Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Everything's bigger in Texas, including GOP racism

Posted 1 year ago on May 1, 2013, 11:44 a.m. EST by WSmith (2091) from Cornelius, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Texas Republicans Once Again Reveal They Don't Want Black and Brown Voters

Everything's bigger in Texas, including GOP racism.

April 30, 2013 | http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/texas-republicans-once-again-reveal-they-dont-want-black-and-brown-voters?paging=off

Redistricting fights are a lot like cicadas — they emerge every 10 years. They’re ugly and loud and get lots of attention. Then they go away.

Here in Texas, the redistricting fight is not going away.

Republican state and legislative leaders in Texas have taken redistricting far beyond a loud, ugly fight between Republicans and Democrats. They have turned it into an attack on racial fairness that involves the U.S. Department of Justice, two federal district courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Eight months ago, a three-judge federal court — including two judges appointed by Republican presidents — said it straight up, unanimously ruling on the redistricting maps submitted by Attorney General Greg Abbott that were passed by the GOP-led Legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Perry in 2011.

The judges said that the Texas maps were designed to discriminate — that the maps showed “more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space, or need to address here.”

Sadly, Texas is all alone — the only state in the country — that couldn’t pass the most basic legal test for fairness.

All of the other southern states covered under the Voting Rights Act — Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia and Virginia — were able to adopt district maps that did not discriminate against their minority citizens.

Rather than accept the ruling of the court and work to draw fair districts that reflect the racial makeup of Texas, Abbott, Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Joe Straus have spent millions of Texas taxpayer dollars fighting to impose discriminatory boundaries on Texans.

Just last week, state Senate Republicans again demonstrated why Texans have no reason to trust the intentions of GOP leaders when it comes to fair district boundaries.

The senators gave barely 48 hours' notice for a public hearing on redistricting to consider maps they know members who represent Latino and African-American districts oppose. Of course, the leadership had no real interest in hearing from the public or giving anyone the chance to provide meaningful comment.

They simply intend to impose their will.

Even as the hearing proceeded, Abbott — on behalf of the state — has arguments pending in the U.S. Supreme Court demanding that the 2011 maps that the district court ruled discriminatory be imposed on Texas.

Going even further, Abbott is also arguing to repeal key provisions of the U.S. Voting Rights that protect against exactly the type of discrimination practiced by Texas GOP leaders.

Ultimately, it is almost certain that the courts will determine Texas district boundaries. Certainly, no one should expect a series of spirited redistricting debates in the Legislature with respectful back-and-forth negotiations and final agreement around maps that reflect fairness and common ground. GOP state leaders have shown no interest in that approach. Moreover, they have forfeited the basic trust such an approach requires.

The approach to redistricting chosen by those leaders exposes a dark and damning calculation. They have decided that as the Latino and African-American populations in our state grow, they would rather weaken and undermine minority voting strength than make fair and reasonable policy choices designed to win the support of Latino or African-American voters.

It's an approach that flies in the face of everything that so many Texans have fought and died for — the right to vote, the right to choose our own leaders, the right to be part of laying the course for our shared future.

As Texans we see ourselves — rightly — as forward-looking and fair. Our state leaders let all of us down when they design redistricting plans that aren’t remotely fair or equitable and that discriminate against our citizens.

Texas is a better place than this.

Texans are better people than this.

It’s time we acknowledged that this latest fight over the right to vote is not about politics or minorities at all.

It’s about morality.

Matt Angle is director of lonestarproject.net and a Democratic political consultant based in Washington, D.C.

116 Comments

116 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

What about the recent presidential election when more than 90% of blacks voted for Obama. Why do you think they voted for him?

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Vice Pres. Gore won 90% of the black vote too. Sen. Kerry 88%.

The majority of the country voted for Pres. Obama because Mitt Romney successfully communicated his thoughts and feelings about 47% of the population.

Why Mitt Romney or any Republican gets any votes at all is a mystery to me.

[-] -1 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

Obama got 94% of the black vote and for the first time black turnout was higher than whites. No group - ethnic, religious or minority - has voted for a president the way blacks did. You make the conclusion.

Since Republican governors control a large majority of the states I think you have real problem if you can't understand why people vote for parties.

If you are not concerned about the 47% then we have a real problem. It is unsustainable to think that only 53% of people pay into the system and 47% of people are receiving support. And combine that with the lowest amount of people working then there is trouble, You are getting what you want. High unemployment with a welfare state.

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

You need to rally for a minimum wage increase so those forty-seven percent, most of them employed, are able to do their part. But at last, most Americans, fifty-three percent to be exact, want their cake and choose to eat everyone else's. Your belief that forty-seven percent of the population don't work is a miss guided thought. It's not even close to what Romney told his financial backers.

[-] -2 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

Your welfare state at work: "Nonparticipants now number 89,967,000. That is slightly more than the U.S.'s employed total in 1976. At 63.3%, the labor force participation rate is at its lowest level since May of 1979, and that means there are less than two workers for each nonparticipant".

Put into context: in December, 2007, when the recession was just beginning, the labor force participation rate was 66% and the unemployment rate was 5%. If today's labor force participation rate matched 2007's, today's unemployment rate would be 11.4% - 50% higher than today's and over twice 2007's.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

'Nonparticipants now number 89,967,000' - you appear to be quoting the statistic known as 'Not in the labor force' from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

From the BLS - Not in the labor force means:

Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching.

'That is slightly more than the U.S.'s employed total in 1976' - wtf is that even supposed to mean? The population has grown 40%. You're throwing numbers around that don't mean anything. With no regard to population growth and demographic changes in an hysterical and utterly worthless fashion. But nice try dumbass.

If your point is that unemployment is unacceptably high, then just say so. Instead of trying to create hysteria by comparing a completely useless set of numbers that doesn't tell us anything without accounting for population growth and demographic changes. You sound like an hysterical idiot.

If your point is that economic growth and job creation is not keeping up with population growth and the affects of an aging population, then just say so. And yes, everyone already knows this.

You didn't just stumble upon any great insight. And it doesn't make you look any smarter by rattling off a bunch of numbers. Especially when those numbers are near meaningless without proper context. You sound like an hysterical idiot.

[-] -3 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

Boy, there you go again deriding me and calling me names. You just can't help yourself. What do the numbers mean, it means that we have the lowest rate of people working since 1979. Percentages take into account the denominator!!!

And the aging population has very little to do with it. We have no economic growth. Your Democratic policies of spend and tax don't work. When will you folks actually produce some growth, instead of just complaining.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Stop acting like an hysterical idiot and I won't have to call you an hysterical idiot.

'Percentages take into account the denominator' - the denominator includes more retired persons. That's the whole point. And everyone already knows this.

'Not in the labor force' includes about 20million more retired persons. The percent of the population age 65 older increased 15% in just the past 10 years. And the percentage of retired persons will double in the next 20 years.

And of course it has an impact on economic growth. Are you insane? Retired people don't make stuff anymore. They aren't as productive to the economy. They are living on a fixed income. Their spending slows. They downsize. You don't think this has an impact on economic growth? The aging of the population affects economic growth and rates of participation in the labor market. Of course it impacts economic growth. There are hundreds and hundreds of studies and papers written on the subject. It affects the patterns of economic growth, it alters the labor supply, it has an affect on saving rates, income growth, consumption and consumption patterns. OMG. Is there something wrong with you? I mean do you have a medical problem?

Slow economic growth, the last two jobless recoveries, absolutely is affected by the aging population.

"Third, while the slow nature of the subsequent recovery is partly due to the shocks of this recession, most of the slow nature of the recovery in employment, and nearly all of the slow recovery in output, is due to a secular slowdown in trend labor force growth" - Stock and Watson, 2012.

http://www.econ.psu.edu/papers/Stock51512.pdf

'We have no economic growth' - the economy grew 2.2% last year.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/industry/gdpindustry/gdpind_glance.htm

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

I guess that means the powers that be have failed in their crusade to make work rewarding. This sounds like a classic competition problem. If people are not working in numbers that they used to maybe it has a lot to do with the fact that a paycheck don't buy what it once did. You do know that if the minimum wage was to have the purchasing power it had many decades ago, it would have to be at least twenty dollars an hour. So from this perspective, employers have lost their employees because they have chose not to pay them adequately.

Also, the way the criminal system has created felony offences out of almost every petty offense, most of those non workers are probably barred from employment because of the criminal system.

I hate the fact that because the pittance that welfare pays is some times more beneficial than what employees pay, employees would rather destroy welfare to force people to work for crumbs. I say it's a sad state of affairs when an employee can't compete with welfare. But we all know the American Way, If you can't compete with something, destroy it.

[-] 0 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

What powers? You have to work for sustenance, there are no guarantees in life. This is the problem in a nut shell. You just want to sit back and be guaranteed a job. I wish I could do the same.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

'You are getting what you want' - no I'm not. You should try to read more. You're getting what you want. The Paul Ryan austerity budget under another name called the sequester. The guy lost and you got what you wanted. The Paul Ryan budget.

When instead the government should be spending money creating jobs using record low interest rates.

Interest rates on government debt has not skyrocketed as long predicted by Republicans. Interest rates on government debt has gotten lower and is at record lows. Yields on Treasury bills are so low that buyers are actually paying the US to invest in our debt. When interest rates are at record low levels, and returns exceed the cost of capital, we should be investing and spending money to create jobs that pay long term dividends such as infrastructure spending for our crumbling roads, bridges and our outdated electrical grid, which the American Society of Civil Engineers gives our nation an entirely non acceptable grade of D+ . At record low interest rates, now is the time government should be investing in those upgrades and creating jobs. Which would enable the economy to more fully recover. Because working people spend money in the economy, which increases demand which leads to more job creation.

The Reinhart and Rogoff study "Growth"Growth in a Time of Debt" - 2010, is one of the most influential and widely used studies by Conservatives as their justification for deficit reduction as a fiscal policy priority and the Paul Ryan/Mitt Romney budget plans.

However, there is no evidence to support the conclusion that higher debt levels leads to slower economic growth when the corollary case is equally valid and agreed by economic experts - that slower economic growth leads to higher public debt, in the form of increased government assistance and reduced government tax revenues. Which returns less value to the economy and society, less in government revenues than strategic and targeted government job creation investment programs would.

So even as there is evidence of a correlation between debt levels and economic growth, there is nothing to prove it moves in only one direction, as Republicans say. In fact, Reinhart and Rogoff themselves say it works both ways. Slower growth leads to higher debt. There is nothing that says that debt/deficit reduction should be a policy priority ahead of job creation, especially in the short term with a continued high unemployment rate.

“Our view has always been that causality runs in both directions,” they said in their Times Op-Ed, “and that there is no rule that applies across all times and places … Nowhere did we assert that 90 percent was a magic threshold that transforms outcomes, as conservative politicians have suggested.” - Reinhart and Rogoff , http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/04/the-rogoff-and-reinhart-controversy-a-summing-up.html

And yet, deficit reduction as the number one economic priority, the sequester, and austerity only policies as the way to achieve growth, have been the only economic policy Conservatives will accept using Reinhart and Rogoff's study as justification. But Reinhart and Rogoff have stated:

"Austerity is not the only answer to a debt problem."

"To be clear, no one should be arguing to stabilise debt, much less bring it down, until growth is more solidly entrenched."

"Nevertheless, given current debt levels, enhanced stimulus should only be taken selectively and with due caution. A higher borrowing trajectory is warranted, given weak demand and low interest rates, where governments can identify high-return infrastructure projects. Borrowing to finance productive infrastructure raises long-run potential growth, ultimately pulling debt ratios lower. We have argued this consistently since the outset of the crisis."

Reinhart and Rogoff actually support a balanced approach to fiscal policy. Advocating for long term debt reduction strategies coupled with short term stimulus to increase demand and economic growth. Exactly along the lines of Pres. Obama's proposals.

Republicans cherry pick economic data to support their beliefs rather than use economic data and studies to lead them to proper policy.

Republican economic policy is beyond fucked up and has been for a long long time. Laffer Curve, trickle-down, now debt hysterics. All of it fucked up. Even David Stockman, Reagan's own budget director has said that trickle down was always just a Trojan horse in order to sell the idea of tax breaks for the wealthy. Jeesh. How dumb can you be?

[-] -3 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

Austerity budget? do you forget about the various stimulus plans that have been enacted over the past 6 years - higher than was spent in the 30s? Obama had his Congress and got through what he wanted.

The key of the Ryan budget is to enhance growth via simplifying the tax code and reducing spending which puts money back into the public's hands. You want to increase government spending on infrastructure but don't even speak about the majority of the budget that goes to transfer payments.

Nice use of language. You want me to take you seriously when you curse and then call me dumb? Free market economics has been around for a very long time and has brought more people out of poverty than any government run institution. What happened to the USSR?

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

'Austerity budget?' - yes. The Paul Ryan Budget Plan (minus the tax cuts for the wealthy) now called the sequester.

'do you forget about the various stimulus plans' - You mean that stimulus that the vast majority of economic experts agreed helped the economy? You mean that stimulus that the CBO also agreed helped the economy. No. I haven't forgotten.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/25/584561/40-economists-republicans-reality/

'reducing spending' - sure. On the backs of the poor and working poor. In the middle of a slow growth, continued high unemployment, fragile recovery. Very bad plan. There is virtually no economist on the planet any longer that will support austerity. Few did in the first place. It has been a total and complete disaster in Europe. It was a bad experiment gone worse than badly.

'via simplifying the tax code' - oh for shits sake. His simplifying the tax code is just another Trojan horse for reducing rates for the wealthy. Trickle down has been discredited and exposed for the bullshit it always was. Now they go with 'simplifying the tax code'. Just another Trojan horse to reduce rates for the wealthy. My gawd! How dumb can you possibly be?

'You want to increase government spending on infrastructure ' - it's not just me. The vast majority of economic experts agrees that when interest rates are at record lows, people are paying us to buy T-bills, unemployment is still too high, infrastructure is crumbling and has been neglected for decades, we should spend. Paul Ryan's own peeps say so. They're his guys. Except he only uses the parts that fit his warped Ayn Randian batshit crazy belief system. Beats me how anyone can possibly take seriously a guy that attempts to make public policy out of the rantings of a sociopathic, third rate hack fiction writer.

'the majority of the budget that goes to transfer payments' - this is not a new thing. It's been that way for most of the past century. It's not a new thing. So why should we talk about it?

'Nice use of language' - put on your big boy pants Sweet Cheeks.

'Free market economics' - where in hells name did you ever get such an idea? We have never had a free market economy. Not ever. Hell. For most of the 19th century we we're still operating under a mostly mercantilistic system. After we mostly abandoned mercantilism, for most of the 20th century, the top tax rate was 90%. During the period of our greatest prosperity after WWII, top tax rates were 90%, we made huge investments in infrastructure, built the interstate highway system, sent men to the moon. This was the period of our greatest prosperity. This was done by government Sweet Cheeks. And the country prospered immensely.

'What happened to the USSR?' - A lot of things happened in the USSR. The USSR has a long long history. You'll have to be more specific.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

'You want to increase government spending on infrastructure ' - it's not just me. The vast majority of economic experts agrees that when interest rates are at record lows, people are paying us to buy T-bills, unemployment is still too high, infrastructure is crumbling and has been neglected for decades, we should spend.

Exactly.

Here is a key project that is perfect:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/tesla-pushes-electric-cars-the-way-hypertext-pushe/#comment-969284

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Austerity = Democide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

Austerity = a failed society.

Austerity = a failed economy.

Austerity = Crash & Burn.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Austerity is like shunting all of the lifeblood from the legs of the economic body to the head. Then expecting the legs, who haven't grown proportionally while completely deprived of sustenance, to support the ever increasing size and weight of it's already enormous head. It stumbled to it's knees in 2008 and will stumble even harder next time.

[-] 2 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

I think the black voters are brilliant. That kind of solidarity is very impressive and i admire it. Not in any way racist either, but the resolve to vote together!

[-] -2 points by WSmith (2091) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

If you're suggesting what I think you're suggesting, you might be a RepubliCON racist.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

You are wrong about dmooradian take out he word "might"

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2091) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Why are there so many Republicon racists?

And why are there so many RepubliCon Witch-Hunts?

And why are people falling for it/them AGAIN?!

[-] 0 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

He might also be speaking truth to power....

Why didn't you answer his question. I am sure over 90% voting rate had NOTHING to do with race. It's because they all buy into the progressive agenda, right? Or fear reprisal for trying to escape the liberal plantation? Just look how the left and the media vilify and black with conservative leanings.. Dr Ben Carson Mia Love RG III Allan West Herman Cain The ESPN dude that wasn't impressed by the NBA dude that came out

Yeah, all blacks are pro murder, pro homosexuality, and pro giving amnesty to criminal trespassers, anti gun (why would you need a gun in the hood?) They voted for Peace Prize Prez on principle. Yeah, right

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2091) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

What truth to what power?

Nothing more than RW Fox Lies propaganda baiting.

The rumor that Obama promised a new smartphone to all black voters was a complete Rove/Luntz fabrication!

[-] -1 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

Did more than 90% of blacks vote for Obama? And if they did why?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2091) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

If they did they did it just so that they could mess with you.

[-] -2 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

Oooh clever, and we wonder why the IRS is having trouble.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

He wasn't (R)omney. I would have thought that was clear.

I certainly didn't think it would be difficult for anyone to figure out.

(R)omney's an ass.

[-] 2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Oh, come on. You’re in denial. Blacks voted for Obama in record numbers because Obama is black. Had nothing to do with the repubs or dems. No, I’m not a racist, but I don’t deny the truth.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Well gosh. a lot of caucasians voted for Perry in Texas, and I'll bet a whole boat load of them voted for (R)omney, in spite of the fact that he's a horses ass.

Were they racist, or just stupid?

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Dont you dare insult our equines
Mr. Ed is spinning in his grave

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Oh gosh, I thought he started spinning when Texas elected the wrong end in the first place..............................:)

[-] -1 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

Catholics didn't vote for Kennedy in those numbers. Jews didn't vote for Lieberman in those numbers. Asians only voted for the SF Mayor at around 55%.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

So?

[-] -1 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

So why then did blacks vote unusually high for Obama? Maybe because he is black?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Also wasn't Mitten


A better approach to voting could have led to different results:

Approval voting??? Hhmmmm - I Like It.

Tweet

Can an election's spoiler effect be avoided? Let’s ask some fruit. (via @Upworthy) @ThoughtBubbler http://www.upworthy.com/how-al-gore-could-have-won-the-2000-presidential-election-with-ease-2?g=2&c=upw1 Good Sense - Hey?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Maybe they're just smarter than (R)omney voters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022814129

In fact they are.

Too bad for you.

[-] -1 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

Why too bad for me? Too bad for the unemployed and the underemployed. Too bad for all of those kids who are graduating from college and won't have the opportunity to succeed. Too bad for those families who are trying to provide for their kids and they won't be able. Too bad for the elderly who will see their healthcare decline.

Why too bad for me.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Because you've made it painfully obvious that you are among them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022814129

It's not too late. there's still hope for you.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Half the country is stupid? Sounds like a "Masses are Asses" thread to me :)

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Simple Truth. I think you spelled out the reason - very well.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Simple truth doesn't get too far around here.

I've always wondered why anyone here would use the acronym TPTB, instead of saying actual names like Koch, Peterson, DeVos,. Walton, Rove, etc.

I do not fear saying their names.

I fear the damage they've done.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

TPTB - more inclusive ? Don't want to exclude any of the assholes.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The MSM is feeling the heat of growing public derision. They are now airing a generic commercial saying how wonderful American broadcasting is.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

While they suddenly ignore what happened in Texas?

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/16101-death-in-boston-and-west-texas-intent-hidden-in-plain-sight

Even what they don't admit, is bigger in Texas.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Good time to buy a Geiger counter?

I've actually been thinking about it.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Never heard radon discussed - after having moved from Colorado to Minnesota 49 years ago - Now it is being discussed as an issue everywhere.

Fracking - helping You to get your daily dose of rads.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

More like republicide................:)

Or corprocide.

Wasn't it Ms Coulter that informed us that radiation is all natural and therefore, good for us?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Now Now (even though there are those in office who are very obvious ) lets not be exclusive. Doing nothing can be just as bad as being actively evil.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

You might add william powell & ronnie & scalia

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Indeed, they are legion in their notoriety, and the damage they've caused.

[-] 0 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

Have you ever met him?

I have met both he and the President and I can tell you that Romney is the nice one.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Nice to who??

All those people who's pension he confiscated??

All the jobs he sent over seas??

The dog on the roof of his car?

The Chinese he was proud to say lived in work camps to aid his profit margin?

He's an ASSHOLE!!

[-] 2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

He's an asshole. So is our current one. I wish I could clunk the two of your heads to together like Three Stooges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZgVRJ-H8U

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

As go the States, so goes the Nation.

How's your State doing?

Kids shooting each other and the State arresting school children for their school to prison program! That's how.

You have no room to talk, for someone who supports ALEC and the Koch's, loves Alex Jones and post from the John Birch Society as well as breitbart..

You should clunk your own two heads together.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

You're consistent, I'll give you that haha. A bit misguided, but very narrow focus regardless.

Here's my take on ALEC (Kochs are part of their clan) - http://occupywallst.org/forum/alec-board-members/

You realize you vote for people who accept their money right?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

So?

OTP?

How is it, that the T stands for denial?

That must be a symptom of spending far too much time at prisonplanet.

[-] -1 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

So using your metrics how many people have you employed? How many people have you provided health care for? Have you only bought US goods - no imports?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I didn't use those "metrics", you made that up.

[-] -2 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

Nice diversion. He is an a____ because he sent jobs overseas and confiscated pensions? What have you done?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Worked hard and retired. Now his cronies are tying to make that retirement as uncomfortable as possible.

So what are you doing?

Besides hob nobbing?

BTW: The diversion is from you. (R)omney lost a while ago.

[-] 0 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

I have employed people. So you are saying that you have just worked for yourself with no responsibility for anybody else.

Yes, Romney lost and we still have unemployed people. 47% of the population doesn't work. We are suffering.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Sorry, I don't hob nob with politicians, nor do I believe in first impressions.

Especially as they apply to politicians and upper management.

I did shake Jeff Daniels hand once though.

[-] 0 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

If you haven't met Romney why call him names?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Policy.

and of course, the things he says and the company he keeps.

Nothing good comes from (R)epelican't lies.

[-] 0 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

So you dislike all Republicans, which is basically 49% of the country?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Where did I say that?

On the other hand, I have yet to meet one that makes a lick of sense, but I can't say that I've met them all.

It's my fervent hope that their ignorance will become a thing of the past......SOON!

[-] 0 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

Right above, you are saying that Romney is an a____ and you dislike him because he is a Republican and his policies so you must dislike half the country. Boy you have a real problem leading if that is your thinking,

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Holy shit did you just say that you would want family marrying either Obama or Romney?

Go check yourself into the nearest mental institution immediately. And def dont pursue marriage counseling.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

That's because (R)omney IS an asshole, along with all his cronies at Bain.

Now, would you please show me where I said what you accused me of?

I can't help it some people can't take their minds out of FLAKESnews.

But I will argue with almost everyone of them I meet. that stuff is the poison, that makes 'em stupid.

[-] -3 points by Dmooradian (-74) 1 year ago

I guess it comes down to the definition of a____. Like I said, I have met both of them and Romney is a really good guy; the type you would want your daughter to marry. Obama is not.

So you like Republicans why call them names?

[-] 0 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

You read more into the redistricting plan than I do. I see the plan as a way to map out the districts to republican favor. Probably not intended to be racist, but rather to diminish the liberal strongholds like Austin. And I agree the court will decide the districts this time.

On a positive note, there is speculation that Texas will be a blue state within the next ten years. So many fleeing Californians moving here has transformed political landscape.

Also, The Texas Senate just passed legislation allowing guns on college campuses. Of course the Universities can opt out. Also legislation passed allowing anyone to keep a gun in their vehicle on college campuses. The schools can’t o[t out of that one. The one gun bill that looks like it will die in committee is open carry of a gun. So, if you have a conceal carry license you’ll still have to keep it out od site.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2091) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Colin Powell Calls Out The GOP’s Racism Problem: There Is ‘A Dark Vein Of Intolerance’

By Igor Volsky on Jan 13, 2013 at 11:16 am

On Sunday, during an appearance on Meet The Press, Colin Powell condemned the GOP’s “dark vein of intolerance” and the party’s repeated use of racial code words to oppose President Obama and rally white conservative voters.

Without mentioning names, Powell singled out former Mitt Romney surrogate and New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu for calling Obama “lazy” and Sarah Palin, who, Powell charged, used slavery-era terms to describe Obama:

POWELL: There’s also a dark — a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party. What do I mean by that? I mean by that that they still sort of look down on minorities. How can I evidence that?

When I see a former governor say that the President is “shuckin’ and jivin’,” that’s racial era slave term. When I see another former governor after the president’s first debate where he didn’t do very well, says that the president was lazy. He didn’t say he was slow. He was tired. He didn’t do well. He said he was lazy. Now, it may not mean anything to most Americans, but to those of us who are African Americans, the second word is shiftless and then there’s a third word that goes along with that. The birther, the whole birther movement. Why do senior Republican leaders tolerate this kind of discussion within the party?

Watch it:

Powell added that the Republican Party is “having an identity problem,” noting that its significant shift to the right has produced “two losing presidential campaigns.” “I think what the Republican Party needs to do now is a very hard look at itself and understand that the country is changed,” he said. “If the Republican Party does not change along with that demographic, they a going to be in trouble.”

Powell also called on Republicans to focus on a more equitable and progressive economic policies that help middle and lower income Americans, as well as immigration reform. “Everybody wants to talk about who is going to be the candidate,” Powell said. “You better think first about what’s the party actually going to represent.”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/13/1440471/colin-powell-condemns-republican-party-racism-there-is-a-dark-vein-of-intolerance/

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

It sounds like Colin Powel is asking Republicans to just stop being Republicans. LOL

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2091) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Iraq WMD Guilt

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

He's asking Rs to serve America before they serve the party

[-] -1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

I disagree with Powell on the GOP being inherently racist. However, I do agree the ultra right currently control the party. It may very well be their downfall. The hard core right folks will not change or re-image themselves just for votes.

The US is split almost down the middle, conservative and liberal. Different States, different regions tend to balance things out. It’s too soon to call the next election, but I think it depends on what events occur neared to the election.

With any luck us liberal libertarians will have a voice this time around.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I love libertarians - they are such easy targets:
Lets home ron runs again: Some of Paul’s 11-page Plan to Restore America :

eliminating the Education Department
while China doubles its education budget ...............go Ronnie go!
eliminating the Energy Departments
nuclear power plants are safe aren’t they? ..................go Ronnie go!
Environmental Protection Agency would see a 30 percent cut
we don’t need clean air – corporations can sell it to us ........go Ronnie go!
Food and Drug Administration would see a 40 percent cut
You do know how to test your drugs - right ? ..………. go Ronnie go!
foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately
skyrocketing AIDS in Africa,
..........and goodbye to the only mid-east democracy
............ go Ronnie go!

Paul was asked by Wolf Blitzer on how eliminating about 221,000 government jobs across five cabinet departments would boost the economy. He responded: “They’re not productive jobs, You cut government spending, that money goes back to you. You get to spend the money.”
Ronnie, W..H..O…….I..S…….Y..O..U…….???

Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps, family support programs and the children’s nutrition program would be block-granted to the states
enabling states to cut back like they did on voting hours and collective bargaining.
The campaign says that the plan “honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out.” –
to gamble with their retirement funds

On a lighter note, Paul wants you to have the right to die from drinking milk – despite the recognition of many potentially deadly raw milk pathogens, such as E. coli O157:H7, Listeria, and Salmonella, and their presence in milk products has led to pasteurization. The Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and other health agencies of the United States strongly recommend that the public do not consume raw milk or raw milk products. Young children, the elderly, people with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women are particularly susceptible to infections originating in raw milk. No one dies of food poisoning - do you want to try?


[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

fresh raw milk obtained in clean conditions is safe. in other words if you want to be able to drink milk 2 weeks after you buy it then raw milk is not for you.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Who scrubbed the teet it came from?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2091) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

American Right-Wingers Are No Longer Conservative — They're Extremists

Their reactionary bent is manifesting itself in legislatures across the country.

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/american-right-wingers-are-no-longer-conservative-theyre-extremists?paging=off

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/12/how_republicans_think/

"Conservatives": ALWAYS on the Wrong Side of History

http://republicandirtytricks.com/conservatives-always-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/

[-] -1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

I think you paint with too wide a brush. I’m liberal, but I don’t see most conservatives as right wing nuts. There are wild eyed crazies on both sides of the fence. Therein lies the problem.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2091) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

There in your ass!

False equivalencies and exceptions don't mean a thing more than BS.

[-] -2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Say what you will. My statement is more true than yours. The extremists are taking over both sides. No room for people to compromise or discussion anymore. That is a bad thing.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2091) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Do tell when you can conduct an honest conversation.

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

Texas going blue a positive? Indiana simply issues a license to carry. Doesn't specify method, tho I don't know why anyone would want to open carry.

And you are right....the efforts to keep Rep advantage is NOT RACIST. That is getting sooooo tiresome

[-] -1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Yea, I’m actually a liberal libertarian. I believe the government should manage and control some things. Otherwise it’d be chaos. I still believe America is still the best place in the world to live. In spite of all our problems we still live better than almost any place on earth. But still, we need to fix a few things.

I just noticed your screen name. I also believe Zim is innocent. Never should have been charged. If he’s not acquitted I will have lost faith in the court system. Also, if he’s acquitted I predict riots is some large cities.

[-] 8 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Sure, a 140 pound black kid with a pack of skittles in his pocket attacks a 240 pound white guy ten years older then him, armed with a pistol, in a gated community, where he couldn't conceivably get away with it, for no reason at all!

Bullshit.

If Zimmerman is acquited this is one white guy who would join the riot - except I know that provoking riots is what this stuff is all about. That IS the point of it. If they (the 1% of course) can get riots going then they can rekindle all the old hatreds and divisons. That's what they love, hatred and division. It works great for them. Divide and conquer!

They're afraid blacks and liberal whites will form an unstoppable coalition, and it scares the hell out of them.

So what do we do? Form an unstoppable coalition. Get active politically and stay active until we drive the rats out of the hen house. That is the only thing any of us can do.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Well said.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

:) Keep on keeping on DKA.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago
[-] 0 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

The facts are clearly different depending on which media you listen to. Somehow the debate & thrashing out of details I MSM does not happen post 9-11. There was a time when I though MSM was pulled in the left. Now it seems the media is pulled to the right. For instance all of this support for the Iraqi War, the War on Terror, Support for DHS, support for Torture & Kidnaping & Secret US Prisons,....

The Treyvon Martin & George Zimmerman case ... is a huge loss for 2nd Amendment RIghts, & Conceal & Carry advocates. The fact that Martin is a very young man that is now dead from gun shot can't be ignored. If you bring a gun to a confrontation and someone dies... you can't make excuses or pretend it didn't happen. There are other facts that lessen the impact. Black on Black violence is terrible. Normally gangs kill more blacks, young men, and usually each other.

The fact is less people die when we avoid confrontations. But people that bring guns to confrontations change the dynamics and increase the risk of gun shot wounds and death.

George Zimmerman seems to be someone who was afraid of confrontation, confrontation with rough kids, confrontation with people from outside of the gated residence, or whatever. Maybe tall, young kids, scare him. Maybe burglars scare him.

Why was Zimmerman afraid? I would posit that living in a gated community can lead to a kind of segregation. A weird us and them paradigm. You can find you feel safe only in the gated community. This should be a social issue. This should be explored in our country.

I have tried to avoid Foxnews and don't really have cable or satellite. I have heard a lot of bad stuff about George Zimmerman. But... I see the smokeing gun post on documents. I see some Hospital documents reported. I see the Foxnews story on this.

There are 2 different side to George Zimmerman's Character. And the injuries seem to speak to Martin attacking Zimmerman. Martin had split knuckles and no facial injuries. Zimmerman is said to have no knuckle injuries and seems to have been on his back in the grass. Martin seems to have had opportunity to leave the neighborhood.... and why was Martin in the Neighborhood?

The problem is ALEC Making Laws.

The Problem is a Gun was brought on patrol in a neighborhood.

The Problem is a Gun went off, probably was deliberately aimed to shoot Martin, and Martin, a young man, is dead never to mature or realize his potential.

I support the 2nd Amendment, but looks dumb in this case where Zimmerman could have stayed in the car and driven around.

Aparently there was a cut through from street to street, some kind of walk way, where Zimmerman lost sight of Martin... I'm not sure why a person would chase someone down a walk way. Perhaps Zimmerman would not have followed if he didn't have a gun. This seems to indicate that a person without backup should never follow someone down a walk way.

Knowing I drive people crazy with my open mindedness... I have to further say something about Zimmerman's cultural reference. As I understand he came from Peru, he may have expected to halt any action with the presence of the gun. I take it he was from upper middle class in Peru. I know that guns & Security guards are used in Peru. Perhaps the expectation is that Guns stop crime and all actions.

I'm guessing as Zimmerman was on his back, getting his head pummeled ... he felt he lost control and his only thought was to shoot or kill. It is easier to think kill that to think wound. Maybe the gun came out and with tight hands on the trigger Martin hit the gun to swat it away. I'm betting Zimmerman would have had little thought with his head already battered. Zimmerman wasn't thinking clearly. The evidence would seem to support Zimmerman having a decreased capacity for thought with his head battered.

I don't want you to join a Riot. But others are better at reading these things than I am. Was Zimmerman Mentoring Black youths? Was he helping his community by participating in Neighborhood watch. Did Martin go out of his way to enter the Gated Community with intensions to take property. What does a map of Zimmerman's running, stopping, and agreeing to meet police at mailboxes near the entrance show us.

Because the Police Dispatch Tape shows Zimmerman to be a nice middle class guy. He seems to have lost Martin. Martin seems to have the opportunity to leave the area.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAfrCkJIqx0

[-] -2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Martin was 17, Zim was 28. The Martin autopsy reports said Martin was 5’11” and weighed 158 pounds. The night Zimmerman was arrested the record said he was 5’7”, 185 pounds. Sounds like they were pretty well matched. The point is Martin wasn’t a little kid. In a fight they would have been pretty well matched.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Naw, that evidence has been tampered with. Martin's weight has gone up steadily since his murder (in the press) while Zimmerman's has been going down. I could Prove that with links, but I'm not going to bother. Nobody without an agenda could interpret the facts of that evening in any other light than that of racially motivated, cold blooded murder.

I love the way you put that, "The night Zimmerman was arrested the record said . . ." Well sorry, but I saw those photo's and Zimmerman wasn't a pound under 240. Do they think we're blind?

Zimmerman stalked him, and then shot him because he had been waiting for an opportunity to do just that - Martin just drew one shitty lotto number, and Zimmerman should never see the light of day. It has all the appearance of an open and shut case, and it would be . . . except . . .

You can fill in the blanks

[-] -1 points by Nader (74) 1 year ago

Their respective weights have nothing to do with anything. And their weights surely have no correlation to who is in better physical shape.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Okay, that Zimmerman was a fat slob is obvious - I'll give you that - but he was a fat slob with a gun in a gated community with police back-up minutes away (whenever he Wanted it).

[-] -3 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

There’s a saying that goes “when seconds count the cops are just minutes away”. This was a prime example.

Also, calling it stalking is intentionally trying to be inflammatory. This doesn’t fit the legal definition of stalking. However, it would be correct to say Zimmerman followed Martin for a bit. Then Zim lost sight of Martin and was heading back to his car when he was attacked.

If Zimmerman is convicted it will be a travesty of justice. He should have never been arrested.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Is that true. Martin Attacked Zim?

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

The physical evidence supports that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Even one eyewitness said he saw Martin on top of Zim, and Zim was calling for help.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Yeah, you know the dispatch tape sounds like it supports Zimmerman and Zimmerman was going to meet with the police. It doesn't sound like he was chasing Martin. It sounds like he lost Martin and was going back to meet the Police by the Mailboxes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAfrCkJIqx0

The evidence that Martin's Knuckles were split and that Zimmerman's were not would also support an attack by Martin. Also the grass on Zimmerman's back, and wounds to the back of his head maybe.

True Zimmerman should have stayed with the Car especially with a gun. Since guns tend to lead to shooting. But Zimmerman had 2 reasons to be there... he was a resident & he was the Head of Neiborhood watch.

Martin seems to have had the chance to escape, but he didn't. Young me often feel like they are strong and powerful enough to take on other people.

The media and perhaps Obama have done a poor job here. They seem to have painted Zimmerman as a chaser. I would like to see it mapped out where Martin Died and the Route Zimmerman ran to see the fit.

The gun seems bad in this case. A young man is dead. But the story on Foxnews seems to show a nice, community person in Zimmerman. Wounds seem consistent with Zimmerman being attacked.

Who can Zimmerman Sue for the damages to his life, reputation, loss of career, loss of savings, ... loss of wife? I think he lost his wife too didn't he. He should sue CNN.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Alright, I'll bite, one more time.

Can you imagine for one moment if this scenario were reversed?

A white guy is walking through a inner-city back neighborhood. Some black guy starts following him in a car, then gets out with a gun and follows him through the streets. The white guy somehow manages to hide, but gets a chance to (somehow) attack him from behind, but the black guy manages to fight him off and shoots him.

(I'm not saying I buy that scenario in the Zimmerman / Martin case, but even if I did - )

Who would be seen as being the victim here, and who the aggressor?

Get outta here! That black guy'd be in the chair before you could say "dead man walking."

I sometimes wonder at the things people can make themselves believe. That's the really scary thing to me - that some people, maybe a lot actually - have convinced themselves that "Zim" is the victim here.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

The higher issue here is justice, and preserving a justice system that works, impartially, for everybody. In that lies our only saftey in the end - the saftey of all of us. We should be fighting for that, for a real system of justice that works for everybody, not just the white, not just the rich - everybody.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Yes, black men don't have a chance in many ways in the USA. I don't know how many innocent black men have been locked up. Prosecutors & police want to boost careers.

Concealed guns don't deter people. So, have to assume the gun was not brandished.

You r saying that Martin hid then Zimmerman found him and threatened him. But would I fight a man with a gun? Not if I saw it.

But I could still be missing the picture.

Would a white man fight a black man with a gun? I don't think so.

But Martin had split knuckles and no facial injuries, Zimmerman had no split knuckles.

I guess the argument comes to would a man fight a man if he thinks he is going to be shot? Yes, we learn that from Hollywood. But Zimmerman had a lot of facial and head damage.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Why are you playing the race card. There’s no evidence race had anything to do with it. Yes, I understand race has been made an issue here, but how is it valid?

As I understand it the reason Zimmerman was out that night was because there had been some burglaries in the neighborhood and he saw someone (Martin), whom he didn’t know. So Zim called the police and followed Martin so he could tell the police where he was. To insert racism into it just muddles the facts.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

"Playing the race card . . . " is that some kind of code speech from planet Limbaugh?

"As I understand it . . ." Humm . . . what does that mean, and how did you come to understand it?

Is it standard procedure on your planet that when you see somebody you don't know, you call the police?

I'm just wondering, 'cause there's 7 billion people on this planet, and so on planet earth if you call the police when you see someone you don't know, you're likely to get a reputation.

Is seeing someone who you don't know on your planet automatically suspicious enough that you call the police, or only if you suspect they are some kind of an alien life form?

I'm sorry, I'm just trying to comprehend thought patterns on planet Limbaugh.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Don't forget - the police TOLD Zimmerman not to follow Martin
I think the key is NOT having an all white jury

A law that allows you to kill a jogger who accidentlly runs into you because you think he is mugging you is crazy - a law probably written by alec

[-] 0 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

But what if the jogger attacks you and is on top of you, slamming your head into the ground? Beating someone is bumping into someone.

[-] 0 points by Nader (74) 1 year ago

The prosecution will seek to load the jury with blacks, the defense will try to load it with whites. It will ultimately end up reflecting the local demographics in all likelihood.

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I hope so unless Z decides to have a judge trial

[-] -1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

No, the police didn’t tell Zimmerman to stop following Martin. The exact statements were:

Zimmerman: (talking to the police dispatcher) Do you want me to follow him? Dispatcher: No, we don’t need you to do that.

It’s on tape. Those are the exact words.

[-] 0 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

Do you want me to follow him?

No

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

you are correct - will the jury see the difference?
don't think so
then again - there was OJ

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Show me pictures of the severe beating he took.

You can't - because he didn't take a severe beating.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Exactly. He acted like a douche. He's going to get away with it.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

F'n asshole

[-] -2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

I don’t think it was a severe beating. But there were cuts on the back of Zimmerman’s head that support his contention Martin was on top of him slamming his head on the ground. The reality is Zim was in a dangerous situation. He had no idea how bad Martin intended to hurt him. He did what any reasonable person would have done and protected himself.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

He forced a confrontation that no reasonable person would have - after having called the police to come and check out this individual - knowing that the police were on the way. GZ did not act in a reasonable manner.