Letters to the Editor
-
Yes, I'm well and your link is about Black Poverty increasing under BUSH
In fact it supports what I said and what I cited
According to Census tables, the percentage of African-Americans living below the poverty level was 33.4 percent (10.8 million) in 1992, the year Clinton was first elected president. By 2000, the year Bush was elected, that figure had dropped to 22.5 percent (7.9 million) – a decrease of 10.9 percent. From 2000, however, the Black poverty increased from 22.5 percent to 23.9 percent in 2002 and 24.3 percent in 2003 (9.1 million
Shows what I said is true and going on to explain how blacks have lost these gains under Bush.
You must really be a self-hating black to want to misrepresent history and who delivered for blacks and who didn't.
I feel sorry for you.
-
@KateTex
It's not just this site, not by any means. I've been following NYTimes reader comments on the primaries for about two months now, and the flood of really, really nasty messages about Hillary Clinton has increased in direct proportion to Obama's prominence in this campaign.
And again, what do you think that means? I'll tell you what I think it means -- next to nothing. And I think it means absolutely nothing about the candidates themselves. How could it? What do random people sounding off have to do with them?
I think if there are actual campaign people posting here, that they would be posting the same topics, trying to get a point across on the greatest number of boards possible each day. They would hit and run and then return periodically so as to catch a different bunch of posters, not hang around to engage and insult.
I worked for CNN.com on their message boards for several years back in the day, and that's what I observed of the posters we suspected were plants by the political parties.
Reading message boards professionally, where you're required to try to be objective, where you don't "have a dog in the hunt" yourself, is an eye opening experience about the nature of perception and subjectivity. One fellow on the N. Ireland board, after he would come out with a blisteringly clever insult, would always assert, "But it's not an insult if it's TRUE!". :)
And spending hours every day wading through the cesspools that were India/Pakistan - nuclear powers! -- or the Mideast, where the arguments and pure irrational hatred reflected real life and death circumstances in the world, would put things in perspective about our own political squabbling.
Go ahead and judge Senator Obama on his record, on his positions, on his personality on his intentions, but please, not on internet posters!
-
ljwalker53
Carry on Miss Walker with your vitriole and jingoism. You are no longer anyone I will dialogue with. Don't begrudge yourself that your shit don't stink. It stinks to high heaven with your sophomoric rants and stupid copied evidence from Clinton talking points. Your posts reek of racist ignorance and arrogant entitlement. Take a chill pill and fart it out from where the sun don't shine.
-
@doc5467
I am my own woman with my own opinions. I agree with some of what Obama supporters here have said and I disagree with others. I agree with some things that Hillary's supporters have said and I disagree with others. Doc, I don't expect you to apologize or explain why Shawn is such a raging idiot or why KateTex would find it appropriate to ask "why are the blacks abandoning the wife of the first black president?". And I don't believe that Hillary is responsible for the delusional ramblings of her some of her more outrageous supporters. It was actually KateTex that made that connection. The sanctimony and outrage from you, KateTex and reality counts, does nothing to elevate the discussion you find so distasteful.
We've had reasoned discussions before and we both know that there are crazies on both sides. I thought that we both agreed that either candidate would be better than McCain? If you would like a reasoned discussion then stop insulting me and the other Obama supporters who are trying to make valid and thoughtful arguments and let's discuss facts and issues.
-
@reality counts
You say: "I am tired. I am depressed. Maybe sanity will return. Maybe I'll feel better in the morning."
Funny - I'm thinking of incising this on the bathroom mirror, so I can recite it while I brush my teeth at night.
And yes, I too campaigned and voted for McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry.... the whole flipping losers' list. If it hadn't been for Bill Clinton, I likely would've ended life with a perfect record.
I want to thank you for putting your thoughts and sentiments down tonight, as I share so many of them. As human nature is a constant - proof against tricks and shortcuts and ringing proclamations, I've begun to believe that maybe the most we can ask of any government is to rein in the worst of it. That's about all I ask of our next president.
Thanks again and goodnight.
-
And yeah, it is a little bit more complicated but not much so. Listen and LEARN.
The real reason the Clinton's had so much success for all people, but especially blacks as their percentages of poverty reduction and median income increases were higher than for whites comes down to this:
1. They actually DID enact fiscal responsibility. While the Clintons unlike Barrack Obama, believe it is inherently unfair for nurses, truckdrivers and teachers to pay higher tax rates than billionaires, Clinton's 92 tax increase on the rich closed the deficits that Poppy Bush and Reagan had given lip service to, but never bothered to.
2. When then Chair of the Fed Reserve, Greenspan saw someone was serious about closing deficits, he eased up on the money supply which lowered interest rates AND made low interest funds available to capital investors.
3. Where that becomes important was that this was a tech friendly administration. The REAL difference between the parties may in fact be the industries that align behind them.
Republicans favor has-been dried-up mature, automated industries that don't employ people and aren't growing (oil, tobacco, aluminum producers like Alcoa, ad nauseum). New DEmocrats, like Clinton and Gore support high-tech innovative industries that actually are labor intensive, growing, produce vertical spin-off industries AND employ lots of people at good wages (tech, biotechnology, nanotechnology, green industries, etc).
Putting money in the hands of the middle class and domestic professionals instead of billionaires actually DOES grow the economy becuase these are the people who actually SPEND money and buy things that employ other people like cars, computers, refrigerators (instead of yachts and vacations in the Swiss Alps and art investments). And THAT's what keeps the smokestacks going in Gary, which is why we ALL prospered under
"Billary"/Gore.