And you thought that Democrats were the party that promotes minorities & women!

Not recognizing a significant accomplishment and trivializing its importance in the advancement of minorities and women's equality isn't right.

Is it REALLY that hard to set aside your political bias and give it an ole "good job and well done"?

I give up

lol... just like a lib... hehe (joke)

Seriously Chip, I think you see my point but just don't want to give Bush credit.

This IS a significant event in the promotion of minorities and women in regards to equality. He gets so much flack from the left it would just be nice to see President Bush get just a little bit of the credit he deserves especially when it is a cause that the left is SUPPOSED to be fighting for.

Yes Billy. I see your point. I saw it to begin with. If you make a big deal out of someone's accomplishment because of their race or gender then you're just perpetuating racism and sexism. A truly color blind person who believes that men and women are equals wouldn't feel the need to point out her race or gender, and certainly wouldn't be expecting special recognition for appointing her.

Billy, havent you left yet? You have already alienated 99% of SL's population, with only 2 others who support you. You have acted like an asshole and lost countless friends because of it. I suggest killing your account and making an alt, and this time, try NOT acting like a dickweed.

What are you… a 3rd grader? Grow up little boy. You know nothing about me or my friends so don’t pretend to have a clue. You give the rest of the 20 something Slers a bad name.

Take a lesson from Kendra about political debate. For as much as we disagree with each other we have never stooped to childish attacks as you have done. She has my respect and admiration for the way she handles herself.

The comparison is between Bush and the history of cabinet appointments of the Democratic party and a valid one. Kerry has nothing to do with this thread.



Now I have heard it all. Since when is the Democratic party not liberal? I really have no idea why saying that Democrats are liberal is offensive. I am not offended at all if someone says that Republicans are conservative. Please enlighten me.



Liberals are a political classification, not a political party. I apologize if I used the words interchangeably as no offense was intended.

I can certainly see why liberals who are not Democrats would not want to be associated with the Democratic party but that doesn’t seem to be your complaint.



This I do agree with but it is a historic and noteworthy accomplishment for minorities and women’s equality. I fail to see why it is so hard to say well done.

Link to above quote

I think my case is proven, Billy the kid

You need to take a lesson in satire Ryne... no... you still need to grow up.

Unless of course you in fact think I REALLY believe Captain Hook is a Democrat and a liberal. Lighten up kid.

The comparison is hardly valid. Should I start holding Bush to the standards of Lincoln? I don't think you REALLY want me to do that. I could more easily compare him to say, oh Nixon. Now I know you're not comparing presidents. I'm merely pointing out that comparing the cabinets of history to the cabinets of the present is an invalid comparison. What was a good appointment 8+ years ago can't hold up to substandard or otherwsie appointments of today.



I didn't say saying democrats are liberal is offensive. However it's a generalization. Just like, 'Republicans are idiots' is a generalization and both are generally untrue. If all or even most democrats were 'liberal', Bush would not be president. Further, the democratic party has shown to be far more fiscally conservative, during the Clinton years for example, than the republican party has been, during either Bush (jr or sr) administrations. Nor have democrats proven historically to play fast and loose with constitutional amendments as we have seen under this administration. I'm not really sure how you can epitimize republicans with conservatism either due to the vast amount of changes we've seen in this administration. So no, characterizing democrats in general as 'liberal' is incorrect. Characterizing republicans as 'conservatives' or 'neo-cons' is also incorrect in that sense.



Nearly every instance where you have used the word 'liberal' or 'lib' or 'libs' over a more appropriate term, you have used it in an offensive, or satirical, or manner intended to incite a negative response. Whether you intended to or not, you meant offense when you use it.



That is my complaint. Unless I'm misunderstanding you and you're taking a potshot at democrats for some stupid reason.



The key word is equality. IF they are equal, their accomplishments mean nothing outside the ordinary realm of accomplishments (being a specific color or gender is not an accomplishment. You can change these via surgery anyway). If you're going to prop up two random people, you may as well promo the rest of his cabinet while you're at it. Now if they're NOT equal, they will simply be viewed as sycophants by me. Simply put, if they are not equal, that is what they would have to be to obtain that position, if they were not equal.

Well, I was going to read the entire thread but decided against it. It is kind of insulting for you to be touting the appointment of two people based on their ethnicity. Appointing a single person doesn't address that myriad other problems that face minorities in America.

Here is who Bush appointed.

Gonzales was a very good friend to the President. If you have a DUI that you don't want anyone to know about, Gonzales is your man.



Rice is a person willing to lie under oath about issues of national security.


Sure, it's not a blowjob but it's still a big honker.

While you see people of color and applaud your party, I see liars and threats to my liberty.

The fact that you are so proud of these appointments based on race is a little disturbing. I've seen it before and I don't like it.

The simple fact remains that you want to gloss over. Bush did something that no president in the history of our country has done. It is perfectly valid to question why it was Bush, not a Democrat, when the Democratic party is the one who supposedly promoting the advancement of minorities and women.



I see… so Democrats are conservatives and Republicans are liberal. Makes perfect sense. Too bad that the Democratic and Republican parties do not agree with your assessment.



As stated earlier I used the words libs, liberals and Democrats interchangeably. The terms were all in reference to Democrats so hopefully this will clear that up some.



This thread is not a “pot shot” at all. It is pointing out some interesting facts.
Fact: The Democratic party promotes itself as the party that promotes minorities and women.
Fact: President Bush, a Republican, was the one who was the first to appoint a Latin American to be Attorney General and an African American woman, to be Secretary of State.
Those facts are interesting because one has to ask the obvious question: Why didn’t the Democrats do it first?



That just does not make sense. How can I not intend offense and mean to be offensive at the same time?



My view and that of many is that all races, men and women are equal but there is still bias and prejudice in this country. Unfortunately true equality in opportunity, pay as well as other things has not been reached yet. Hopefully one day our society will be free of prejudices.



You misunderstand me if you think that is what I think. In itself being a minority or a woman is not an “accomplishment” but there are historic firsts that are worthy of pointing out because it shows how far our country has come. I think it is an accomplishment when someone who is a minority is promoted to a higher level of our government than ever before. Other examples that are worthy accomplishments worthy of noting:

Thurgood Marshall - The first African American Supreme Court Justice
James Meredith - The first African American to be admitted to the University of Mississippi
Samuel Lee Gravely Jr. - The first African American naval officer to become an admiral and to command a warship and a fleet
Nellie Tayloe Ross - The nation’s first woman governor
Sandra Day O'Connor - The first woman ever appointed to the Supreme
Court (By another Republican might I add)
Rebecca Felton – The first woman senator

These two appointments by President Bush are worthy of note too. Argue against any significance if you wish but you diminish something that I am sure each of these people are proud of and you diminish the struggles that they had to overcome not only as individuals but as races or sex.

I address this in the last answer above.



Yes, I totally agree with you but it is a good thing. This you have to admit.



That is subjective obviously and I respect your right to not like them but isn’t it nice that we are even talking about this?



Come on Neehai. The fact that we disagree with each other politically does not mean you need to say things like this. I fail to see what is wrong about pointing out historically significant events. Would you also say this about the NAACP, Jesse Jackson or NOW when they applaud other accomplishments?

"As part of a concerted effort to undermine the credibility of Richard Clarke, the former Bush Administration counterterrorism czar who recently criticized the Administration's handling of the terrorist threat prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks, National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice said, "This story has so many twists and turns now that I think he needs to get his story straight."

While the basic elements of Clarke's assertions have been confirmed, frequently by President Bush and other senior Administration officials, a review of the record demonstrates that it is Dr. Rice who should set the record straight.

Condoleezza Rice's Misstatements About the Administration's actions prior to the September 11 Terrorist Attacks

Dr. Rice claimed that no one could have predicted before September 11 that terrorists would hijack airplanes and strike sites in America.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon. [No one predicted] that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." (Press Briefing, 5/16/03)

The bipartisan Congressional inquiry into the September 11 attacks "confirmed that, before September 11, the Intelligence Community produced at least twelve reports over a seven-year period suggesting terrorists might use airplanes as weapons." According to a news report summarizing the joint inquiry's findings, "intelligence reports from December 1998 until the attacks said followers of bin Laden were planning to strike U.S. targets, hijack U.S. planes, and two individuals had successfully evaded checkpoints in a dry run at a New York airport." (Reuters, 7/24/03)

More specifically, "White House officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the September 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." (Reuters, 7/24/03) On July 10, 2001, FBI agent Kenneth Williams sent his "Phoenix memo" to FBI headquarters in Washington, warning that several Islamic militants he had been tracking were enrolled in flight school in Arizona and recommending that the FBI sweep flight schools across the country. On several occasions, government officials from Germany, Italy, Egypt, Russia, and other nations warned the Bush Administration of possible imminent terrorist attacks against the U.S. Finally, Dateline NBC has reported that, on August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." (9/10/02)

Dr. Rice claimed that the Bush Administration had a military plan to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership prior to September 11.

* "Through the spring and summer of 2001, the national security team developed a strategy to eliminate Al-Qaida - which was expected to take years. Our strategy marshaled all elements of national power to take down the network, not just respond to individual attacks with law enforcement measures. Our plan called for military options to attack Al-Qaida and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets - taking the fight to the enemy where he lived. It focused on the crucial link between Al-Qaida and the Taliban." (Washington Post, 3/22/04)

Dr. Rice claimed that the Bush Administration had a plan in place before September 11 to eliminate al Qaeda by using military force to target terrorist leaders.

However, President Bush did not approve the Administration's counter-terrorism plan until after September 11. Moreover, during a recent public hearing of the independent 9/11 Commission, Richard Clarke responded under oath to a question about whether it was accurate to assert that the Administration plan included military options. "No," Clarke responded, "it is not." (9/11 Commission Hearing, 3/24/04)

Dr. Rice claimed that the Bush Administration recognized that the terrorist threat was, "both important and urgent," and it did "everything it could" to prevent terrorist attacks on the U.S.

* "What we did [against terrorism] suggests that we thought it both important and urgent. We kept in place an experienced team of counterterrorism experts from the Clinton administration, whose responsibility it was to keep the Clinton administration strategy going. We did everything during that period of time that we could." (Press Briefing, 3/24/04)

According to President Bush, "I knew [Osama bin Laden] was a menace, but I didn't feel that sense of urgency." (Bush at War, Bob Woodward, 2002) According to Richard Clarke, President Bush's former top anti-terrorism advisor, President Bush "ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11." Despite the fact that Clarke wrote Rice a memo, "on January 24th, 2001...asking for, urgently - underlined urgently - a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack...that urgent memo - wasn't acted on." (3/21/04) Moreover, although President Bush's National Security Council "met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks...terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions." (Associated Press, 6/29/02). Finally, though President Bush announced on May 8, 2001 that Vice President Cheney would "oversee the development of a coordinated national effort" to prevent catastrophic terrorist attacks, this effort never materialized. In fact, according to the 9-11 Commission, the Cheney Task Force "was just getting under way when the 9/11 attack occurred." (9-11 Commission, Staff Statement Number 8, "National Policy Coordination," p. 9).

Dr. Rice claimed that the Administration requested the August 6 Presidential Daily Briefing from CIA on the terrorist threat.

* "[President Bush] had said to his briefer,`I'd like you from time to time to give me summaries of what you know about potential attacks.' And this was an analytic piece that tried to bring together several threads - in 1997, they talked about this; in 1998, they talked about that; it's been known that maybe they want to try and release the blind sheik - I mean, that was the character of it." (Press Briefing, 5/16/02)

With these words, Dr. Rice suggested that President Bush initiated the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) on the threat of terrorist hijackings. However, after CIA Director George Tenet testified that his staff's recollection about the PDB was that it originated with the CIA, Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste read this statement into the record: "The author of this piece and others familiar with it say they have no information to suggest that this piece was written in response to a question from the president. And indeed, it goes on to say that it was prompted by an idea from the CIA." (9/11 Commission Hearing, 3/24/04)

Dr. Rice claimed President Bush increased counterterrorism funding.

* "The President increased counterterrorism funding several-fold in order to be more aggressive." (NBC Nightly News, 3/24/04)

According to the bipartisan joint inquiry investigating the 9/11 attacks, an FBI budget official informed the commission that "counterterrorism was not a priority for Attorney General Ashcroft before September 11, and the FBI faced pressure to make cuts in counterterrorism to satisfy his other priorities." The New York Times has reported that, before 9/11, the Bush Administration "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local law enforcement officials counterterrorism grants" and "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators." (2/28/02) Further, according to The Washington Post, the White House trimmed an FBI request for additional counterterrorism funds by almost $1 billion. (3/22/04)

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration's opposition to counterterrorism funding continued even after the September 11 attacks. The Administration cut the FBI's counterterrorism funding request by nearly two-thirds during debate over a supplemental appropriations package. Though the FBI requested an additional $1.5 billion to enhance its counterterrorism efforts and create 2,024 new positions, the Bush Administration requested only $538 million from Congress. And more recently, as The New York Times reported earlier this month, President Bush has tried to eliminate a $12 million request by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which says it needs the small injection of new money "to increase by 50% the number of criminal financial investigators" necessary to do its part in the fight against terrorism. ("I.R.S. Request for More Terrorism Investigators Is Denied," 3/31/04)

Dr. Rice denied that on the day after the September 11 attacks President Bush pressured his staff to come up with any evidence that linked Iraq to the attacks.

* "I don't remember this meeting. [Richard Clarke] said that the president pulled him aside. I don't know." (Good Morning America, 3/22/04)

According to former Treasury Secretary O'Neill, President Bush instructed Defense Secretary to draw up military options against Iraq at the Administration's very first meeting of its National Security Council in January 2001. This focus on Iraq evidently continued in the immediate aftermath of September 11. Richard Clarke stated that the day after the September 11 attacks, President Bush pressured him to find evidence linking Saddam Hussein to these attacks. Mr. Clarke said that despite the fact that he informed President Bush that we already knew who conducted these attacks - al Qaeda - the President insisted that he look again for any evidence that could link Iraq to these attacks. Initially, Condoleezza Rice and other White House officials denied that such a conversation ever took place. Just a few days later, however, Dr. Rice admitted that this conversation had occurred: "The president asked, I believe, though none of us recall the specific conversation, the president asked a perfectly logical question - we'd just been hit and hit hard - was did Iraq have anything to do with this, were they complicit in it?" (CBS, 60 Minutes, 03/28/04)

Condoleezza Rice's Misstatements About the War in Iraq

Dr. Rice claimed that Bush Administration sought a peaceful solution to Iraq situation.

* "We're going to seek a peaceful solution to this. We think that one is possible." (CBS, 10/20/02)

* "We are still in a diplomatic phase here." (ABC, 3/9/03)

In public, Dr. Rice stated on several occasions that the Bush Administration was seeking a peaceful, diplomatic resolution to the conflict with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Yet Richard Haas, the Bush Administration's director of policy planning at the State Department, directly contradicted Dr. Rice's public comments, asserting that the decision to go to war had been made as early as July 2002: "The moment was the first week of July [2002], when I had a meeting with Condi. I raised this issue about were we really sure that we wanted to put Iraq front and center at this point, given the war on terrorism and other issues. And she said, essentially, that the decision's been made, don't waste your breath. And that was in early July. So then when Powell had his famous dinner with the President, in early August, 2002, the agenda was not whether Iraq, but how." (The New Yorker, 3/31/03)

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has stated that the decision to go to war with Iraq was made much earlier. In the book The Price of Loyalty, Ron Suskind writes that, with regard to war in Iraq, "already by February [2001], the talk was mostly about logistics. Not the why, but the how and how quickly." (p. 96, emphasis added)

Finally, Time magazine offers the following glimpse into the development of the Bush Administration's policy toward Iraq in early 2002: "`F___ Saddam. We're taking him out.' Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase. The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room." ("First Stop, Iraq," 3/31/03)

Dr. Rice claimed that the Administration did not know of doubts about the sources and accuracy of its claims about Iraq's alleged nuclear programs.

* "No one in our circle knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery." (NBC Meet the Press, 6/8/03)

When reports surfaced that President Bush's 16-word sentence in his 2003 State of the Union address regarding Iraq's alleged attempts to procure uranium from Niger was based on false documents, Dr. Rice feigned ignorance about existing doubts on the documents. Just over a month after Dr. Rice made this claim, however, the White House acknowledged that "the CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear material in Africa." (The Washington Post, 7/23/03) Furthermore, The Los Angeles Times has reported that "deputy national security advisor Stephen Hadley told reporters that he received two memos from the CIA in October that cast doubt on intelligence reports that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Niger to use in developing nuclear weapons. Hadley said Tuesday that as the White House drafted Bush's State of the Union address in January, he did not remember reading either memo. But he said he should have, and he took the blame for the assertion's inclusion in that speech...Both memos were also sent to chief speechwriter Michael Gerson and one was sent to national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, Hadley said." (7/23/03, emphasis added)

Dr. Rice asserted the CIA cleared the President's proposed remarks on inaccurate Iraq uranium claims.

* "There was even some discussion on that specific sentence, so that it reflected better what the CIA thought and the speech was cleared...Some specifics about amount and place were taken out...with the change in that sentence, the speech was cleared." (ABC, 7/11/03)

With the White House soon to acknowledge that it did have prior knowledge regarding doubts about claims on Iraq's attempts to procure uranium, Dr. Rice shifted tactics and said that the CIA cleared the President's "16 words." However, as noted above, the CIA had sent two memos to the White House months earlier casting doubt on the uranium claim. Further, just a few months before the State of the Union address, CIA director George Tenet persuaded Stephen Hadley to take a reference to Iraq's attempts to procure uranium out of an October 7, 2002 presidential address on Iraq's threat. The 2002 National Intelligence Estimate includes a dissenting opinion asserting that "claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are...highly dubious."

Dr. Rice made irresponsible claims about an alleged link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

* "There is no question in my mind about the al Qaeda connection. And what emerges is a picture of a Saddam Hussein who became impressed with what al Qaeda did after it bombed our embassies in 1998 in Kenya and Tanzania, began to give them assistance in chemical and biological weapons, something they were having trouble achieving on their own, that harbored a terrorist network under this man Zarqawi, despite the fact that Saddam Hussein was told that Zarqawi was there." (CNN, 2/5/03)

Dr. Rice proclaimed - beyond any doubt - that a working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda flourished before the war. However, President Bush himself acknowledged that "we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." (September 17, 2003) Moreover, the New York Times reported three days before her statement that, "at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. `We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there,' a government official said." (2/2/03) "

http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/pubs/108-2-100.html

How is any of this good? Black, white, male, female, heterosexual, homosexual...I don't care. Her record stands for itself. She is a lying, coniving twit who will use any means at her disposal to climb the blood stained political ladder. Applauding race based appointments is just another sign of discrimination and racial bias. If I were Rice I would be pissed that people were saying "look at us we put a black woman in office!!" Despite the fact that she is a Dr, has published at least 3 books on foriegn affairs and made tenure at a university. And still she feels the need to make a pretzel out of the truth and not even offer us a beer to wash it down with. And you feel the need to point out that she is a black woman and that makes her appointment an accomplishment.

I know of plenty of honest, intelligent and honorable black women who would have been far more qualified for this office. And I know for a fact that regardless of ethnicity or gender there are many humans out there who would have been of good service to the world without the need to kiss presidential butt. She failed in her only job....to give the President of the United states honest and fair information...to tell him everything he did not want to hear.

Just more "librul" baiting, with a chunk of "gloat" mixed in.

Doesn't even make sense.

Let's try this: Why didn't the Republicans promote minorities when they were in power in the 20s or the 50s?

Since I know that was a gimmee, let me add this: I frankly don't care how many minorities are hired by the administration, any more than I'd care how many servants they had at the "big house" on the plantation. The important thing is how minorities are treated at the workplace, or the polls, or in higher education - or how many are stuffed into prisons, or executed.

I have seen absolutely no evidence to believe the Republicans have changed one single stripe. They often change their camouflage, but never their stripes.

Rice doesn't represent blacks. She represents hawks. Gonzales doesn't represent Latinos. He represents George Bush.

They both represent an organization where Loyalty is the primary virtue, and Truth or Compassion have no standing at all.

Don't bother arguing with me Billy, I no longer care to try to educate the willfully blind. I only post to remind other readers that the simple trick of redefining things doesn't make the fantasy true.

I don't see it as subjective at all. Rice lied under oath about issues of national security while serving as the National Security Advisor.

As such, she is a liar and a threat to my liberty. This has nothing to do with whether or not I "like" her. I don't even know her.

{quote]Come on Neehai. The fact that we disagree with each other politically does not mean you need to say things like this.[/quote]
I say it because it is true. In my opinion this thread and the sentiments expressed in it are a clear indication of the problems associated with race that we face in this country.

I see your point in posting this and the behavior disgusts me to my core. I won't mince words on this issue, ever.

You know what, you are absolutely right, it is liberal bating and I am happy to admit it. Do you want to know why? Because it is so predictable it isn’t even funny. This was just TOO easy. YOU ARE TOO PREDICTABLE and you will not even stand up for a cause in which the Democratic party is SUPPOSED to be leading the fight. You and I both know the reason for this.

My goal was to expose all of you for what you are. Hypocrites who will only support LIBERAL minorities and women but will never openly admit it. Heaven forbid that a conservative minority or woman achieve anything. Let’s tear em down as quickly as possible. Let’s call em lap dogs, liars, evil, hawks, bible thumper (like being religious is a bad thing) or threats to your liberty. Let’s call me a hate monger, asshole, dickweed or idiot. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Your hatred is here on display for everyone to see and it REALLY was too easy for me to expose.

I KNEW the reaction I would get would be more of the same old tactics we have seen from the Democrats during the elections. I KNEW that even though great achievements for not just minorities and women but for ALL Americans had occurred that the liberal left would poo poo it just because it was Bush who helped make it happen. I KNEW that you would attempt to trivialize it and demean the very cause by saying it was not important. I KNEW that you would react to it not by applauding but spewing venom at Bush, Rice and Gonzales.




Let’s try this instead. Admit that the Democratic party WAS the party of the people in the early 1900s and admit that they are NOT anymore. They lost touch with mainstream America and are in real trouble. They are now the party of the special interest fringe groups and will spew as much hatred to anyone who opposes them as humanly possible. Ask yourselves this. Why were there SO MANY red states? Because the edge that you once had is gone and people now recognize you for what you are.



Actually to correct you it was the Democrats who were the slave owners. Lincoln was a Republican. I see your point though. Any African American that is conservative is like a slave on the plantation. Nice going. I am sure African Americans across this country will rush by your side to support that opinion… NOT.



Finally something we agree on.



Actions speak louder than words. Part of the reason you all oppose me on this so much is that you can’t stand the fact that the Democrats don’t practice what they preach.



That is just plain pathetic. Last I checked Gzonzales was a Latin American and Rice was an African American. Just because they aren’t LIBERAL is no reason to say that their success does not represent success of their respective races.



LOL… you are quite humorous. Note to all Latin and African Americans out there… IF YOU DO NOT ALLIGN POLITICALLY WITH US (LIBERALS) WE WILL TEAR YOU DOWN AND DEMEAN YOUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS TRIVIAL AND UNIMPORTANT.



You can forget that Kathy. I never shy away from what I believe in and call it like I see it. If you do not want me to respond then don’t post. Simple as that.

The tables are now turned. As I live and breathe liberals are on display here in this thread demeaning and belittling the accomplishments of minorities and women as being unimportant and trivial. Nice going. I will continue my fight for their civil rights and their conquest for equality. Oppose me if you must but know that your true colors may be on display for everyone to see.

Now that all being said let me tell you what I had hoped. I had REALLY hoped that the political bias and hatred would be set aside and simply take the time to recognize a historically significant event. I didn’t think it would happen but had hopes that it would. For the record I would applaud this even if Rice and Gonzales were liberals.

Oh, and neehai. TY too for making my little experiment a complete success!

The experiment to expose you as an opportunistic racist?

You're welcome. As I said before, you make me sick to my core.

So basically you're suggesting that we should just ignore the fact that we don't respect these people based on their politics, past deeds, and lies, simply because they're minorities? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Lying repeatedly to the American people and claiming that torturing prisoners of war should be A-okay ARE NOT TRIVIAL THINGS!

The fact that they are a black woman and a latino respectively are trivial to anyone who's not a racist or sexist.

Continue your irrational rants... I will try not to interupt you!

from Billy Grace

It is usually fairly easy to predict sound logic. Irrational behavior on the other hand is much more difficult to prophecy...so I believe I will stick with predictability.

You hoped nothing of the sort. You, like your idols, twist the truth and call people names. You feel justified because loyalty and victory are more impotant to you than truth or compassion.

You hoped for a bit of excitment, and you did what comes natural: trolling. You had no interest in setting aside "bias and hatred." You set out to stir it up. Not by discussing the facts, but by going out of you way to put foul things into other people's mouthes.

If you think I am waiting for your snappy come back, forget it. You never come up with anything new. I'm getting tired of hearing it.