Endorsements

RLMcB wrote:Dan, the first order of raising children is never ask a child why they did what got them in trouble. You will only open a can of worms that has no bottom, especially if it involves a squabble between two siblings. You'll never get an honest answer, it only encourages them to lie. Children will give an answer they think you'll buy, and/or what seems a reasonably plausible excuse, especially if they have been successful with it in the past. Adults use the same method of operation in explaining their behavior. They'll dance around the issue using talking points they think you'll either swallow or will confuse you. The reason they do so is because it works most of the time. Almost every argument I have ever heard of between husband and wife is never truly settled, because of that lack of being truthful about their reasons for the argument. Most folks don't have the conviction of their core beliefs clearly enough in their minds to be comfortable in stating them, so they obfuscate. The reality is folks have made up their minds and will not be confused with facts. In this case, Obama is so much not like the average republican voter who is white, upper middle class, suburb dwelling, evangelical/mainstream church attendee, in so many ways. Even if they have met nor never rubbed elbows with one, they know a successful uppity Chicago Democratic nigger when the see one, and damned if they'll vote for one. They have always voted for a white politician and will continue to.

CorvetteDan wrote:RL, how true it is. When almost any white person sees black, that deep sublimal message in their mind is going nigger and they may be fighting their way around it. A person may deny it, not believe it, not want it to be there or avoid it, but it is always there to some extent. And almost always what pops out of their mouth is " I do have a black friend.". If Obama was white this race would be totally different. Might go the same or different. Difference is a lot of votes would change back and forth.

RLMcB wrote:Snooker, I don't recall any of us "ugly three" calling you or anyone on this board racist. What we have done is point out the racism in the Republican party, it is endemic. Just because I freely use the the N word doesn't make me racist anymore than using the word football makes a coach or player. However, anyone who has problems in calling a spade a spade are what my father called a person that just seemed to be too, too correct. He would say, "They wouldn't say shit if they had a a mouth full of it." go ahead and call me racist, there prob'ly is some in me, as there likely is in every person in America if the truth be known. I'm working on mine, how about everyone else?

RLMcB wrote:Mike, until I read otherwise, what I've read about Romney and his taxes and tithes was he paid taxes of 13% and another 12-13 % in tithes to the Morman Temple. Temple, Mike, they do not refer to it as a church, they either call it the temple, or their faith, except Bishop Willard uses the vernacular of the Evangelicals to get their votes. Mike, I've lived and worked in Mormon country and for Mormon employers. I'm fairly familiar with them and their everyday practices. Bishop Willard has only given one year of tax returns, incomplete at that. How can you make any judgement on what he has done from that? Where do you get 30% donated anywhere? Certainly not taxes. His own father set the standard of twelve years of tax returns. How can he do less? It matters not, because he will never become president. The economy is steadily improving, folks are going back to work, politics are pocketbook issues, and merchants are getting ready for the biggest Christmas shopping season ever. GM is alive and bin Laden is dead, game over.

RLMcB wrote:Mike, until I read otherwise, what I've read about Romney and his taxes and tithes was he paid taxes of 13% and another 12-13 % in tithes to the Morman Temple. Temple, Mike, they do not refer to it as a church, they either call it the temple, or their faith, except Bishop Willard uses the vernacular of the Evangelicals to get their votes. Mike, I've lived and worked in Mormon country and for Mormon employers. I'm fairly familiar with them and their everyday practices. Bishop Willard has only given one year of tax returns, incomplete at that. How can you make any judgement on what he has done from that? Where do you get 30% donated anywhere? Certainly not taxes. His own father set the standard of twelve years of tax returns. How can he do less? It matters not, because he will never become president. The economy is steadily improving, folks are going back to work, politics are pocketbook issues, and merchants are getting ready for the biggest Christmas shopping season ever. GM is alive and bin Laden is dead, game over.

CorvetteDan wrote:I don't fault church donations and charities at all. It is really needed. But your donation to the church is not the same as your churches donation to the food bank. So you know that your chuch is giving to charity. But your church also has to support it's own organization. That organization is also your organization. Hey, a church can't run for free. But buy the same token that also means that part of your donation also goes to you and your families benefit. I assume you feel a benefit from going to church, don't you? I would be really curious. Even that feel good feeling is a benefit. That 13% was a number someone else posted here. I just used it. And the church policy is actually at least 10%. I have known a lot of Mormons. I have been to Salt Lake City. I have been in the LDS library doing genealogical. I have been in the main Morman Temple and seen that famous choir practice. [It was pretty cool] Have you ever been on the Beltway in DC by Connecticut Ave? That tall Spire with the angel on top is the Bethesda Morman Temple. I have done work for Mormans in that area that told me they could attend because the donations were not enough.

Well let's see. HW cannot possibly fall into your criteria. George and his dad were excellent at foreign policy. At least Senior was. But the were both lost on the economy. I knew that before he got elected. And not liking a candidate is normal. How he rules is part of who he is. And liking is not just like being good to drink a beer with around the grill. I don't like McCain for what he is.

CorvetteDan wrote:Mike. regarding why people pick who they do. I learned along time ago that the AVERAGE person isn't that smart. Sad but true. I have determined that from real life experience. I hope I haven't spent my life around the dumbest 10%. I don't regard the posters on this board that way. Well, we might have had a few on the old AOL board. heh heh. I have noticed in real life many many many times the odd ways some people come to a conclusion or decision. If you have never seen that, then you have really lived a sheltered life. This is exactly what I am studying in my Appalachia right now, this week, etc. Why do you think Andrew Jackson got elected. Because he was a war hero? Wrong. Because he was a Scot-Irish which is the group that occupied the Appalachian Mountain and by this time in America's history they outnumbered the English elite.

You are probably right about the parties. If the Dems and Reps swapped candidates the voters would just meet each other and swap signs and banners.

CorvetteDan wrote:Dumb may not be exactly the right term. Now Mike, you call yourself average, but you are way above that. Just being a business says that. Now a really smart women voting for a candidate because of his/her view on something like abortion would be correct. Vote for the candidate that support your views. That's democracy. They built a nation on that idea. And a large sum do vote on on a candidates stance on issues. That is the correct thing to do. But to vote against someone because of their gender, religion, race or even their physical location in the country is not the right way to go. When it comes to having faith in the American electorate not to vote for someone based on race and sex, I think that depends on your location. When I lived in Suburban Maryland I agree with 110% about the people there. Where I live now? No, no, no. And down here, I can break it down into age groups. The young and the youth here could care less. Your and my generation and older---well it ain't pretty. But that is here, so that is what I see around me.

RLMcB wrote:I got my information from a NY Post article dated 9/21/12.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Seriously, Mike, really? The New York Post? Surely you are able to be more credible than that? Please don't add the Washington Times also. I can name several republican papers that have more cred than that. The Det News, the Indianapolis Star, the Cincinnati Enquirer, Kalamazoo Gazette, Grand Rapids Press.

RLMcB wrote:By the
way...they didn't build a nation on democracy...they built the nation on
a Republic. Democracy was noted as mob rule by many of our
forefathers.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ First, I have a problem with anyone calling this Representative Republic a Democracy. Democracies are where everyone votes on everything. We enjoy some forms of democracy through our representatives, and sometimes we don't. We call it a democracy, like we called the Soviet Union communism, when it was a dictatorship by the Bolsheviks with some socialist programs. Some became very wealthy while the majority enjoyed grinding poverty. That is akin to what happens with an oligarchy. the 1% enjoy the vast amount of wealth while the rest enjoy poverty. We as a country are rapidly closing in on that state of affairs as the poor multiply and the middle class shrinks. Some of the middle class believe the 1% care about them and their hopes of joining the 1%. However, they are deluded, like the white non-slaveholding southerners who lost their lives defending slavery hoping to join that elite society. Strange, how perfectly sane everyday people will support the wealthy when the Christ they worship warned them against favoring the rich, by saying, "Aren't they the ones who drag you before the judges?" He had much more to say against the wealthy, but I'll leave each to research that for themselves.