Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You didn't prove yourself right in the first place, so no need for me to prove you wrong. I will prove you didn't read carefully, however:
From your link:
According to the US census bureau, the dominance of non-Hispanic white people, who today account for two-thirds of Americans, will be whittled away, falling steadily to less than half in 2042 and 46% by 2050. In the opposite trajectory, those who describe themselves as Hispanic, black, Asian and Native American will increase in proportion from about a third now to 54% by 2050.
Key words up there: "non-Hispanic white".... you DO know that "Hispanic" is not a race, right? That "Hispanics" can be white, black, mixed, asian, etc.?
If 5 subgroups are sharing the 54% expected to be "non-white", however, that STILL leaves European whites as the PLURALITY.... again, complicated when you try to factor Hispanics into their PROPER racial categories (which would bump up the numbers of whites a lot, and blacks a bit).
Like I said, it's amazing how little people actually know of the diversity they pretend to crave and appreciate.
Oh and by the way, My father is a SPANISH JEW and my husband is an immigrant from GERMANY. Guess I do understand more than you think. Geesh. I'm done with you. Next!
Oh and by the way, My father is a SPANISH JEW and my husband is an immigrant from GERMANY. Guess I do understand more than you think. Geesh. I'm done with you. Next!
I'll just accept that as capitulation and acceptance by you that you now understand the difference between "Race" and "Ethnicity," and that just because you come from a Spanish speaking country, you aren't automatically a "minority."
The real poll and the only one that matters comes on election day where 30% of the people that said they would vote for Obama won't because they are scared.
People think Obama is inexperienced? I wish they knew him years ago. He's been a grass-roots, motivating Senate member who's worked with both parties on more occasions than McCain.
That's simply not true. There's no spin on pure numbers - you can look up who's had more co-sponsors with the other party on www.govtack.us: (broken link)
"In fact, by several measures, Mr. McCain has been more likely to team up with Democrats than with members of his own party. Democrats made up 55 percent of his political partners over the last two Congresses, including on the tough issues of campaign finance and global warming. For Mr. Obama, Republicans were only 13 percent of his co-sponsors during his time in the Senate, and he had his biggest bipartisan successes on noncontroversial measures, such as issuing a postage stamp in honor of civil rights icon Rosa Parks." - Washington Times - Records show McCain more bipartisan
Sure, some will try to discredit the Washington Times for not being the Washington Post, but those numbers are verified. There's no way around it - McCain co-sponsors with the other party more than 4 times as often as Obama. Plus, over his Senate career, McCain has voted 85% with Republicans. (90% in the last 8 years while he tries to earn the nomination for 2008.) Obama has voted 97% with Democrats. McCain voted with the other party 15% of the time, and Obama voted with the other party 3% of the time. McCain's voting record is 5 times more likely to be bipartisan. Many will quote Obama's State Senate record of being bipartisan, which he was. However, he's been strongly partisan in the US Senate.
You can credit Obama with quite a few positive qualities, but bipartisanship is definitely not one he favors over McCain by a long shot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by londonbarcelona
And quite frankly, having a husband who works full time, teenage angst problems (a pregnant daughter and a son forced to choose either jail or the military) and a baby with severe disabilities is going to make it next to impossible for her to work effectively.
First, Todd Palin has already confirmed his full-time job will be as dad at-home if Palin is in the White House. That takes much of the responsibility for the kids away from Sarah. Second, way to pull your sources from the National Inquirer on the Track Palin "story." It was a tabloid hoax. Track Palin would have been automatically disqualified if given a "choice" between jail or military - the military does not accept people who are there for punishment:
"Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 4-8b, forbids this [4]
Applicant who, as a condition for any civil conviction or adverse disposition or any other reason through a civil or criminal court, is ordered or subjected to a sentence that implies or imposes enlistment into the Armed Forces of the United States is not eligible for enlistment""
Quote:
Originally Posted by londonbarcelona
Where I see the biggest difference between Obama and McCain is WHO THEY HAVE RUNNING THEIR CAMPAIGNS and rumors of who will take what position if they are voted into office. McCain has WAY too many lobbyists involved. THAT is a huge problem and we all know it. Want to see our country become more socialist? Vote McCain. Want to see America become a two class system? (Think Lords and surfs in England) vote McCain.
Obama's tapped corrupt ex-Fannie Mae CEOs Frank Raines and Jim Johnson, just to name two, as top campaign advisors. Look up Raines history if you don't know him. Grossly exaggerated ($6.3 billion actual to $9 billion inflated) Fannie Mae's profits to meet his own extra bonuses each year, taking over $100 million in 6 years. He got caught and agreed to a settlement and forfeit of stock in Fannie Mae. Don't forget about the corrupt finance chairperson on Obama's campaign: Penny Pritzker. Obama's got a slew of corrupt people around him, so talk about calling the kettle black. 19 lobbyists of 80-something people running McCain's campaign, or a crew of corrupt executives on Obama's who ripped off billions from American taxpayers for their own greed? I don't know how Obama can look a man in the eye who's had his home foreclosed from a sub-prime loan after these personnel decisions. I'm not trying to defend McCain's 19 or so lobbyists that have been called out - they wouldn't be on my campaign, but Obama's is no different (and many would consider FAR worse).
Want our country to become more socialist? Vote in an inexperienced liberal President who rarely ever says "no" to his own party, while ensuring that party controls the House and Senate, and you're *guaranteed* no checks and balances for a socialist America. While he's at it, why not appoint a couple people who stole from the majority of America, like Frank Raines and Penny Pritzker, into major cabinet positions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by londonbarcelona
I personally would like to see a more balanced America. I would rather pay more in taxes (and I am personally already in at least the 40% bracket) to find some peace knowing that others are working hard and not being taken advantage of. That CEO's whose companies fail aren't making millions (most times 20-30 million) BEFORE the little guy gets paid. And as most oftentimes happens - the little guy gets screwed, but the CEO's make millions!
Meet those same people that Obama picked to be on his campaign - the same 3 I mentioned earlier: Raines, Johnson, Pritzker. And they're not holding minor roles. Raines was a top financial advisor. Johnson was the head of the running mate selection committee (and resigned after the "Friends of Angelo" scandal came out). Pritzker, one of the top executives of Superior Bank, made millions ripping off people who couldn't afford the subprime loans she was pushing on the masses (which affected minorities in astounding numbers) - a fantastic person for Obama to pick to make the changes to "help out those in need."
Quote:
Originally Posted by londonbarcelona
America is in crisis mode. Economically, racially, demographically, (rural vs city) classicism - and people in general - are just NOT HAPPY. I'd rather give up some extra cash, see someone else make a decent day's wages, have a home to go to, and know - just know people, are happier and safer and that I had something to do with it because I didn't care only about the almighty dollar.
I agree with you here, but you need to open your eyes and realize BOTH parties are heavily to blame for where we are today.
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,536,572 times
Reputation: 2038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleanmaxx Brian
We don't agree very often Sanrene, but on this one, I am behind you 110%!
I want her on every channel being asked both easy and hard questions from regular voters. The more we here, the less she is actually saying. The more her stupidity shows through. Yesterday she was asked to state her foreign experience so that she could finally put the issue to rest....what did she do? Yup, she did the dance with lines like "I will be ready"!
And while I certainly don't agree with people getting into her e-mail...the fact she use a Yahoo! e-mail account for official business is just plain...stupid!
So yes, the more she gets out there, the better!
She actually may give more late night material than Bush. Today at a rally, she said "if you vote for Palin-McCain!"
I bet McCain wanted to throw up right there inside.
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,536,572 times
Reputation: 2038
[quote=ucfjtm;5326756]
First, Todd Palin has already confirmed his full-time job will be as dad at-home if Palin is in the White House. That takes much of the responsibility for the kids away from Sarah. Second, way to pull your sources from the National Inquirer on the Track Palin "story." It was a tabloid hoax. Track Palin would have been automatically disqualified if given a "choice" between jail or military - the military does not accept people who are there for punishment:
"Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 4-8b, forbids this [4]
Applicant who, as a condition for any civil conviction or adverse disposition or any other reason through a civil or criminal court, is ordered or subjected to a sentence that implies or imposes enlistment into the Armed Forces of the United States is not eligible for enlistment""
Where do you get your information from, Sean Hannity?
Yea, this may have been true when the Iraq war started, but not anymore...
Military Accepting More Ex-Cons
WASHINGTON - More recruits with criminal records, including felony convictions, are being allowed to join the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, as the armed services cope with a ...
So yes, it's pretty believable that Track was given a choice between the military or jail.
I just read your what you posted and technically, that may be true. However, can you be 100% sure that there was not a backdoor deal going on and maybe Tracks punishment was secretly given, proably a real light one, in exchange for going to the military?
Last edited by beenhereandthere; 09-18-2008 at 06:51 PM..
Reason: reducing post
Where do you get your information from, Sean Hannity?
Yea, this may have been true when the Iraq war started, but not anymore...
Military Accepting More Ex-Cons
WASHINGTON - More recruits with criminal records, including felony convictions, are being allowed to join the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, as the armed services cope with a ...
So yes, it's pretty believable that Track was given a choice between the military or jail.
I just read your what you posted and technically, that may be true. However, can you be 100% sure that there was not a backdoor deal going on and maybe Tracks punishment was secretly given, proably a real light one, in exchange for going to the military?
Not at all - I can't stand Sean Hannity. He ranks right there with Keith Olbermann in my book. Two windbags who are so partisan in politics that they never even give someone of an opposing viewpoint a chance to speak.
That Army regulation is still in effect. It debunks exactly the tabloid article that you pass off as truth. It quite clearly rules out anyone from joining who is given the option of joining the military or jail.. read the bold as it applies to the tabloid "story":
It states that..
"Applicant who, as a condition for any civil conviction or adverse disposition or any other reason through a civil or criminal court, is ordered or subjected to a sentence that implies or imposes enlistment into the Armed Forces of the United States is not eligible for enlistment"
The assumption that *any* minor would be forced between jail or serve 4 years in the military for vandalism is ridiculous. The fact that one of the kids who committed the crime knew who Track was doesn't lead to any connection. This is just as crazy of a story as Bristol having Sarah's baby Trig 4 month ago, when she happens to be 5+ months pregnant now.
Your article on ex-cons in the military has nothing to do with a restitution for a crime. It simply means that people who have been arrested and served time before have made the decision later in life to serve in the military. There's no connection here because the Army regulation about forced service with regard to a crime still stands.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
