| Author | Post |
|---|
razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1764 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 11:51 pm |
|
Holy cow - someone on here is sounding a little....hmmm ...what's the word I'm looking for???? Oh yeah, bitter!!  
|
sometimes rational
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 06:33 am |
|
razenkn wrote:
It doesn't matter how you are brought up, anyone can become an "elitist" at any stage of their lives. You could grow up homeless, but if cirumstances change in your life..... you have people surrounding you that tell you how important and wonderful you are..... if you attend the most primo schools available in all the US..... if you write a book and people begin to clamor for your autograph....... you run for a small public office and win and begin to believe your own retorhic about how you will personally change their lives........ if you run for a higher office, make more money and live in a million dollar home........ at some point, it's very possible to become out of touch with the real folk and be an elitist looking down your nose at those with different backgrounds. Or a right-winger on this thread bragging about his lunch at a nice restaurant, who doesn't get why pll with real problems are bitter
Not to say that happens to everyone who becomes wealthy and powerful, but it does happen to some, obviously.  That is just an observation from a bitter, gun toting religious right wing fanatic who hates the truth. Wow!!! RAZ bares his soul!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited on Thu Apr 17th, 2008 06:47 am by
|
razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1764 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 05:34 am |
|
It doesn't matter how you are brought up, anyone can become an "elitist" at any stage of their lives. You could grow up homeless, but if cirumstances change in your life..... you have people surrounding you that tell you how important and wonderful you are..... if you attend the most primo schools available in all the US..... if you write a book and people begin to clamor for your autograph....... you run for a small public office and win and begin to believe your own retorhic about how you will personally change their lives........ if you run for a higher office, make more money and live in a million dollar home........ at some point, it's very possible to become out of touch with the real folk and be an elitist looking down your nose at those with different backgrounds.
Not to say that happens to everyone who becomes wealthy and powerful, but it does happen to some, obviously. That is just an observation from a bitter, gun toting religious right wing fanatic who hates the truth.
|
blackjack
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 316 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 9th, 2008 08:02 pm |
|
max22 wrote: good god raz...you can't be serious...I didn't know that I had to provide the exact number of years for you. And racism in the 80's was no different that what was going on in the 60's. So let me break it down to you this way...I said "OVER" 20 years ago...which means 20+ years ago...
What you seem to be glossing over with your hatred for Obama and his wife, is that when she was a student there, the rich white boys didn't want anyone but themselves to be able to attend there. They didn't want women, blacks, hispanics or any other minority at the school. So what she wrote is how things were at the time.
I don't know where youv'e been living max but I was around in the sixties and, of course, the eighties and believe me there is no comparison. Please stop trying to make racisim an on going theme to justify the feelings of the bigots who may still exist today. I suppose in twenty years people will be talking about all the racisim that exists today.Last edited on Wed Apr 9th, 2008 08:43 pm by blackjack
|
deuce
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 150 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 9th, 2008 12:10 am |
|
Raz wrote:
The overwhelming waste and corruption come from all parties.
sr wrote:
So you're mentor, George W. is a fiscal conservative??
Appears Raz included, by inference, Republicans and Bush administration. Oh well, struck sr's Bush nerve which is probably getting pretty raw by now.
Last edited on Wed Apr 9th, 2008 12:15 am by deuce
|
sometimes rational
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 8th, 2008 07:05 pm |
|
razenkn wrote:
One has to ask what is so upstanding about over-taxing anyone? Democrat, Republican or rich or poor? How does taking money from those who go out everyday and work hard to achieve the American dream while they are sitting in their jets making small talk or sitting in their quiet little offices make them outstanding? I guess the folks who are taking it are "outstanding" because they have convinced some on here for whatever misguided reason they have it coming.
In essence what liberals are saying to the government is go ahead and take my hard earned cash because you know how to spend it better than I do. The democratic leaders are saying that we are not smart enough to be responsible with our $$ so they need to take care of it for us. Insulting enough for you?
All sounds good as long as they are helping people with it, right? But they aren't.
They use this money that you so willingly hand over to them no questions asked (how smart is that?) only to sit idly by and watch them fritter it away on useless programs they believe to be noble but didn't quite pan out but don't close down, self serving projects in their states to stay in office, paid vacations all over the world, corruption enmasse with the entitlement programs, etc etc etc... yet we are not supposed to object and agree they know better than we do? That's plain insanity!
The overwhelming waste and corruption come from all parties and until they clean house, I don't want to give them one more thin dime of my hard earned cash and nobody else should either. If we do, then shame on us.
So your mentor, George W. is a fiscal conservative?? Really? If you think so, you're not qualified to condemn Dems or anyone else for fiscal policies..Last edited on Thu Apr 10th, 2008 08:06 pm by
|
razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1764 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 8th, 2008 04:57 pm |
|
One has to ask what is so upstanding about over-taxing anyone? Democrat, Republican or rich or poor? How does taking money from those who go out everyday and work hard to achieve the American dream while they are sitting in their jets making small talk or sitting in their quiet little offices make them outstanding? I guess the folks who are taking it are "outstanding" because they have convinced some on here for whatever misguided reason they have it coming.
In essence what liberals are saying to the government is go ahead and take my hard earned cash because you know how to spend it better than I do. The democratic leaders are saying that we are not smart enough to be responsible with our $$ so they need to take care of it for us. Insulting enough for you?
All sounds good as long as they are helping people with it, right? But they aren't.
They use this money that you so willingly hand over to them no questions asked (how smart is that?) only to sit idly by and watch them fritter it away on useless programs they believe to be noble but didn't quite pan out but don't close down, self serving projects in their states to stay in office, paid vacations all over the world, corruption enmasse with the entitlement programs, etc etc etc... yet we are not supposed to object and agree they know better than we do? That's plain insanity!
The overwhelming waste and corruption come from all parties and until they clean house, I don't want to give them one more thin dime of my hard earned cash and nobody else should either. If we do, then shame on us.
Last edited on Tue Apr 8th, 2008 04:59 pm by razenkn
|
sometimes rational
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 8th, 2008 05:17 am |
|
razenkn wrote:
Thanks GEM. Let's think about who are some "RICH WHITE GUYS". Would that be....Bill Clinton.....Sean Penn.....Al Gore.....John Edwards.....George Soros......Johnny Depp.....Michael Moore.....Bill Richardson......John Kerry......Joe Biden.....Tom Cruise.....Dennis Kucinich.....Teddy Kennedy....Russ Feingold....Robert Kennedy Jr.....Tim Robbins.....John Murtha.....Harry Reid.....Dan Rather.....William Jefferson ($90,000 in the freezer) oops, sorry, he's black....Ted Turner.....Barack Obama (half)....Harry Belafonte (half).....Howard Dean.....Jim Carey....Larry Flynt.....Lanny Davis.....the list is endless but you get the point. So, are these guys all against a charmer like Michelle Obama getting an education? They are all "rich white guys"....
So the point is? I guess that ole RAZ has proven beyond a doubt that there are, in fact, wealthy white guys in the Democrat party...these guys are favoring a platform which will increase their own personal income tax...pretty upstanding I think.
Last edited on Tue Apr 8th, 2008 05:18 am by
|
razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1764 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 8th, 2008 05:12 am |
|
It's not WHAT he says, it's WHAT he does that people judge. Anyone can deliver an eloquent speech if you have good enough writers. Don't be blinded by your party agenda and not seeing the real deal here.
They all tell sad, sad storeis about women dying during childbirth because they don't have health care, being fired upon by a sniper when Mother and Child are running for cover, spending 20 years in a pew but never hearing the negative side of a pastor, only hearing the good and gracious.....politics, all smooth talking politics but it's what they do, what they've done, and who they hang with is the true test of the man, in this case and woman. None of them are passing the test very well it would seem.
|
Surprise_teacher
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 370 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 8th, 2008 04:52 am |
|
Obama's "race speech" spoke of the need to build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old...
http://www.barackobama.com/2008/03/18/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_53.php
From Obama's speech after winning the South Carolina primary:
You can see it in the faces here tonight. There are young and old, rich and poor. They are black and white, Latino and Asian and Native American.
and
I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina. I saw South Carolina.
and
When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and Latinos can't join together and work together, I'm reminded of the Latino brothers and sisters I organized with and stood with and fought with side by side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don't tell us change can't happen.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/26/obama.transcript/
Reactr, these took me about two minutes to find. There are plenty more examples out there should you choose to look.
|
Reactr
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 50 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 8th, 2008 04:40 am |
|
| I wonder how much money John McCain contributed to a race-based group like the Black Caucas? Is Obama interested in becoming president for native americans, asian whites and other groups ? From what I see and hear from Obama he uses a lot of coded talk blaming others for the condition of Blacks.
|
razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1764 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 8th, 2008 03:16 am |
|
Thanks GEM. Let's think about who are some "RICH WHITE GUYS". Would that be....Bill Clinton.....Sean Penn.....Al Gore.....John Edwards.....George Soros......Johnny Depp.....Michael Moore.....Bill Richardson......John Kerry......Joe Biden.....Tom Cruise.....Dennis Kucinich.....Teddy Kennedy....Russ Feingold....Robert Kennedy Jr.....Tim Robbins.....John Murtha.....Harry Reid.....Dan Rather.....William Jefferson ($90,000 in the freezer) oops, sorry, he's black....Ted Turner.....Barack Obama (half)....Harry Belafonte (half).....Howard Dean.....Jim Carey....Larry Flynt.....Lanny Davis.....the list is endless but you get the point. So, are these guys all against a charmer like Michelle Obama getting an education? They are all "rich white guys"....
Last edited on Tue Apr 8th, 2008 05:13 am by razenkn
|
GEM127
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 8th, 2008 01:24 am |
|
razenkn wrote:
Good God Max, you need to learn to relax a bit. Doesn't anyone at your house ever disagree with you?
I couldn't disagree with you more. The eighties were not even close to being a hotbed for racial tensions and certainly no where near anything like the sixties. She was in Princeton for crying out loud, one of the most prestigious and sought after Universities in the world.
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps people just didn't respond well to Ms Michelle? She's really not one of the most likable people I've come across lately. She's angry, she dislikes her country, she always sounds bitter, she somehow feels this is owed to them and I've not been at all impressed with her. Maybe those "boys" at Princeton just didn't like her, not because of her race, but because she is abrasive. "rich white boys" have the right to like or dislike whomever they want, don't they? What makes them "rich white boys" anyway, if everyone that goes there is "rich" then she must have been a "rich black girl". Maybe they just didn't like the "rich black girl." See how labeling people gets things all misconstrued?
One more thing, let's get this straight once and for all. Just because I view some of the candidates as not truthful, or they bear watching and not up to the job, it has nothing to do with hatred. I don't know these people personally, so how could I hate them? Obama is not going to make a good President in my view. I think his wife is a wolf in sheep's clothing and I say we better watch out if she gets into the White House. But hatred, please. I feel sorry for you if you hate everyone you disagree with, but that's not my style.
Raz.... WOW You have surprised me again. Very well thought out. I'm impressed.
Thank you.Last edited on Tue Apr 8th, 2008 01:25 am by GEM127
|
CottonwoodZonie
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 276 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 8th, 2008 01:06 am |
|
max22 wrote: Oh I see...when confronted with facts you post the same article again by the Flip-flop master Pat Buchanan. This guy switches sides so often it's not even funny.
Sorry zonie...if you can't debate what you posted about with your own words then there is no reason to talk with you about it at all.
A debate with you would be like taking a gun to a fight against you and you only armed with your purse!
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 979 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 8th, 2008 01:01 am |
|
Since none of the Obama followers would answer my question with regard to how much Obama gave to charities in 2006, I went ahead and did some research.
Income $991,296 - you would think that he would give at least 10% to charities - that would have been $99,130 - Nope, wrong - he gave $60,307 about 6%. Of the 6 percent - $22,500 went to Trinity Church, $15,000 to CARE, $13,107 to Black Caucus and smaller amounts to a dance troop and misc charities. I guess the rich should give to the poor theory goes out the window on this one. I wonder who is going to pay for all of the things he wants to "change".
|
razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1764 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 8th, 2008 12:21 am |
|
Good God Max, you need to learn to relax a bit. Doesn't anyone at your house ever disagree with you?
I couldn't disagree with you more. The eighties were not even close to being a hotbed for racial tensions and certainly no where near anything like the sixties. She was in Princeton for crying out loud, one of the most prestigious and sought after Universities in the world.
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps people just didn't respond well to Ms Michelle? She's really not one of the most likable people I've come across lately. She's angry, she dislikes her country, she always sounds bitter, she somehow feels this is owed to them and I've not been at all impressed with her. Maybe those "boys" at Princeton just didn't like her, not because of her race, but because she is abrasive. "rich white boys" have the right to like or dislike whomever they want, don't they? What makes them "rich white boys" anyway, if everyone that goes there is "rich" then she must have been a "rich black girl". Maybe they just didn't like the "rich black girl." See how labeling people gets things all misconstrued?
One more thing, let's get this straight once and for all. Just because I view some of the candidates as not truthful, or they bear watching and not up to the job, it has nothing to do with hatred. I don't know these people personally, so how could I hate them? Obama is not going to make a good President in my view. I think his wife is a wolf in sheep's clothing and I say we better watch out if she gets into the White House. But hatred, please. I feel sorry for you if you hate everyone you disagree with, but that's not my style.
Last edited on Tue Apr 8th, 2008 12:30 am by razenkn
|
max22
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 16th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 194 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 7th, 2008 11:52 pm |
|
good god raz...you can't be serious...I didn't know that I had to provide the exact number of years for you. And racism in the 80's was no different that what was going on in the 60's. So let me break it down to you this way...I said "OVER" 20 years ago...which means 20+ years ago...
What you seem to be glossing over with your hatred for Obama and his wife, is that when she was a student there, the rich white boys didn't want anyone but themselves to be able to attend there. They didn't want women, blacks, hispanics or any other minority at the school. So what she wrote is how things were at the time.
|
razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1764 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 7th, 2008 11:02 pm |
|
max wrote...
MICHELE OBAMA'S MILITANT RACISM REVEALED
When will some people understand that she wrote her thesis over 20 years ago. It was a different time then. If you did some real research zonie you would have known that back then there were real racial tensions at Princeton. She was writing about what was going on at Princeton when she was there.
20 years ago. 1988, was hardly the 60's racial tension environment you are describing there Max. Michelle Obama was afforded the same opportunity to succeed as any white student, so please let's stop excusing the Obama's views as though they are brainless twits who don't know what they are saying or don't fully understand what impact their personal associations will have upon their lives. I'm tired of the passes being given already. If Obama becomes President, are you going to continue to excuse his "mistakes" because of his race??? I would hope not.
Michelle has no problem being vocal, if it was so terrible why didn't she speak out? She was working towards a law degree, surely she understood her rights were being violated if that really was the case. I don't buy into that whatsoever. She is a separatist who belongs to a separatist church as does her husband. That is her view and she is entitled to it, but don't try to gloss it over with the race card please.
Last edited on Mon Apr 7th, 2008 11:04 pm by razenkn
|
max22
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 16th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 194 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 7th, 2008 05:59 pm |
|
Oh I see...when confronted with facts you post the same article again by the Flip-flop master Pat Buchanan. This guy switches sides so often it's not even funny.
Sorry zonie...if you can't debate what you posted about with your own words then there is no reason to talk with you about it at all.
|
CottonwoodZonie
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 276 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 7th, 2008 03:50 pm |
|
PAT BUCHANAN NAILS IT ABOUT OBAMA How would he pull it off? I wondered. How would Barack explain to his press groupies why he sat silent in a pew for 20 years as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered racist rants against white America for our maligning of Fidel and Gadhafi, and inventing AIDS to infect and kill black people?
How would he justify not walking out as Wright spewed his venom about "the U.S. of K.K.K. America," and howled, "God damn America!"
My hunch was right. Barack would turn the tables. Yes, Barack agreed, Wright's statements were "controversial," and "divisive," and "racially charged," reflecting a "distorted view of America."
But we must understand the man in full and the black experience out of which the Rev. Wright came: 350 years of slavery and segregation.
Barack then listed black grievances and informed us what white America must do to close the racial divide and heal the country.
The "white community," said Barack, must start "acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past -- are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds ... ."
And what deeds must we perform to heal ourselves and our country? The "white community" must invest more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights laws, ensure fairness in the criminal justice system and provide this generation of blacks with "ladders of opportunity" that were "unavailable" to Barack's and the Rev. Wright's generations.
What is wrong with Barack's prognosis and Barack's cure?
Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, "everybody but the rioters themselves."
Was "white racism" really responsible for those black men looting auto dealerships and liquor stories, and burning down their own communities, as Otto Kerner said -- that liberal icon until the feds put him away for bribery.
Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.
Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.
This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:
First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.
Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.
Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.
Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants.
Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult
education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?
Barack talks about new "ladders of opportunity" for blacks.
Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for "deserving" white kids.
Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?
Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?
As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?
Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?
We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.
Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.
|
max22
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 16th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 194 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 7th, 2008 03:23 pm |
|
MICHELE OBAMA'S MILITANT RACISM REVEALED
When will some people understand that she wrote her thesis over 20 years ago. It was a different time then. If you did some real research zonie you would have known that back then there were real racial tensions at Princeton. She was writing about what was going on at Princeton when she was there.
The group had been founded in 1972, the year that Judge Alito graduated, by alumni upset that Princeton had recently begun admitting women. It published a magazine, Prospect, which persistently accused the administration of taking a permissive approach to student life, of promoting birth control and paying for abortions, and of diluting the explicitly Christian character of the school.
As Princeton admitted a growing number of minority students, Concerned Alumni charged repeatedly that the administration was lowering admission standards, undermining the university’s distinctive traditions and admitting too few children of alumni. “Currently alumni children comprise 14 percent of each entering class, compared with an 11 percent quota for blacks and Hispanics,” the group wrote in a 1985 fund-raising letter sent to all Princeton graduates.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/12/01/samuel-alito-defender-of-racism-and-white-male-privilege.htm
So again...there is no point to Zonie's post. Just more gop drivel.
Last edited on Mon Apr 7th, 2008 03:26 pm by max22
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 979 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 7th, 2008 03:00 pm |
|
| I have heard that Obama thinks we should do more for the less fortunate. How much did he give to charities, other than his church, in 2006 and last year? Last edited on Mon Apr 7th, 2008 03:07 pm by cindisue_g
|
sometimes rational
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 7th, 2008 04:24 am |
|
| Did Fox news really buy this forum? ho-hum--wake me up when there is something worthwhile on it to read.
|
CottonwoodZonie
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 276 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 7th, 2008 01:43 am |
|
PAT BUCHANAN NAILS IT ABOUT OBAMA How would he pull it off? I wondered. How would Barack explain to his press groupies why he sat silent in a pew for 20 years as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered racist rants against white America for our maligning of Fidel and Gadhafi, and inventing AIDS to infect and kill black people?
How would he justify not walking out as Wright spewed his venom about "the U.S. of K.K.K. America," and howled, "God damn America!"
My hunch was right. Barack would turn the tables. Yes, Barack agreed, Wright's statements were "controversial," and "divisive," and "racially charged," reflecting a "distorted view of America."
But we must understand the man in full and the black experience out of which the Rev. Wright came: 350 years of slavery and segregation.
Barack then listed black grievances and informed us what white America must do to close the racial divide and heal the country.
The "white community," said Barack, must start "acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past -- are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds ... ."
And what deeds must we perform to heal ourselves and our country? The "white community" must invest more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights laws, ensure fairness in the criminal justice system and provide this generation of blacks with "ladders of opportunity" that were "unavailable" to Barack's and the Rev. Wright's generations.
What is wrong with Barack's prognosis and Barack's cure?
Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, "everybody but the rioters themselves."
Was "white racism" really responsible for those black men looting auto dealerships and liquor stories, and burning down their own communities, as Otto Kerner said -- that liberal icon until the feds put him away for bribery.
Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.
Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.
This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:
First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.
Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.
Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.
Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants.
Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult
education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?
Barack talks about new "ladders of opportunity" for blacks.
Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for "deserving" white kids.
Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?
Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?
As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?
Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?
We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.
Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.
|
HigherEd
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 6th, 2008 11:15 pm |
|
| My parents were very into politics and history. Mealtimes were discussions of current events and their impact. This gave me a great love of history and politics which I enjoy to this day. In addition, my parents were avid readers and so my siblings and I are as well. I was reading political and social history at a very young age. When I say I was a teenager I mean 17-18. I was registered to vote and I have voted in every single election I have been eligible to vote in since then. I have even voted for a Republican on occasion when I felt they were the best qualified.
|
CottonwoodZonie
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 276 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 6th, 2008 11:04 pm |
|
MICHELE OBAMA'S MILITANT RACISM REVEALED In her senior thesis at Princeton, Michele Obama, the wife of Barack Obama stated that America was a nation founded on crime and hatred.
Moreover, she stated that whites in America were ineradicably racist. The 1985 thesis, titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community" was written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson.
Michelle Obama stated in her thesis that to "Whites at Princeton , it often seems as if, to them, she will always be Black first..." However, it was reported by a fellow black classmate, If those "Whites at Princeton " really saw Michelle as one who always would "be Black first," it seems that she gave them that impression.
Most alarming is Michele Obama's use of the terms separationist and integrationist when describing the views of black people. Mrs. Obama clearly identifies herself with a separationist view of race. By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as a result of their ideologies, a separationist may better understand the desperation of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight.
Obama writes that the path she chose by attending Princeton would likely lead to her "further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant."
Michele Obama clearly has a chip on her shoulder. Not only does she see separate black and white societies in America , but she elevates black over white in her world.
Here is another passage that is uncomfortable and ominous in meaning: There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost.
What is Michelle Obama planning to do with her future resources if she's first lady that will elevate black over white in America ? The following passage appears to be a call to arms for affirmative action policies that could be the hallmark of an Obama administration.
Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments.
The conclusion of her thesis is alarming: Michelle Obama's poll of black alumni concludes that other black students at Princeton do not share her obsession with blackness. But rather than celebrate, she is horrified that black alumni identify with our common American culture more than they value the color of their skin. I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community However, these findings do not support this possibility.
Is it no wonder that most black alumni ignored her racist questionnaire? Only 89 students responded out of 400 who were asked for input.
Michelle Obama does not look into a crowd of Obama supporters and see Americans. She sees black people and white people eternally conflicted with one another.
The thesis provides a trove of Mrs. Obama's thoughts and world view seen through a race-based prism. This is a very divisive view for a potential first lady that would do untold damage to race relations in this country in a Barack Obama administration.
Michelle Obama's intellectually refined racism should give all Americans pause for deep concern. Now maybe she's changed, but she sure sounds like someone with an axe to grind with America . Will the press let Michelle get a free pass over her obviously racist comment about American whites? I am sure that it will. But it shouldn't.
|
razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1764 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 6th, 2008 06:37 pm |
|
Just curious Higher Ed, what made you switch party affiliation as a teenager? Usually a teenager doesn't even know who the VP is much less what party they want to align themselves with. I switched parties too coming from a long line of Democrats, but that didn't happen until I started raising a family of my own and began paying attention to the world around me.
|
CottonwoodZonie
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 276 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 6th, 2008 02:11 am |
|
HigherEd wrote: "Cottonwoodzonie, . . . . . . I was brought up in a very strong conservative household. I embraced those beliefs until I was a teenager. . . . . You should question why you believe or don't believe in something. I would hope that my own children would challenge what I believe and then make their own decisions."
 For their sake so do I.
|
HigherEd
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 6th, 2008 12:15 am |
|
Cottonwoodzonie,
I was brought up in a very strong conservative household. I embraced those beliefs until I was a teenager. Then after reading and looking at things I came to believe in a more liberal ideaology. However, I am and have always been a proud and patriotic American. My personal beliefs, based upon my own life experiences studies of history etc. have led me to the conclusion that the liberal views that I believe and hold dear will never happen here because most Americans have been indoctrinated to believe that the government does not really owe its citizens anything.
Many, what we might call more liberal nations that offer or have offered cradle to the grave benifits have problems just like those that do not. However, and this is my own personal belief that If I did not have to worry about my job, education, healthcare, housing etc. my life would be more stable and secure. If this type of society was to require taxes of 60 to 70 percent of my earned income then I would be happy with that.
These ideas are my own and opposite of all that generations of conservatives in my family believe. To this day I do not talk politics with my brother because he is a conservative Limbaughead.What is my point you may ask? My point is that if you hold beliefs because of how you were brought up you may be sheep like. You should question why you believe or dont believe in something. I would hope that my own children would challenge what I believe and then make their own decisions.
|
LucifersLandlord
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 5th, 2008 10:58 pm |
|
Nice post Max, its unfortunate that we are now falling into the theological debate that has kept our world torn apart for so long.....
|
max22
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 16th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 194 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 5th, 2008 09:00 pm |
|
How are liberals taught that our country would be better off removing the Ten Commandments from all public places?
It's not us Zonie, it's the way that it is. There are some religious wacko's out there who want to force Christianity down peoples throat. I hope you read this and not blame us liberals for things like the Ten Commandments being removed from publica places.
The Ten Commandments Controversy:
A First Amendment Perspective
Introduction
The Anti-Defamation League believes that the increasing call by private citizens and public officials for the government to post the Ten Commandments in schools, government buildings, courts and other public places — while often well-intentioned — is bad policy and often unconstitutional. Governmental posting of the Ten Commandments can lead to the kind of religious divisions within otherwise harmonious communities that our founding fathers sought to avoid by constitutionally mandating the separation of church and state. Before embracing this easy fix for some of society’s most intractable problems, communities should consider its consequences for one of America’s most precious traditions: religious tolerance.
Prohibitions on Display of the Ten Commandments
The Supreme Court has long held that the government may not take any action that endorses a specific religious belief. All of the Court’s decisions banning government support for religious activity have rested on the First Amendment’s requirement of separation of church and state. Over the years, this precept has led the high court to ban such government practices as organized prayer in public schools, the inclusion of creationism in public school science classes and the sponsorship of nativity scenes by government agencies.
In the majority of cases considering official posting of the Ten Commandments, the Court has extended this prohibition. In its 1980 (Stone v. Graham) decision striking down a Kentucky law requiring that a copy of the Ten Commandments be posted in every public school classroom, the Court said: The pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature. The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact. The Commandments do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, such as honoring one's parents, killing or murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, and covetousness. Rather, the first part of the Commandments concerns the religious duties of believers: worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord's name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day. The Court recently issued two decisions concerning official display of the Ten Commandments with differing results. In McCreary v. ACLU of Kentucky, the Court considered county courthouse displays of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky. Similar to the Stone decision, it again recognized that the Ten Commandments is “… an unmistakably religious statement dealing with religious obligations and with morality subject to religious sanction.” The Court ultimately decided that the displays were unconstitutional because their history and context demonstrated a clear religious purpose and intent on the part of county officials.
In Van Orden v. Perry, the Court considered a 40-year-old granite Ten Commandments monument on the Texas capitol grounds — one of 17 monuments on the broad plaza. Reaching an opposite result, the Court decided that this display is constitutionally permissible. However, Justice Breyer, who cast the deciding vote in the case, characterized the display as “borderline” and found that it served “a mixed but primarily nonreligious purpose.” Significantly, as with the McCreary decision, a majority of the Justices indicated that displays in public schools likely will be unconstitutional. In other situations, a display or posting’s location, history and context will be critical in determining its constitutionality.
These recent decisions mean that — outside the school context — there is no bright-line test for Ten Commandments cases. Rather, the legality of these displays will be decided on a case-by-case basis. Many of them will be found unconstitutional.
Of course, the First Amendment protects the right of any citizen to post the Ten Commandments on private property and to engage in other kinds of private religious expression. There are many places in this country where the Ten Commandments would be welcome and appropriate — houses of worship, private schools and universities, and private parks. Yet supporters of Ten Commandments initiatives are willing to engage in lengthy, costly and divisive legal battles. They ignore Justice O’Connor’s recent warning in the McCreary case that: Allowing government to be a potential mouthpiece for competing religious ideas risks the sort of division that might easily spill over into suppression of rival beliefs. Tying secular and religious authority together poses risks to both. True religious liberty means freedom from having the government impose the religion of the majority on all citizens. It is precisely this point that advocates of posting the Ten Commandments are missing.
Damage to Religious Tolerance
Even if posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools, courthouses and other government property was uniformly constitutional, it would still do great damage to religious tolerance in America. Advocates of such proposals assert that these Biblical injunctions are values universally accepted by all Americans. These proponents fail, though, to take into account two crucial facts. First, not all Americans subscribe to religions that follow the Bible or the Ten Commandments. Millions of Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists (among others) in America adhere to religious, ethical and moral traditions that draw from a variety of texts other than the Bible. Second, those religions that do adhere to the Ten Commandments follow very different versions of the laws. The language in the ancient Hebrew text followed by Jews is not the same as the language found in the King James Bible version accepted by some Protestant churches in America today. Further, Catholics and Lutherans follow yet another text altogether. The assumption that government-ordered posting of the Ten Commandments in public places would honor the beliefs of all Americans is itself an act of religious intolerance.
Argument for Posting Based on False Premises
Naturally, in times of crisis, people look to religion for answers. In the wake of the tragedy at Columbine High School, for example, an outcry arose across the country calling for a return to the moral values embodied in our nation’s great religions. Many commentators have suggested that those murders took place because our schools and, more broadly, our nation no longer value the teachings that so many of our religions share: a belief in God, a dedication to prayer and knowledge of the Bible. They argue that if public schools taught these universal values, and if the government affirmed them through legislation, horrific acts such as the Columbine murders would never have taken place.
Many of those promoting government advocacy of religious values have focused their efforts on state-sponsored posting of the Ten Commandments in public places. In 2005, prior to the Supreme Court decisions, Indiana, Mississippi and South Dakota had laws authorizing the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools or on public property. Furthermore, at least nine states had introduced legislation that would allow — or even require — the Ten Commandments to be posted in public schools, courts, government buildings and other public places. More legislative initiatives may follow the Court’s rulings.
Supporters of government-sponsored posting of the Ten Commandments often base their arguments on false premises. First, they claim that, because of separation of church and state, “it is illegal to pray in schools” and God is not allowed in the public schools. While the First Amendment prohibits organized or coercive prayer in public schools, it protects the right of every student to engage in private personal prayer while on campus. Further, to suggest that God is somehow banned from the lives of public school students and teachers is both logically and theologically ridiculous.
Second, many critics of separation of church and state maintain that Americans no longer take religion as seriously as they used to. In fact, there is little evidence to suggest that religious observance is on the decline in the United States. Indeed, many studies suggest that America is one of the most religious countries in the industrial world.
Ten Commandments Controversies
Proposals to post the Ten Commandments often create wide divisions in communities that are already struggling with profound problems of their own. Opponents of these initiatives — many of whom are deeply religious themselves — are portrayed as being anti-religious freedom or even anti-God. School board meetings and local elections have become battlegrounds over religion rather than over practical issues such as juvenile crime and low test scores.
When an Illinois school board voted unanimously to post the Ten Commandments in public schools, the resulting controversy dominated local politics for months. After several months of acrimonious debate, the school board rescinded the decision in order to avoid a costly lawsuit. Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore posted the Ten Commandments in the state courthouse and refused to remove them even when ordered to do so. In defiance of federal authorities, then-Governor Fob James threatened to use military force to prevent their removal. Moore was eventually removed from the Court for defying the order.
Since federal law allows for religious symbols to be posted on government property if that property is opened to all religious expression, posting the Ten Commandments can have unexpected results. After a Pennsylvania school district announced its decision to allow the Ten Commandments to be posted in a display in school libraries, religious and non-religious groups began clamoring for an equal chance. In addition to the Biblical text, other documents chosen for the display included: a tract from the Wiccan religion; a document discussing gay rights; and an introduction to atheism.
Conclusion
Opposition to state-sponsored posting of the Ten Commandments does not arise out of hostility to the timeless values conveyed in Exodus 20:1-17. Rather, it arises out of a profound respect for the diversity of religions in America today — those that embrace Biblical law and those that derive their ethics and values from other texts. By adhering to the principle and spirit of separation of church and state we best fulfill the Constitution’s legacy of religious liberty for all Americans.
http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/resource_kit/ten_commandments.asp
Last edited on Sat Apr 5th, 2008 09:03 pm by max22
|
CottonwoodZonie
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 276 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 5th, 2008 06:13 pm |
|
Intuitively I knew at an early age why I held conservative beliefs. They were shaped by my parents, their work ethic, self reliance and the belief that one could achieve any goal or objective that they were willing to sacrifice and work for.
But I have always had difficulty in understanding how ones come to embrace the far left liberalism that so many hold. How do you learn entitlement? How do you arrive at the conclusion that the government owes you housing, food and health care from womb to tomb?
I have to believe that like a “conservative”, that the basic principals are past down from their parents and their grandparents before them. It appears to come from those that were unwilling to work while securing a higher education, and allowed fate to select their career rather than plan and work towards a desired field. Does it come from parents who did not plan for their retirement and now blame the government for the lifestyle that they now believe is forced on them by the Republicans? Where does the philosophy of wanting to erase the Judeo-Christian code or at least remove its influence from public life. How are liberals taught that our country would be better off removing the Ten Commandments from all public places?
I am really confused on liberals approach to immigration. What part of “illegal” do liberals not understand. The only conclusion that I can come to is that by supporting amnesty and bestowing immediate citizenship to illegal immigrants and the subsequent awarding of unearned social security, and socialized medicine would be to swell the rolls of the liberal socialist with the objective of controlling future elections.
Liberals seem to hold the belief that people are basically good, as a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism and anything else that can let the individual off the hook.
And last but not least, what would influence today’s liberal to ignore all documented facts regarding Barrack Hussein Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright and an obvious embracement of twenty years of white-hate and separatism that was continually spewed from the Trinity Church's pulpit. Desperate to secure their entitlements, longing to redistribute wealth and achieve free medical care, it seems as if liberals will literally make deals with the devil to achieve their utopia where they need little work ethic, intellect, incentive or motivation to achieve a better life.
If this post offends any forum member, it could be that it touches a nerve. Self examination is never a “bad” thing. But I guess if someone wanted to snitch me out to the forum administrator that would be your right, but it would not change any of the facts presented.
|
Surprise_teacher
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 370 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 5th, 2008 05:22 am |
|
razenkn wrote:I only report what I hear and it doesn't make a hill of beans in the end because they will keep troops there as long as we need to no matter who gets into the White House. To withdraw is defeat and that just isn't going to fly with Americans. But you are right Max, that is what he said.
This could get us back into a discussion of how "victory" would be defined (other than a photo op on an aircraft carrier), but we tried that months ago, so I suppose I shouldn't bother.
|
razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1764 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 5th, 2008 04:33 am |
|
max22 wrote: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=80%2C000+troops+&btnG=Search
funny how it's only on right wing news sources...
I just listened to a revised broadcast regarding this and Obama's camp is spinning this like crazy, so what you have heard is what he is saying. But, it was his adviser that said they should keep 60-80 thousand troops through 2010 so you are correct.
I only report what I hear and it doesn't make a hill of beans in the end because they will keep troops there as long as we need to no matter who gets into the White House. To withdraw is defeat and that just isn't going to fly with Americans. But you are right Max, that is what he said.
Last edited on Sat Apr 5th, 2008 05:02 am by razenkn
|
sometimes rational
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 5th, 2008 04:26 am |
|
max22 wrote: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=80%2C000+troops+&btnG=Search
funny how it's only on right wing news sources...
Ok, so now RAZ is faulting Obama based on what his pastor said and what an advisor said...next RAZ will be ragging about what Obama's newspaper delivery boy and butcher said...ya know what...after listening to all the bashing about things Hillary said, to now read about what Obama's advisors say, rather than Obama himself, shows Obama is a totally stand-up kind of guy..they haven't been able to pin anything on him...I still laugh tho when I think about one week Obama was an evil Muslim and the next week, he morphed into a 20 yr Christian.
|
max22
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 16th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 194 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 5th, 2008 04:14 am |
|
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=80%2C000+troops+&btnG=Search
funny how it's only on right wing news sources...
|
razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1764 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 5th, 2008 04:12 am |
|
Hey Max, if it's wrong then I would appreciate you clarifying it. I don't want to report false information and really, I didn't get my info from a fake news resource, I try not to listen to CNN any more often than I have to.
|
sometimes rational
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 5th, 2008 04:04 am |
|
razenkn wrote:
You are wrong Max --- 80,000 troops for two years, 2011, he is speaking of an OBAMA term.
Is that ok with you, I'm assuming you are voting for him because he's against the war and bringing home the troops?
Congratulations for managing to incorporate Obama, moveon.org, stvos all in the same paragraph (you forgot the blue dress, however)....and there are soooo many more reasons to vote for Obama, not the least of which is our imploding economy, unfunctional healthcare system, declining educational system, and the need to rebuild our reputation throughout the world to prove this country is not inhabited by millions of little 'Bushs".
|
max22
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 16th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 194 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 5th, 2008 03:58 am |
|
Ok...whatever you say... you seem to know more then anyone else here...so I will stick with reality...you stick with right wing gossip/fake news...
and again...this person is only an advisor...who put out a "suggestion"...not a plan.
Last edited on Sat Apr 5th, 2008 04:12 am by max22
|
razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1764 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: | | |