I said Condi Rice is more trustworthy than Hillary Clinton. That's how I feel. If I didn't have a life and I had ample time I could research and post one of Hillary's 'lies' for every one of Condi's purported 'lies' in that thread you referenced. There is no tangible way to quantify and prove to you who is more honest among the two. If you disagree on who the most trustworthy of the two is, I'm certain you would be in the minority. Hillary is a liability to the democrat party, not an asset. And I really hope she does run in 08. The majority of the population sees her for what she is, unlike alot of you. And her securing the democratic nomination will be the best way to ensure the republicans maintain control of the white house.
Well, first of all, no matter how much time you had, no you couldn't. You couldn't present a lie for lie comparison of HRC and CR because Condi's been caught in lies and Hillary hasn't. Meanwhile, you so somehow have ample time to make baseless accusations and plenty of them. I can't imagine that you don't have time to respond to Bush's clear lies that FranchiseBlade laid out for you or Rice's lies that are plainly documented in that other thread. It really shouldn't take any longer than your myriad "Nuh-uh! Liberals are all lying assholes and I don't have to prove it because it's just so obvious!" posts. My point isn't to defend HRC at all. I hope she doesn't run too. And if she does run in the primary I won't support her and I won't vote for her. That's not because I think she's a liar, but because I don't agree with her on the issues. If you have time to come into a thread to call someone you have no proof has ever lied a liar while calling someone that has been proven a liar on the very most important issues, issues of our national security, in that very thread, honest, you have time to back up your assertions. Otherwise you just look like a stupid parrot.
And I still haven't seen your posts denouncing those awesome GOP flagbearers Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Ann Coulter. Wanna tell us how much cooler they are than Kanye? I can see your argument now... Kanye's a moron and James Dobson's awesome, because "that's the way that I feel." Hard to argue with logic like that.
You sure spout off a lot with no facts to back up your meaningless words. If you don't have the time to find some facts or support for you claims, then don't waste any of that precious time of yours posting in this forum. Without support your claims or worthless. They are just opinions of a person who has been shown by evidence and facts to be wrong in almost every thread you post in. I already said that I don't support Hillary to run as president. That doesn't mean she is dishonest, and it certainly doesn't mean she is more dishonest than Condi. There is nothing in Kanye's interviews where he claims to be the flag bearer for the Democrats.
David Duke has taken up a role as flagbearer of the Republican party as shown by his attempt to run for governor of Louisiana as a Republican. Wait, your logic DOESN'T WORK. Whether or not the party has sought you out is 100% relevant, since anybody can call themselves a "Democrat" and "Republican", but only a few people (such as Howard Dean and Barack Obama) are chosen to promote the party's views. It's not "irrelevant" just because you say so. Bringing up Hillary in a thread about Condi's lies is a complete red herring. What do Hillary's lies have to do with Condi's lies? It's just an attempt by you to draw attention away from the issue at hand.
who called it a majority? but im sorry if 33% of children grow up in poverty im sure that'll have a significant affect. and im sure if we have a more reasonable poverty line we'd see significantly higher rates. (ps: ironically only about 37% of the US supports bush currently. why does he have a mandate again) haven't seen em. dont know. thats the stupidest ass comparison i've ever heard. who the hell cares what the poverty rate in mexico is. we're not comparing the greatest economic powerhouse in the history of mankind with practically a third world country. and poverty is relative. i dont live in mexico. i can't do much for mexico. i dont know much about mexico. i do live in the US. i do believe i should voice dissent about US economic policies and inequalities that are to some degree based on racial lines. and thats why im b****ing about it. tell me can you survive on 16 thousand dollars in a family of three living in any major urban area? hell in houston maybe. in DC? in los angeles? in new york? thast the poverty line. for one person its 9 thousand and change. if that isn't frugal maybe considering that the orshansky poverty threshold was determined by the nutritional usage of a farmer's family in the 60s. think about it...farmers would generally have it easier to grow food. and cost of meager living in farmland (given the land value etc) would be fairly cheap. it doesn't take into account gas prices and housing. it doesn't take into account variants for cost of living in different locations. some consider living in new york to be 2.5 times as expensive as in houston.
I would appreciate you showing me the same respect you wish to be treated with. FWIW, I have plenty of family members living with more than 3 family members on LESS than 16 thousand a year. Do they live the high life? No. But they're making their way and trying to better themselves.
How is that irrelevant? Hitler can stand up and be a flagbearer of the Jews because he is a media w**** but that doesn't make him a representative! Just cause Kanye West THINKS he represents something doesn't make it so. That being said, that ONE comment happened to be very representative of how black folks feel. But that doesn't mean anything else he says is also true.
and i think its a damn shame that those people have to live in such conditions in the greatest economic powerhouse of the world. and i think george bush doesn't care about those people.
Why? Should they automatically be given money because they don't have it? They sure don't think so and they've turned down assistance because they didn't "do anything" to deserve it. They came to this country (legally) with nothing and wanted to build from there. They're doing a good job and they sure don't think Bush doesn't care about them. On another note, I'm sure they'd feel a bit angry that you were feeling sorry for them instead of encouraging them. In my opinion, these guys have it right. You work for what you want and build from there.
im sure the overwhelming majority of people in poverty would prefer some assistance. if they dont...thats their deal. but why shouldn't we make it available? we give tax breaks to the rich. i dont see many of them getting on their high horse and rejecting tax breaks and opting to pay the max allowed for their bracket without taking any breaks. i dont see them writing larger checks to the IRS. similarly why shouldn't the poor recieve more assistance? why shoudln't the poverty measure be realistic and sympathetic to the plight of those in poverty? they can think whatever they want. the reailty is george bush does not care about poor people and its evident from his policies. he has repeatedly cut programs to help the under-priviledged in exchange for tax cuts for the elite. his 'caring' about poor people is only relevant in terms of what he's done for them given his presidential powers.
It is great to work to improve, but that doesn't mean Bush should cut funding from programs that provide healthcare for the poor, or shouldn't help fund education, and other programs that help people make the very improvements you are talking about.
Don't leave out that he's doing all that while working hard to make unprecedented tax cuts for the richest Americans permanent. I think it's pretty clear who he cares about.
Nevermind that those tax cuts have spurred our economy to very strong levels and that tax receipts are UP. Yes, the tax cuts have increased tax receipts. That must be a hard concept for you to grasp, so you may want to continue blindly sticking to your partisan talking point about how tax cuts only went to the rich.
What Kanye meant was that Bush doesn't care about Oprah, Michael Jordan, and Denzel Washington. The racial make up of New Orleans was about 60-70% black before Katrina and blacks are 2/3 times more likely than whites to live below the poverty level. Anyone armed with a basic understanding of New Orleans and poverty in the US would understand exactly what West was speaking about. You should really post less frequently.
You don't know where to begin because you're so out of touch with the world, you're having to overcome your ego to understand what a poor grasp of the facts you really have in this case.
I think you need to read the original post in this thread again before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself. If you can't understand the ignorance in Kanye West's statements then that says alot about yourself.
