# Blacks and Obama



## dancingalone (Jun 6, 2010)

They like him to the tune of 93% approval among those surveyed.  Non-Hispanic whites are at 39% however.

So much for a post-racial America.  

http://www.gallup.com/poll/139337/Obama-Weekly-Approval-Average-Dips-New-Low.aspx


----------



## girlbug2 (Jun 6, 2010)

Post-racial? I'd like to know who coined that. It's never been true before and it isn't true now. We humans just aren't wired for colorblindness.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 6, 2010)

If I recall correctly, back in the Bush/Gore election, Gore got  something like 90% of the African American vote.  

I'd say that the survey doesn't carry much water unless you know what overall percentage of african americans are liberals.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 6, 2010)

MBuzzy said:


> If I recall correctly, back in the Bush/Gore election, Gore got  something like 90% of the African American vote.
> 
> I'd say that the survey doesn't carry much water unless you know what overall percentage of african americans are liberals.



I'd say there's quite a bit more linkage to blacks for Obama than just the Democratic affiliation.  Obama got record turnouts from black voters, even more so than Clinton, the nicknamed 'First Black President'.

It might be politically incorrect to say many (most?) blacks vote for Obama because he is black, but I think there's a lot of truth in that statement.  Hope I won't get branded with the racist iron, now.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 6, 2010)

Even without knowing sample size or population or the background of this study......the bottom line to me, is that he's the first black president.  He has a lot to live up to, he has a lot of pressure, and there are probably plenty of people out there who are behind him simply because he is black and just as many against him simply because he is black.  SAD.....VERY SAD, but true and it will be a great many years before the general public can get past that.

But then on that note, I would argue that a great many people feel the same way based on nothing more than political affiliation.  Saw another "kill all the liberals" sticker today.  Very professional.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 6, 2010)

A number of blacks I've talked to (not in depth) about Obama say they DON'T like him ... they must be among the 7%. They're disappointed with him as a President... not as a BLACK President, just overall. I'm with them. 

I think the hardwire can be re-routed to make us colorblind... we just got to choose to do so. It's that simple.


----------



## geezer (Jun 6, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> I think the hardwire can be re-routed to make us colorblind... we just got to choose to do so. It's that simple.



Yes we can be colorblind, Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can get over the instinct to be _tribal!_ In other words, we can learn to accept Blacks, Browns, and Whites into our tribes, but we still cluster into exclusive groups and degrade and even demonize the other groups. _Damned Liberals, Rednecks, Fatcats, Republicans, Elites..._ well you get the idea.


----------



## tellner (Jun 6, 2010)

Turn it around. See if it fits better. Did people vote for Bush or McCain just because they're White? Do they represent only White interests? Why is it that White voters vote for their own kind? Are there too many Whites who get into office just because of their race?

Sound pretty vile, doesn't it?


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 6, 2010)

tellner said:


> Turn it around. See if it fits better. Did people vote for Bush or McCain just because they're White? Do they represent only White interests? Why is it that White voters vote for their own kind? Are there too many Whites who get into office just because of their race?
> 
> Sound pretty vile, doesn't it?


No, whites dominated the political scene because for decades they had the lion's share of the nation's money. Only recently in the past two or three decades are we seeing non-whites achieving the type of incomes that were generally reserved for whites.... not only in entertainment and sports but in businesses and other ventures. 
Yet Obama could have NEVER gotten into office had it been just blacks only voting for him... a very close race to be sure but whites were probably just sick and tired of the SOS and decided to give the smooth talking darker version of the politician a shot... he kept promising CHANGE and so he got the votes. Other races gave the man a shot as well. 

Now... well as far as I see it... he's no different than any other politician... and why not... been involved with politics for a long time. So... basically what we need are MORE PARTIES not more candidates of the same two dominate parties. 
Only way we're going to do that is put a cap on the amount of campaign spending or have the government equalize the amount across the board so the "little guy" has as much exposure to the polls as the big boys.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 7, 2010)

tellner said:


> Turn it around. See if it fits better. Did people vote for Bush or McCain just because they're White? Do they represent only White interests? Why is it that White voters vote for their own kind? Are there too many Whites who get into office just because of their race?
> 
> Sound pretty vile, doesn't it?



You could turn it around this way, but it'd primarily be for shock-value, which I am beginning to think is true of many of your posts.  Unless your world view is just so completely different from mine.     As Ma-Carver says, the coalition which swept Obama into office surely included plenty of whites.  Not sure the same could be said for blacks who voted for McCain.


----------



## knuckleheader (Jun 7, 2010)

MBuzzy said:


> Even without knowing sample size or population or the background of this study......the bottom line to me, is that he's the first black president. He has a lot to live up to, he has a lot of pressure, and there are probably plenty of people out there who are behind him simply because he is black and just as many against him simply because he is black. SAD.....VERY SAD, but true and it will be a great many years before the general public can get past that.
> 
> But then on that note, I would argue that a great many people feel the same way based on nothing more than political affiliation. Saw another "kill all the liberals" sticker today. Very professional.


 
Unfortunately Obama is a Socialist/Democrat. He's never going to do anything that will improve the unemployment numbers for everbody. This administration hasn't done anything to promote a viable economy. The democrat/socialist congress will not limit federal spending or lower taxes. He'll continue to punish those who've been able to accumulate wealth. If anything, wealthy Black athletes, celebrities and individuals _should_ balk at their ridiculously high tax rates. Pretty soon, they'll be no tax base to pay for all the entitlemment programs.

Remember the national debt is almost equal the GDP. A socialist solution doesn't exist to reverse this!

If Obama's political philosophy were a Conservative/Capitolist, we'd have a chance. And I would have voted for him..

This poll may be accurate. But history I feel will record this First Black Presidents legacy one of mediocrity.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 7, 2010)

Isn't it a case though that people are always going to be disappointed whoever is elected to President. Party politics aside people have such hopes of a new administration, so much so that with the best will in the world the new people can't live up to what the people want. There's too much 'history' if you like, too many problems left over from the previous administratons that have to be sorted. The current laws often inhibit changes, so the laws have to be changed which takes time and people get fed up. It's as if when a new President/government etc is voted in many people think it starts from scratch like starting from 'go' in a game but in reality the new administration/government is actually starting half way through the game and has to cope with everything that went before.

Here people are complaining that the new government is bringing in austerity measures to cut the deficit and beat the recession. We got rid of the old government because we didn't like the way things were but did people voting for a change think the problems would just go away?
 It's as if they expected the new government to start with a new pot of money just as if they were playing Monopoly.

Most people want an easy life or at least an uncomplicated one with enough of everything to make life comfortable for them and their families, nothing wrong with that dream but neither Obama or any head of any government can promise and deliver all that. All we can hope is that they do the best job they can under the circumstances. To a geat extent government's hands are tied by what went before.

Another question for you brought up by something I heard today, only they said Prime Minister. Do you want a popular President or an effective one? Are effectiveness and popularity mutually exclusive?


----------



## chaos1551 (Jun 7, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Another question for you brought up by something I heard today, only they said Prime Minister. Do you want a popular President or an effective one? Are effectiveness and popularity mutually exclusive?



In an age of austerity, effectiveness and popularity are mutually exclusive (in the short term).


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 7, 2010)

I ask only one question.  Why is it important why someone else voted the way they voted?


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 7, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I ask only one question.  Why is it important why someone else voted the way they voted?



What use are the polls?  As a predictor for the next set of elections, of course.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 7, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I ask only one question.  Why is it important why someone else voted the way they voted?



Seems pretty obvious to me....because it upsets people when others don't agree with them.  In fact, for many people, they are not capable of conceiving how someone may not share their opinions.  GASP!

That seems to be the definition of politics anymore.  One side getting violently angry that everyone else can't just see it their way.  

In this case, people are looking for an excuse as to why people don't agree with them.  To so many, Obama is obviously evil and wrong....so there must be some OTHER reason (such as race) why someone could like or agree with him.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 7, 2010)

knuckleheader said:


> Unfortunately Obama is a Socialist/Democrat. He's never going to do anything that will improve the unemployment numbers for everbody. This administration hasn't done anything to promote a viable economy. The democrat/socialist congress will not limit federal spending or lower taxes. He'll continue to punish those who've been able to accumulate wealth. If anything, wealthy Black athletes, celebrities and individuals _should_ balk at their ridiculously high tax rates. Pretty soon, they'll be no tax base to pay for all the entitlemment programs.
> 
> Remember the national debt is almost equal the GDP. A socialist solution doesn't exist to reverse this!
> 
> ...



Actually, that seems to demonstrate my point exactly.  In your OPINION, no "democrat" could ever do anything right or beneficial.  Obama is one, therefore, he is by definition wrong.

By the way....two things, and unfortunately, it is almost impossible to say this without throwing the thread off track, but let's please attempt to keep on track.  Democrat IS NOT equal to Socialist and Socialist IS NOT equal to evil.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 7, 2010)

Socialist sure seems equal to economic ruin in light of our national debt and the teetering Euro...IMO.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 7, 2010)

MBuzzy said:


> In this case, people are looking for an excuse as to why people don't agree with them.  To so many, Obama is obviously evil and wrong....so there must be some OTHER reason (such as race) why someone could like or agree with him.



It can work both ways.  As you said earlier,  "..there are probably plenty of people out there who are behind him simply because he is black and just as many against him simply because he is black"

The people who would blindly follow Obama because of his skin color are just as ignorant as those who abhor because of it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 7, 2010)

I don't know if this is so, which is why I'm asking! Do people feel honour bound do you think to vote for someone from the same background as them, as in a sort of loyalty? Especially perhaps if like black people it's been hard getting to where they are. Would they feel too that someone regardless of their politics would understand them better if they came from the same type of background and therefore even if they were a different party actually be better for them?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 7, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> The people who would blindly follow Obama because of his skin color are just as ignorant as those who abhor because of it.



Of course they aren't.  Simply electing a black man is a major milestone in a country founded on white supremacy.  It is an important and necessary step on it's own.

You are also equating unqualified allegiance, which is not actively harmful in itself, with racism, which is always harmful.  A false equivalence, again.

Of course, blacks do not unthinkingly vote for other blacks.  Saying so is, again, racism, even if it doesn't wear a white hood.  Black people can think for themselves just as well as any other group of people.  That is why Artur Davis just lost the black vote to a white candidate in Alabama.  That is also why Alan Keyes can't get elected dogcatcher, much less Senator from Illinois.

Don't infantilize blacks.  Of course, that's what this entire thread is about.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 7, 2010)

Didn't someone imply that whites only vote for candidates because they are white??

Goose? Gander?


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 7, 2010)

And when did "voting a black man into the Presidency" become somehow better than voting the most qualified candidate into office? Regardless of race??


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 7, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Of course they aren't.  Simply electing a black man is a major milestone in a country founded on white supremacy.  It is an important and necessary step on it's own.
> 
> You are also equating unqualified allegiance, which is not actively harmful in itself, with racism, which is always harmful.  A false equivalence, again.



If memory serves correctly, you have a rather more creative definition of racism than I do.  Something along the lines of you cannot be racist against whites?  If so, forgive me but I don't really value your interpretation of what you THINK I am equating in this area.  You're a smart guy but you're also way in La-La Land with regard to your opinions about race relations in the US.

Please excuse me if I am confusing you with someone else.



> Of course, blacks do not unthinkingly vote for other blacks.  Saying so is, again, racism, even if it doesn't wear a white hood.  Black people can think for themselves just as well as any other group of people.  That is why Artur Davis just lost the black vote to a white candidate in Alabama.  That is also why Alan Keyes can't get elected dogcatcher, much less Senator from Illinois.



Yep, I thought I would be hit with the racist label sooner or later.  You can't talk frankly about minority groups without the race card being invoked, even if ironically you're a minority yourself.  



> Don't infantilize blacks.  Of course, that's what this entire thread is about.



That's YOUR perception of what the thread is about, which is unfortunate.  I think it's valuable to consider the composition of the president's power base.  It gives insights into his policies, even if only for a quid pro quo analysis.


----------



## David43515 (Jun 7, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Of course they aren't. Simply electing a black man is a major milestone in a country founded on white supremacy. It is an important and necessary step on it's own.
> 
> You are also equating unqualified allegiance, which is not actively harmful in itself, with racism, which is always harmful. A false equivalence, again.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mark Jordan (Jun 8, 2010)

There are other Obama approval rating by race 7/10: 
White 52%
Black 96%
Hispanic 81%

Not sure why Asians weren't included.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 8, 2010)

MBuzzy said:


> Seems pretty obvious to me....because it upsets people when others don't agree with them.  In fact, for many people, they are not capable of conceiving how someone may not share their opinions.  GASP!
> 
> That seems to be the definition of politics anymore.  One side getting violently angry that everyone else can't just see it their way.
> 
> In this case, people are looking for an excuse as to why people don't agree with them.  To so many, Obama is obviously evil and wrong....so there must be some OTHER reason (such as race) why someone could like or agree with him.



I don't like President Obama, and I like him less and less with each passing day.  I don't need a reason other than I disagree with his policies, his approach, and his ideals.  I'm sure his supporters have their reasons why they like him; probably because they agree with his policies, his approach, and his ideals.

It's like driving on the highway.  If someone is slowing you down, they're a moron.  If they pass you, they're a lunatic.  Only people driving the same speed as you are decent people.  Of course, no one stops to think that when someone passes you, you're the moron to them, or that when you pass someone else, you're the lunatic to them.

Only our own reasons are valid.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 8, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> What use are the polls?  As a predictor for the next set of elections, of course.



Polls tell us who someone is likely to vote for or against.  They generally do not assign personal motives such as _'because he is black like me'_ or _'because is black, unlike me'_.

I presume such characterizations serve a purpose, but as far as I can tell, that purpose would be an ugly one.

I have voiced my disapproval of President Obama.  I have been told that since I am white and he is black, I am clearly a racist.  I know that is not correct.  Therefore, I would be similarly suspicious of any attempt to cast black people who voted for or continue to support President Obama as racist also.  If I'm not a racist for disliking him, how can I support accusations that they are for liking him?


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Polls tell us who someone is likely to vote for or against.  They generally do not assign personal motives such as _'because he is black like me'_ or _'because is black, unlike me'_.



They can if the questionnaire is sufficiently detailed.  One of the ongoing difficulties in polling science is to gather detailed information that will be useful to both project future results and UNDERSTAND any commonalities that lead the subject to the decision or viewpoint they possess.  Race is a fairly common metric in political polls.



> I presume such characterizations serve a purpose, but as far as I can tell, that purpose would be an ugly one.



Negative.  The US Census asks you for your racial information as a fragment to try to group your demographics and apply them to a greater set.  Is their purpose an ugly one?  I don't think so.



> I have voiced my disapproval of President Obama.  I have been told that since I am white and he is black, I am clearly a racist.  I know that is not correct.  Therefore, I would be similarly suspicious of any attempt to cast black people who voted for or continue to support President Obama as racist also.  If I'm not a racist for disliking him, how can I support accusations that they are for liking him?



I said ignorant, not racist.  That's EmptyHands' spin on the subject.  Those who vote for someone because they share the same skin color are just as ignorant as those who would vote against them on the same criterion.  I would like to understand why blacks polled seem to greatly favor Obama vs. non-blacks.  Anyone care to haphazard another theory as to why beyond his skin color?  I promise I won't call you a racist.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 8, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> They can if the questionnaire is sufficiently detailed.  One of the ongoing difficulties in polling science is to gather detailed information that will be useful to both project future results and UNDERSTAND any commonalities that lead the subject to the decision or viewpoint they possess.  Race is a fairly common metric in political polls.



Race is a common metric.  _"Will you vote for X because X is the same race as you are?"_ is not, to the best of my knowledge.  These are very different things.



> Negative.  The US Census asks you for your racial information as a fragment to try to group your demographics and apply them to a greater set.  Is their purpose an ugly one?  I don't think so.



Again, asking a question about one's race is not the same as asking if race is a person's motivation for a particular behavior.  The Census did *not* ask me if I preferred white politicians to black ones, nor has any poll I've ever taken part in.



> I would like to understand why blacks polled seem to greatly favor Obama vs. non-blacks.



I don't know why a person would need to know that information, other than to point an accusing finger.



> Anyone care to haphazard another theory as to why beyond his skin color?  I promise I won't call you a racist.



I grew up with this kind of thing.  My own father, for example.  Yes, I am aware (because he told me with great frequency) that there are _'historically black colleges'_ and no _'historically white colleges'_.  I get it.  Yet I do not feel victimized or that _'historically black colleges'_ are racist institutions.  Yes, I know there is an _"NAACP"_ and not a _"NAAWP."_  For those who feel an intense need to dwell on such things and assign reasons for them, I can only offer my sympathy.  In my world, I am not at all concerned with why blacks like Obama more than whites.  I don't know the reason, and I don't care.  I am not obsessed with race.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In my world, I am not at all concerned with why blacks like Obama more than whites.  I don't know the reason, and I don't care.  I am not obsessed with race.



That is entirely your prerogative.  You seem to be grouping those who are curious about the linkage as race obsessed and possibly even racist.  That would be a mistake.



> Race is a common metric.  _"Will you vote for X because X is the same race as you are?"_ is not, to the best of my knowledge.  These are very different things.



Indeed they are.  That said, researchers if they do not ask the question outright certainly will try to answer the question through their work, even if it is only to disprove it or rule it out before moving onto another theory.  Is their work racist?  Because there would be many racists indeed in the polling science field, both theoretical and applied.



> I don't know why a person would need to know that information, other than to point an accusing finger.



To understand Obama's governance.  I would certainly be interested if his policies affect one group of people more so than others.  And that's true if it is unions or banks or <gasp> minorities.  I abhor the current state of affairs where it has become impossible to discuss race without drawing condemnation from the political correct,


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 8, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> That is entirely your prerogative.  You seem to be grouping those who are curious about the linkage as race obsessed and possibly even racist.  That would be a mistake.



It's a fine line.

I grew up with people who felt that _'reverse discrimination'_ had hurt them, and went on at great length about how various policies intended to address racial discrimination had done the opposite.  I understood - and even agreed with - the concept that many such policies had indeed done more harm than good, but I could not get on-board with the continual _"I'm a victim"_ beliefs of some.

I used to hear things like_ "I didn't get promoted because I'm not a woman or a minority." _ Maybe so.  Maybe not.  But I believe that going through life thinking that things are being done to a person on the basis of their race is self-defeating, negative, leads to being a lifelong loser, and may well end up in bitter racism.  I would say the same thing about a person who claims that every negative event that happens in their life is because they **are** a minority.  In other words, attributing race as the reason may have some basis in fact at some time or another, and that's a shame and wrong.  But dwelling on it, seeking it out, and ascribing it as the reason for every social ill, every negative event, damned near everything but the weather, eventually eats away the person who is obsessed in such a way and leaves nothing in their place but a bitter, evil, old racist.

I am not calling you a racist.  _"Obama gets the black vote because he is black"_ might well have truth to it.  I feel that dwelling on such things cannot lead one to a healthy place, anymore than someone insisting that white politicians get the white vote because they are white.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but so what?


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not to put too fine a point on it, but so what?



For an infinite amount of reasons.  So our history books will be accurate in explaining the Obama wave 100 years for now.  So that the political parties know how to spend their campaign dollars in the next year to gain more utility from them.  So that the media understands there is in fact no such thing as post-racial yet.

Infinite reasons.  Some more tangible than others, surely some more practical than what I came up with off the top of my head.

Just because you can't fathom a useful reason, Bill, doesn't mean they don't exist.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 8, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Something along the lines of you cannot be racist against whites?



Nope.



dancingalone said:


> Yep, I thought I would be hit with the racist label sooner or later.  You can't talk frankly about minority groups without the race card being invoked, even if ironically you're a minority yourself.



You equated blacks voting for another black man, an important and understandable milestone in our country, with voting against a black man simply because he is black.  *These things are not equivalent.*  Saying they are is bad faith at best, racist at worst.  Like I said, it doesn't mean the person saying it wants to exterminate blacks or wear white sheets.  It is a very troubling thing to equalize however.  Similar to the "the only *real *racists are the people who claim others are racist!" nonsense we see time and again.

I *am *talking frankly here, I'm not interested in playing around the edges.  I call them as I see them.  Frank talk does not equal immunity from criticism.



dancingalone said:


> That's YOUR perception of what the thread is about, which is unfortunate.  I think it's valuable to consider the composition of the president's power base.  It gives insights into his policies, even if only for a quid pro quo analysis.



Oh please.  We've seen this very point trotted out *again and again and again*.  The implication is clear - blacks unthinkingly support another black man, which in your very own equation, is just as bad as whites voting *against *a black man because he is black.  You can't pretend you didn't say what you did.

It isn't even true, as I've shown.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 8, 2010)

David43515 said:


> If we all assume that race or gender doesn`t effect one`s ability to make choices, why is it "an important and necessary step on it`s own"?



Because, as I've said, this country was founded on white supremacy.  While much of that is now gone, some institutional racism as well as echoing effects of the previous centuries remain with us.  Blacks and other previously dominated minorities taking an equal share in leadership and power in this country is a necessary step to attain a fully equitable society.

You can divorce history from appearance and pretend this is a colorblind society.  That would be wrong, however.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 8, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> You equated blacks voting for another black man, an important and understandable milestone in our country, with voting against a black man simply because he is black.  *These things are not equivalent.*
> 
> Saying they are is bad faith at best, racist at worst.  Like I said, it  doesn't mean the person saying it wants to exterminate blacks or wear  white sheets.  It is a very troubling thing to equalize however.   Similar to the "the only *real *racists are the people who claim  others are racist!" nonsense we see time and again.



You're bringing a lot of personal baggage into this.  There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the notion that blacks voting for Obama based on his race is as ignorant as those who are against him because of his skin color.  

You want to play the race card because it's a conversation killer.  




> I *am *talking frankly here, I'm not interested in playing around the edges.  I call them as I see them.  Frank talk does not equal immunity from criticism.



I think you are entirely too free with the racist outcry, particularly on an internet message board where you can't know the people personally.  You should save it for a time when it really applies.



> Oh please.  We've seen this very point trotted out *again and again and again*.  The implication is clear - blacks unthinkingly support another black man, which in your very own equation, is just as bad as whites voting *against *a black man because he is black.  You can't pretend you didn't say what you did.



I gave the poll results and noted the divergence.  It's true that I believe to an extent that the disparity is explained by some blacks supporting Obama because he is black himself.  Unthinkingly?  I never said that.  In fact, I've heard the opinion in person myself more than once that blacks should support Obama because of their mutual 'ties'.  It's anything but unthinking.

And that line of reasoning IS ignorant.




> It isn't even true, as I've shown.



We were talking about Obama, not Alan Keyes.  I think the black community can have different supporting outcomes based on the person and prominence of the office.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jun 8, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Of course they aren't. Simply electing a black man is a major milestone in a country founded on white supremacy. It is an important and necessary step on it's own.


 
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:


----------



## knuckleheader (Jun 8, 2010)

MBuzzy said:


> Actually, that seems to demonstrate my point exactly. In your OPINION, no "democrat" could ever do anything right or beneficial. Obama is one, therefore, he is by definition wrong.
> 
> _Today, the democrat party has the wrong policies for the economy(taxation), immigration, so called "climate change", the war against radical Islamist etc._
> 
> By the way....two things, and unfortunately, it is almost impossible to say this without throwing the thread off track, but let's please attempt to keep on track. Democrat IS NOT equal to Socialist and Socialist IS NOT equal to evil.


 
We'll agree to dissagree. Here is Maxine Waters, the non socialist/democrat Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0BdKkEKTrs&feature=related


----------

