's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Blair 'more popular than Bush'(65 posts)

Blair 'more popular than Bush'Fr Ted Crilly
Jun 4, 2003 4:03 PM
It's only survey, and we all know that we can argue forever on the accuracy and legitimacy of surveys, but it is interesting nonetheless.

Perhaps most interesting is:
"In the US, 58% believe it is more important to be free from the government to pursue one's own goals, compared with 38% who believe it is more important that the government ensures that no one is needy.
The ratio is reversed in Europe and much of Latin America, where there is strong support for a social safety net."

Does this sum up the way that Americans & Europeans view their part in society, and as a result the different attitudes to such things as gun control, foreign aid and environmental protection?
In what kind of depraved society would. . .czardonic
Jun 4, 2003 4:23 PM
. . .pursuing your own goals and helping the needy be mutually exclusive!

To answer you question though, I would say yes. Many Americans are addicted to bogus, self-serving fantasies about self-reliance. Only the ubiquitous "other guy" benefits from special interests, pork and government "hand-outs". And that same "other guy" is always out to get his hands on your hard-won stuff, so you need a gun to protect it. Oh, and more often than not, the "other guy" works for the Government, who doesn't represent you because you don't vote.
guess not much changed in 227 years nmDougSloan
Jun 4, 2003 7:51 PM
More.Jon Billheimer
Jun 5, 2003 7:00 AM
The PEW research was also reported a couple of days ago on the CBC news. Another interesting item was peoples' opinions on whether other countries had any impact on U.S. behaviour. The majority opinion in Canada and other European countries was that their respective countries had little or no effect on the U.S., whereas a majority of Americans believed that other countries do influence U.S. policy and behaviour.

With respect to the U.N. and the importance of international co-operation and concensus, Canadians are also much, much closer to European views than to American views. Americans tend to be "go-it-aloners" vs. the rest-of-the-world. Interesting.
"Americans tend to be "go-it-aloners" vs. the rest-of-the-world"Live Steam
Jun 5, 2003 7:30 AM
History and tradition! Well not exclusively. The rest of the global community has sort of put us in that position too. They may not say it out loud, but they do expect us to help them in times of need and distress and we, for the most part, have not let them down. Many Americans feel we get kicked in the a$$ after doing so. France after WW2 is a good example. I guess you can say that about Germant too. We help to unify their country again and they don't support us in Iraq. Many more examples.
Jun 5, 2003 7:46 AM
Geography probably played a huge role in American's developing an ingrained sense of isolationism, maybe second only to the "down under" countries, but even they retained the control of England for much longer.

For a very long time, Americans' only real battles were amongst themselves, and even in WWI, our involvment was voluntary. Not until 1941, really, were we required to become involved in world matters. We were so far removed from the rest of the world that for practical purposes we were isolated a world away. That had to affect the thinking that became a part of us. We were pioneers, rugged individualists, loners, compared to Europe and other areas.

I think therefore that the very essence of American thinking for the most part is the isolationist individualistic philosophy, rather than social collectivism. The country was founded upon independence and distancing itself from Europe. Makes perfect sense to me that we would see the world differently than Europeans.

Bingo!Jon Billheimer
Jun 5, 2003 8:28 AM
I think you hit the nail on the head---or rather good ole Frederick Jackson Turner! Canada, on the other hand, retained its colonial ties with England as well as a strong minority French culture. Hence, the confluence of geography and politics produced one political culture in the States and another in Canada.
Agree 100%, but Jon will say ....Live Steam
Jun 5, 2003 8:32 AM
that Oh Canada has a similar history, yet we know they hovered under the Crown for a much longer period - almost 100 years more and the French influence is undeniable.
there's so much vitriol and misinformationMJ
Jun 5, 2003 8:39 AM
in your posts that I wonder if your czardonic's alter ego as a troll...

still it's consistently amusing
Actually Jon appears to agree with me.Live Steam
Jun 5, 2003 8:42 AM
Did you read his post above? I guess we were typing and posting at the same time, as his post beat mine to the board.

Oh by the way it's called patriotism my friend!
If only it were truefiltersweep
Jun 5, 2003 11:00 AM
I agree in principle, but unfortunately, we haven't been isoloationistic enough post WWII - IMHO. We are always at war, whether overtly or covertly. We give "foreign aid" with all sorts of strings attached all over the globe.

We are merely isolationist insofar as we don't really care what our "teammates" think of our actions.
Jun 5, 2003 11:31 AM
We may have been seperated from Europe, but we were far from isolated. We simply refused to recognize the humanity or soverignty of those around us.

I think that Manifest Destiny has a lot more to do with our attitudes than isolationism. Our history has been a non-stop campaign to expand our dominion and subdue anyone who got in our way. Our "individualism" is more a result of arrogance than pioneer spirit, and this is evidenced to this day in our foreign policy. It's not that we don't have anyone to talk to, its that we don't recognize anyone as being worthy of talking to us. Why should we suffer the opinions or protests of lessers?

Also, the American experience is in its infant stages compared to Europe. I bet the various barbarian tribes of Europe were pretty rugged and pioneering. But things eventually got crowded, and people figured out that they were going to have to get along with each other.
This is your most inane post to date! It is so ....Live Steam
Jun 5, 2003 11:55 AM
far from reality and, I was going to say naive, but it is actually stupid and foolish rather than naive, that responding to it other than saying how stupid it is, is really pointless. You should study European history before posting such idiocy.
I doubt that. But maybe you'd like to specify. . .czardonic
Jun 5, 2003 12:03 PM
. . .what is so inane about it. Does the whole thing conflict with your personal creation myths?

Are you saying that Europe was never a frontier populated by small, self-sufficient groups?
Well you're probably right ....Live Steam
Jun 5, 2003 12:33 PM
you have posted more ridiculous garbage than this :O) I don't even know where to start. The middle paragraph is so far off base that it doesn't require any response. You have a certain perception of reality that will probably never change. The last paragraph does require some input.

"But things eventually got crowded, and people figured out that they were going to have to get along with each other."

When did they decide to "get along"? After WW2? Some time after that? The French and Brits have been engaged all over the globe during that span of time. The Germans were basically under house arrest, as they were split in half and disarmed. Who does that leave remaining? Italy, Austria, Switzerland? Who else?

Ever hear of the Vietnam War? How do you think it got started? Maybe it was the French? You should look that up sometime the French at war in Indochina. How about the French at war in Algeria in 1954 trying to hold on the French colonization of the region? These are lengthy topics and you really need to do your own homework.
I don't see what one has to do with the other.czardonic
Jun 5, 2003 12:48 PM
What do the Europeans adventures in Asia and Africa have to do with getting along with each other?

It sounds like you disagree with the purported "social collectivism" of Europe, given their continued attempts to exterminate each other. You paint them as being pretty darn individualistic and pioneering.
Jun 6, 2003 11:07 AM
remember, there is "a rat" in separate.
Will do. (nm)czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 11:19 AM
"Americans tend to be "go-it-aloners" vs. the rest-of-the-world"MJ
Jun 5, 2003 8:29 AM
yeah - you should be upset that people on other countries are practicing democracy - shame it wasn't practiced in Florida when GWB was elected

how exactly did the US help Germany reunify in 1989?
I have to admit, you guys are good for a laugh :O)Live Steam
Jun 5, 2003 8:39 AM
The Dumocrats tried to hijack the election and then they try to pin it on the Republicans. I knew a kid in school who would mastermind a scheme and when it started to fall apart, he would point a finger at everyone else. He got what was coming to him :O)

To refresh your memory, the votes were tallied and GW won. The Dumocrats and their lawyers swooped down into FLA and that is when the BS started. Hanging chads, dimpled chads double punched ballots and all were totally BS. Then they had the nerve to ask for a recount in only the predominantly Dumocratic precincts. Dirty pool tactics. The supreme court saw right through the BS. End of story. Hey maybe you should educate the FLA voters on how to cheat, uhhmm, I mean read and vote properly! :O)
you avoid the point and tale the baitMJ
Jun 5, 2003 8:46 AM
you should pay attention to Ann Coulter's tactics a bit more

you should be honoured that France and Germany have such strong democratic institutions following US input

anything about German reunification? or any of the points you dropped yesterday? - or do you want to make some more stuff up about Florida (hijacking! HEHEHEHE) - you could even self-importantly lecture me concerning the electoral college (which was actually more on point)

speaking of school - the more I read your posts the more I'm convinced you're a teenager - how old are you? was school like just last week?

though I admit it is funny when you write dumocrats
??????????????????Live Steam
Jun 5, 2003 8:51 AM
You really need to use capital letters and complete sentences in order to make a comprehensive point. I am not really sure what your last post was supposed to mean, but if you want me to explain the importance of the Electoral College to you I will.
electoral collegeSteveS
Jun 5, 2003 2:03 PM
I already gave you and the other members of your cell a chance on the electoral college. Remember, just file charges for the "theft" of the election that you claimed previously? What's the matter, the Left can't prove it's claims?

P.S. Update just in...Germany has still lost the Battle of Stalingrad. No changes in the outcome of the War in the last almost 60 years.
I guess your refutation wasn't so definitive. . .czardonic
Jun 5, 2003 2:34 PM
. . .as you imagined.

Where would one go to file such a claim? The Supreme Court?
not a lawyerSteveS
Jun 5, 2003 3:15 PM
Since MJ's prior claim was that the Florida election was stolen, my guess is that his cell would file charges with the police in Florida and work their way up the courts to the Supreme Court as they successively lost each legal battle in all the lower courts. MJ, however, would more than likely prefer a 'world court' (presided over by European socialists) or the Hague or the court of public opinion held by the anarchists who recently rioted in Switzerland.

Just kidding.
"Florida 2000...a recap"BikeViking
Jun 5, 2003 9:21 AM
This always chaps my a$$, but for those of you who have forgotten...

The Supreme Court simply told Florida that they could not recount ONLY the Gore-friendly counties, they would have to recount ALL of them.

THere have been several independant recounts since 2000 and NOT ONE of them has been won by Al Gore. He couldn't even carry his OWN STATE!!!

Give up this false belief that the Supreme Court elected's flat wrong.

It's been a while since we have had a big row, hasn't it MJ? :o)
Jun 5, 2003 12:27 PM
And don't forget that Gore was the one attempting to use the courts to take the election, plus, implied in the Democrats' attack of the U.S. Supreme Court decision is their apparent trust of the Florida Supreme Court more than the U.S. Supreme Court. Why would that be?

Another thing, on the popular vote. In California, if there are enough votes cast on election day to take the election, considering the number of absentee votes received, but not tallied, yet, they don't even count the absentees; typically, absentee votes are skewed Republican. If this happened in enough states, the nationwide popular vote might well have been much closer or in Bush's favor. We'll never know, though, as it's irrelevent.

Gore uses the courts. Bush relies on racist cops. . .czardonic
Jun 5, 2003 12:32 PM
. . .to keep black voters away from the polls.
I was wrong ......Live Steam
Jun 5, 2003 12:36 PM
this is the most idiotic post to date! I thought I was the one that liked conspiracies? This takes the cake.
you have a comeback for everything, don't you?DougSloan
Jun 5, 2003 12:37 PM
Nice try. I'll rack that one up there with hanging chads and confusing ballots. Proof of the facts and causation (i.e., would it have made a difference?) are required before giving claims like that validity. Neither were proven. I would assume that the section 1983 civil rights suits against those cops would be concluding about now, right? Know of any?

I guess he assumed that all ...Live Steam
Jun 5, 2003 12:43 PM
those voters that were allegedly turned away from the polls were going to vote for Al Bore :O) That says something about his train of thought, don't you think?
Like Fleischer claimed that Palm Beach. . .czardonic
Jun 5, 2003 12:54 PM
. . .was a Buchanan stronghold?

Not quite.

93% of blacks in Florida who did manage to overcome the roadblocks thrown up by Bush's brother cast their vote for Gore. evidence that EVER happened! nmBikeViking
Jun 6, 2003 5:57 AM
Fleischer never said it? (nm)czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 10:55 AM
Big surprise.czardonic
Jun 5, 2003 12:58 PM
I can't imagine why it would be hard for blacks to prove their disenfranchisement under the very system that disenfranchised them.

Your probably right though. Any denial of rights to minorities is probably of little consequence. They are minorities after all.
Thats race-baiting and incendiary.moneyman
Jun 5, 2003 2:39 PM
In addition to being just wrong. And you have stooped to a new low.

No, it is racism baiting if anything. . .czardonic
Jun 5, 2003 2:59 PM
. . .and if it is incendiary it is because it intrudes on the fantasy that racism does not exist, and thus is not a problem that the majority need bother thinking about.

Low? Well, in my defense, I am addressing a crowd that largely has its head buried in the sand.
Gore is the bastard son of a fruit fly & a carp.jesse1
Jun 5, 2003 2:54 PM
Well, of coarse he isn't! But that's what your ridiculous posts sound like to most of us! What color is the sky in your world? I know you're a LaRouche backer.
Bush is an former-drug abuser who deserted his country.czardonic
Jun 5, 2003 3:02 PM
Well of course he isn't. Err. . .actually, he is.
Please be specific. (nm)jesse1
Jun 5, 2003 7:53 PM
Here are your specifics.czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 10:52 AM
We alredy know that Bush is a drunk. That much he will admit to. He refuses to answer questions about illegal drugs.

As for the desertion, I will excerpt from an interview given by James Moore, author of "Bush's Brain":

    "I was astonished by the Abraham Lincoln event because it is such an irony, and so hypocritical for the President to don a flight suit and take that flight because we're talking about a President who used family connections to get into the National Guard. He lost his flight status after four years because he refused to show up for his physical in 1972, which also happened to be the year that random drug testing was begun. And in his first campaign he said that he couldn't find his family physician to give him the physical. And then it was pointed out the military doctor gives these physicals. And then they said, well, he didn't go because he decided he would no longer fly, as if an enlistee gets to decide their future service and duty.

    "Punishment was issued for him to do civilian duty in Denver, for which he did not show up. He claims to have showed up in Alabama, when he transferred to Alabama to work on his Senate campaign. The commanding officer there said that he never showed up. I mean, he takes a privileged position in the Guard and then does not honor his commitment -- disappears for the last two years of his hitch and uses family privilege to avoid combat and making any kind of political statement about the War in Vietnam. And yet they have the chutzpah to put him in a plane and fly him out there, and think that no one will ask him about these contradictions."
<I>"We alredy know that Bush is a drunk."</I>Live Steam
Jun 6, 2003 2:36 PM
Now that is not what an understanding, self respecting liberal would call a reformed alcoholic. It sounds so hateful and intolerant. That can't be you. You are the CZAR of tolerance :O)

As for the latter part of your post, that is one persons story of what happened. I suppose you view it as acceptable for our former Commander in Chief to have gone to the USSR (that is what Russia and the surrounding states were called before the end of the cold war in case you didn't know) during the Vietnam War to denounce the US? Communist USSR. Our arch enemies. The enemies of the free World. He went there and then became the President of the Country he denounced.

Clinton's Monica tales were the least reprehensible acts he committed. He raped Juanita Broaderrick and probably molested countless women and he gats a pass. Unbelievable!!!!!!
Yes. "Unbelievable". (nm)czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 2:50 PM
If one wishesSteveS
Jun 7, 2003 7:29 AM
There was a follow-up story done by one of the Boston papers I believe, on Bush's military record at a member of the Air National Guard and in reality, it killed the thrust of Czardonic's and other radical's claims. That's why this story isn't/wasn't first page news. With a little research I can dig it up...but "desertion"...there wasn't any.

Unbelievable is the correct word, simply because the article wasn't true. Sort of Bill Clinton's "word" as an honest man.
Jun 6, 2003 6:04 AM
I am sure you were at the forefront criticizing Bill Clinton as a draft-dodging rapist. GWB was in the military, unlike Bill, he never sexually assaulted anyone, unlike Bill (remember the track record...Jones, Flowers, Willey> Your criticism of Presidential behavior is skewed in a rightward direction.

But Bill's a Socialist in training so that makes him OK...because he "cares" and wants to "help" people.
He was in the military until he deserted.czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 10:58 AM
Now which is worse? Not going? Or making a commitment to serve and then sneaking off?
Jun 7, 2003 7:53 AM
This is really just too easy. Senators Kerry and Inouye are the Democratic senators mentioned below:

"Two Democratic senators today called on Gov. George W. Bush to release his full military record to resolve doubts raised by a newspaper about whether he reported for required drills when he was in the Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973. But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns may be unfounded. Documents reviewed by The Times showed that Mr. Bush served in at least 9 of the 17 months in question... On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery "for the months of September, October and November." Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5. But Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush did not serve on those dates because he was involved in the Senate campaign, but he made up those dates later. Colonel Turnipseed, who retired as a general, said in an interview that regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter. Mr. Bartlett pointed to a document in Mr. Bush's military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May. The May dates correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10. Another document showed that Mr. Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973, a period of time questioned by The Globe."

Now obviously there is more but the net effect is that there was indeed, no 'desertion.' These were assertions put forth by Paul Klugman of "The New York Times" and we know their recent level of honesty in print.

The question is, what is Czardonic's he dumb, ignorant, or possibly is he a tad dishonest like his great hero Wild Bill Clinton? Since this 'news' on Bush's Air National Guard record was so easy to get, dispelling the false claims of Krugman and little guys like Czardonic, I think I can answer my own question.

Dis story done be dead.

Gad, this is fun.
Interesting bit of selective reporting.czardonic
Jun 7, 2003 12:40 PM
And a fascinating account of how he was able to "serve" at his own convenience, while others were fighting and dying, often against their will.
Gore uses the courts. Bush relies on racist cops. . .BikeViking
Jun 6, 2003 5:54 AM
No substantiated evidence on this ALLEGATION whatsoever. This gets SO old, this tactic of inventing "evil deeds" when things, like an election result, don't go your way.

Perhaps there was some voter fraud in Tennessea, as Al didn't carry his own state?

I'd work that angle if I was a sore loser too.
You know the worst part of this...?DougSloan
Jun 6, 2003 6:11 AM
The worst part of what our czar is saying is not that cops hinder black voters, but that they were racist, and finally that "Bush relies on racist cops..." Bush RELIES on racist cops? So, there was a directive from Bush on down to motivate the "racist cops" to hinder black voters? That certainly is a lie, and evidence of minds so removed from reality or intellectually dishonest there is no point in discussing anything with them. Ludicrous and indefensible.

You know the worst part of this...?BikeViking
Jun 6, 2003 6:34 AM
After 2 1/2 years this garbage is STILL out there! Terry McAuliffe and Paul Begala won't let it go.

Does any reasonable person think that, if the "racist cop" theory was ACTUALLY happening, that reace-baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would have been down in FL quciker that flies on $hit!

Wholly and COMPLETELY false allegations.
I rely on photosynthesis. That doesn't mean I direct it.czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 10:45 AM
It does mean that I am a beneficiary of it. If I was a beneficiary of an evil deed, I would do whatever I could to right the wrong, lest I become complicit in the act by way of my silent aquiesance.

Catch my drift?
nutty comparisonDougSloan
Jun 6, 2003 10:57 AM
I think everyone on the planet can agree that photosynthesis takes place and that it provides most of our food. Yes, we rely on it, in fact, we do direct it. We have farmers that plant things and we buy things from farmers.

However, you are stretching an analogy of that undeniable example to a situation of pure unfounded politically motivated speculative accusations. Nice try.

But you've one-upped me on the nuttiness!czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 11:18 AM
Farmers direct photosynthesis!?

The only matter of "speculation" here is whether the systematic disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida was a plot cooked up by one of Bush's operatives, or just "business as usual" in a state run by Bush's brother.

Doug, you seem to be a morally adrift as Bush, and it is a shame. You are willing to turn a blind eye to all manner of injustice, as long as it helps you and hinders your enemies. Racism in Florida? No biggie. If we did something about it, Democrats might be a few votes closer to spreading their evil socialism.

As this boards primary Libertarian, I find it very ironic that you serve as the primary example of the self-deception and self-interest that make Libertarianism unachievable. Your attitudes are what makes it necessary for a "Big Government" to step in and right the wrongs that you ignore.
I've said it more than once...jesse1
Jun 6, 2003 12:02 PM
....I learn more from this site in a day than reading any two issues of Bicycling Mag. But now, thanks to you Czar, I learn more in a day than any two issues of Newsweek!
I've got to get me some of that LaRouche lierature, turn off the MSNBC and start watching Al-Jazeera!
You seem real pleased with your LaRouche schtick.czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 12:06 PM
What is this, the fourth time you've used it?
Deny it here & now...jesse1
Jun 6, 2003 12:32 PM
..and I'll let it drop.
I'm slightly embarassed to say. . .czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 12:56 PM
. . .that I don't even know who Lyndon LaRouche is. The name rings a bell, but I'm not familiar with what you might be getting at in your insinuation. Lemme check the encyclopedia. . .

. . .Okay. I'm not really a fan of these fringe "personalities". If, as one person described him, he is a hybrid of Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, neither of whom do I have much patience for, then I am definitely not a fan.

Looks like he was jailed for tax evasion during the Reagan administration. Admit it, that is pretty damn suspicious. You'd really have to piss off the Reagan administration to get them to throw the tax-code at you.
I have a feeling you're pulling my leg.jesse1
Jun 6, 2003 8:05 PM
He's tried to get on the Democratic ballot for Pres in probably the last 6 or 8 elections. His followers frequent many college campuses trying to recruit and sell subscriptions to his trash "newspaper".
He's the king of the conspiricy spinners, claiming among other things that Bush Sr, the Queen of England, Blair and whoever is in power in Israel at the moment conspire to sell drugs to the blacks in gettos. He's been a friend to any dictatorship that opposes the U.S., and has been an apologist for their regimes as well. So possibly you can see how I might connect him with you. If this is not the case, I do apologize.
That's actually pretty funny descibing him as a hybrid of Buchanan & Nader. Hmmm...maybe more like Hitler & Jesse Jackson, if you can immagine that, except no mustache.
He wouldn't really stand out in my neck of the woods. (nm)czardonic
Jun 7, 2003 12:45 PM
I rely on photosynthesis. That doesn't mean I direct it.BikeViking
Jun 6, 2003 12:31 PM
The assumption is still there that the "evil deed" took place. Simply because there were accusations (investigated and found groundless) does not mean the "evil deed" took place.

NO ONE has found ANY evidence that a denial to vote was anything more than a Democratic pipe dream. As much as you like to refer "racism" and how it prevented people from voting, unless there is real evidence, it is an only allegation, at best.
where are the suitsDougSloan
Jun 6, 2003 12:53 PM
If there were anything to this, the ACLU and NAACP would have flooded the courts with lawsuits, even assuming private law firms wouldn't take the cases. The status of those suits would be front page news. Instead, not a peep, except from the leftist conspiracy dreamers.

Not a peep that you care to credit.czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 1:13 PM
Disproportionately long lines in predominantly black precints. Conincidence. Black voters unfairly disqualified. Conincidence. Bush's own brother in charge of the state in question. Conincidence.

No harm (to Bush's supporters), no foul.

I guess you can breathe easy Doug. No lawsuit will ever prove that racism exists. Thus, it doesn't. No media coverage? Must not have happened. We all know that in America, racism is a thing of the past and the media never plays down stories that threaten those in power.
Jun 6, 2003 1:56 PM
In nearly every area of the country, including the areas in issue, voting areas are run by local people, usually headed by the County Clerk. In predominately Democratic areas, there is a good chance that Democrats were running the polls. The State level, be it governor or secretary of state, has very little to do with it. So, if anyone screwed up, it certainly was not the state, and likely was a democrat and his or her recuited voluteers or temporary employees.

No lawsuit to prove that racism exists? Beg to differ. There probably have been thousands in one form or another. Besides, the issue is whether "racist cops prevented blacks from voting," right? That would be fairly easy to prove, if only it had happened.

Like I said, you can breathe easy. Nothing is wrong. (nm)czardonic
Jun 6, 2003 2:09 PM