-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
I think I just lost any ability to vote Democrat.
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Siddhartha
Lifer
Bush stretching the truth, I could use another verb, to sell the invasion of Iraq is reason enough for me to vote Democrat in the next election. Bush has no credibility for me and I do not want someone I can not trust to run the country.
I think they should open medical communes, places where poor people can go to live as monks and nuns with free necessities of life in exchange for schooling in health care and ministering free medical attention to the surrounding community. This would be run as a branch of the military. A lifetime of security for a lifetime of service.
Zebo
Elite Member
Keep voting Republican and it will only get harder for you..
-Your access to capital to start businesses will be reduced
-Your access to loans/grants to get a decent education will be reduced
-Your rights for overtime will disappear
-Your already low wage will get smaller and have no minimum
-Investment regulations will loosen so any money you do make will be swindled for you (S&L's sorry grandma)
-Finally, I Hope you're white, because whites with money only like to only hire whites AA, EEOC bye bye, and sending many jobs overseas will leave them plenty of unemployed whites to choose from.
But hey I used to love two-a-day football practice too, working and going to school at once , I'm tuff, Sorta masachistic even (I still come here don't I) so I guess I should vote R too. Plus I'm white.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
This has been talked about before as a solution to all of the Freeloaders, those that will not work and cause all the problems mentioned in the above posts of having the working people pay for the non-working freeloaders.
This would absolutely work, it is simple if they don't want to be in the paycheck world then they must enter into the Commune system, yes it is a Socialist type system and structure but it would be montired and run by the Democratic Society and system. There is room in a free Society for all the type systems to co-exist and work under one umbrella.
Zebo, do you believe everything you find on biased web-sites? Would you care to document those "concerns" of yours? I know Red gave you lefty sheeple a new site to quote from and you can't get over using the new term "cheap-labor" but try thinking for yourself for a change.
Cheap labor cannot buy many goods. The optium is when all people have an improving life-style which is what makes more sense and is what conservatives desire and work for.
Now if you want to sling the mud we can get into a disscussion of why democrats have such a vested interest in keeping people poor so they have a larger voter base.
Zebo
Elite Member
Who voted against civil rights? Who votes against grants/loans for education? Who voted to deregulate banking which lead to millions loosing thier retirement in S&L's?
Sure this site has all you documentation you'll ever need. With legislation, who supports it, who proposes it and the effects it has. I enourage everyone to read it since it cuts though the rhetoric.
Just recently Bush and republican seeks to eliminate overtime pay for millions, not sure if it's passed but it's the thought that counts.here
I do agree though about dems believe it or not. I've never voted for one but will next time. Balance is key.
I like how you say that it would eliminate overtime for "millions" yet neglect to say that it would " add 1.3 million currently ineligible lower-income workers to the ranks of those who can receive overtime. "
Civil Rights
"...
Congressional Quarterly reported that, in the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as opposed to 80% of Republicans (138 for, 38 against). In the Senate, 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Act while 82% of Republicans did (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrats voted against the Act.
In his remarks upon signing the Civil Rights Act, President Lyndon Johnson praised Republicans for their "overwhelming majority." He did not offer similar praise to his own Democratic Party. Moreover, Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, an Illinois Republican, collaborated with the White House and the Senate leadership of both parties to draft acceptable compromise amendments to end the southern Democrats' filibuster of the Act.
..."
Do you really want to go there?
President Bush Signs GOP-Backed Bill Providing Extra $1 Billion to Address Pell Grant Education Funding Shortfall
"WASHINGTON, D.C. - President George W. Bush today signed an emergency spending bill supported by Republicans in Congress that includes an additional $1 billion in funding for Pell Grants, the federal program that helps make it possible for 4.4 million low-income U.S. students to realize the dream of a higher education. The Pell Grant program currently faces a significant funding shortfall, which Republicans have been calling for congressional action to address"
You were saying?
You really shouldn't get all of your information from one biased site that has such an obvious agenda. It's so easy to make it and you look foolish.
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
Etech, maybe you don't know how disingenuous those Civil Rights Act votes are. The Democrats opposing the Civil Rights Act were often racist and the vast majority where from the South (not counting Klanman Byrd of WV). If you did not register Democrat, you essentially had little voting power throughout much of the South. Hence Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond (may he RIP), Elizabeth Dole, Richard Shelby, Saxby Chambliss were all Dems. Not every member of that cohort is/was a racist but all of them changed their political affiliation during the Civil Rights era . . . correlation yes . . . causation depends.
In states like Mississippi, the GOP was quite dark at the turn of the 20th century. They were systematically denied basic rights and eventually the severely weakened GOP gave up support for voting rights for blacks in order to save the party. Despite throwing blacks from the rolls it was too late and the South became a solid voting block for the Dems until Truman decided to advocate Negro civil rights. At which point the majority of card-carrying racist Democrats moved to the GOP . . . where they still reside . . . effectively giving the Republican Party control of regional and eventually national politics.
The only real truth is that decent Republicans and Democrats fiercely advocated civil rights for all Americans. Unfortunately, many of their fellow partisans fought against it.
In states like Mississippi, the GOP was quite dark at the turn of the 20th century. They were systematically denied basic rights and eventually the severely weakened GOP gave up support for voting rights for blacks in order to save the party. Despite throwing blacks from the rolls it was too late and the South became a solid voting block for the Dems until Truman decided to advocate Negro civil rights. At which point the majority of card-carrying racist Democrats moved to the GOP . . . where they still reside . . . effectively giving the Republican Party control of regional and eventually national politics.
The only real truth is that decent Republicans and Democrats fiercely advocated civil rights for all Americans. Unfortunately, many of their fellow partisans fought against it.
Zebo
Elite Member
Lose 80 million and add 1.3 is a loss total for the mathmatically challeged ...... http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/ns03282003a.cfm
You're a total fool. For two reasons. 1) you can't read, I did'nt say Civil Right Act of 1964 I said Civil Rights which are completly different. Ask yourself if they support AA now, colin powell does'nt count, and which party does? 2) They were conservative democrats in 1964 who took exception to civil rights act then left the party to become: You guessed it Conservative Rupublicans. No doubt from Lincoln to Nixon Repulicans have an outstanding record WITH doen't know this? but we live in 2003 and they seek to roll back anything promoting equality. This is called intellectulal dishonesty. Thurmond and Helms ring a bell?
Re education
Learn what political expediantcy means then we can talk. Republican oppose almost every effort to spend in public education.
Care to take a shot at the S&L crisis?
They do?
Federal education budget by year and regime, past 6 years:
1999 President's Budget for Education - $37,378,372,000
2000 President's Budget for Education - $37,524,346,000
2001 President's Budget for Education - $39,918,438,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 President's Budget for Education - $50,782,111,000
2003 President's Budget for Education - $60,403,502,000
2004 President's Budget for Education - $61,382,734,000
Source: U.S. Department of Education - pdf file
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
burnedout, not only does the President's budget not necessarily reflect actual spending . . . it also greatly distorts real world output b/c EVERY increase in spending is tied to some BS initiative. Leave No Child Behind is nothing but unfunded mandates in my state. Our accountability program (ABCs) was started in 1996. Since then the majority of schools have shown year over year improvement in assessment . . . with the greatest gains accrued within schools with large minority populations.
The requirement that ALL classroom teachers be certified and the extensive testing regimes are an additional burden that far exceeds the increase in federal funding.
The requirement that ALL classroom teachers be certified and the extensive testing regimes are an additional burden that far exceeds the increase in federal funding.
The Iraqi people NEED free health care. If they are not healthy, how are we going to get all of that cheap oil pumped to us?
I suppose that we could let them determine their own future. We could then also end our dependency on foreign oil and improve health care in our country.
However, that would mean lower oil profits. We CAN'T have that!
I suppose that we could let them determine their own future. We could then also end our dependency on foreign oil and improve health care in our country.
However, that would mean lower oil profits. We CAN'T have that!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
