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Admission Against Interest.

S_A_M

Hoisted on my petard. Well played, playa.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
It's no secret on this board that I am of swarthy southern european descent, and in such ethnic capacity chafe as much the next politically correct namby pamby sensitive Eye-tal-American person of 21st century when someone attempts to make us all out as mobsters.

Wop.

S_A_M

[eta: Sorry, meant to use the common contraction "wpp", of course!]

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am not sure what California is like, but in WA a state hospital, at least, cannot turn someone (child or adult) away for lack of insurance.

There is the rub - "a state hospital". What if a private hospital is closer?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Wop.

S_A_M

[eta: Sorry, meant to use the common contraction "wpp", of course!]

You trying to force me onto common ground with Penske and Hank?