PN-G bamatex

Come on man...You're a history teacher....you know that the texbooks do not tell the story at all...They make it look like it was no big deal. Come on Dayton, you know... :

It is still undermined.  I don't think that it's as much about an apology as a true, heartfelt, compassionate suggestion that IT WAS WRONG.  I just keep getting...it was bad, but it was part of history; Africans sold slaves; our forefathers did the best they could; at least it's over now.  Yet, somebody gets their boxers/briefs in a wad because someone states that they don't care about car bombs and children being killed overseas.  It's just the lack of empathy for what happened...the nonchalantness.  All I can say is you're definitely in the right place. 

Give me a break......it was over a 100 years ago. There WERE white slaves.......I'm not blaming anyone or asking anyone for an apology. I was upset about the car bomb because it was in the last few days..... Find something else to be mad about.........

You make Little sense. We all say its bad and we disagree.......yet we don't have a true, heartfelt, compassionate apology for you......and that's OUR fault??     :   :

LMAO!  Sorry, but I don't need your apology.  I have not said that there were not white slaves, in fact, I have stated before that my family was probably indentured.  I thought that I just wrote that I don't think that it is as much a matter of apologizing as it understanding and empathizing with the fact that it just should not have been allowed to go on and that it was a horrific part of our history.  It's easy for us to say because we weren't enslaved because I guarantee if we would have been...we might be a wee-bit more understanding.

We don't have to agree with everything each other says, but I had at least hoped that everyone could respect the other.  I've always taught my boys the same things because one of the biggest problems I see with people today is the lack or respect we have towards one another.  Just because someone has a differing opinion with me or because they might affiliate themselves with someone that I choose not to, I do respect them for their opinion because we are supposed to.  I am not going to suggest that you are any of the things that I seen flung on here.

To whoever locked the other thread...you were certainly on top of what you are supposed to be doing.  Thanks for acting on it so quickly.  Keeping it respectable, huh? 

I'm sorry, but I don't see the reasoning behind being empathetic to someone for something that my great, great, great grandfather might have done to his great, great, great grandfather or for something that one of my buddy's great, great, great grandfathers might have done to one of his buddy's great, great, great grandfather.

Slavery was a terrible, terrible thing and I believe that we should have respect for the cultures of others, but in no way am I responsible for the actions of one of my distant ancestors. I had no part in those actions and, therefore, I have no reason to be empathetic to one of the descendants of a victim of those actions. It's not my fault. I didn't do it. In addition to that, the descendant of the victim wasn't a victim. He's a descendant. To imply that I owe him something for the crimes my ancestor might have committed against his ancestor is similar to implying that I should expect compensation from the germans, italians, koreans, vietnamese, british, spanish, mexicans, and japanese for crimes that some of their ancestors might have committed against some of my ancestors. It's one of those "sins of the father" ordeals, and, I'm sorry, but, last time I checked, we'd moved beyond that particular point in history.

At this point, hypothetical questions are too late. We don't know what LaDay's intentions or reasons were, but the fact is that this man played a part in his own death. He is moreso responsible for his death than anyone else. The Lumberton police officers' part in this was unintentional. They didn't mean to kill LaDay; they were using reasonable force given the circumstances. Although LaDay's death, in part, was caused by their actions, they can't be blamed for this. They had no intention to kill LaDay and had no way of knowing that he was high on PCP. LaDay essentially killed himself when he got high on PCP and took off driving. It's noone's fault but his. Does that make his life expendable? No. But he did it to himself. We didn't do it to him, LPD didn't do it to him, society didn't do it to him, LaDay did it to LaDay. It's horrible, and, moreso for the family's sake than LaDay's, I wish it didn't have to be that way, but we're just going to have to live with the fact that he basically killed himself.

Moral of the Story:

Don't do drugs and you won't have these problems.

War will never cease...not everywhere. 

Pelosi is how far from the presidency?  I think that politicians lie...heck... I think that most people lie or at least have.  How far from the presidency was Bush when he justified (lied to us about) invading Iraq because they had WMDs? 

And, I think that most people look to blame others for the ills of the world.  It's really not that new of a concept.

Yea, it was Bushes fault. Funny how Obama is changing his mind on a lot of security issues...... acting a little like Bush.  Bush was not as dumb as the left plays him. For a dumb guy, he sure got a lot of things done.   

Correction: played him. They can't play President Bush for dumb when President Obama starts doing the same things President Bush did while in office. Oh, wait, they're liberals. They don't have to make sense. Nevermind, then.

..

Oh and how correct you are about Bush not being dumb...he scarily smart.  Left.  Right.  Left. Right.  Someone doesn't agree with your views and you crown them liberals or lefties.  Can you say shallow?

Not necessarily. "Liberal" and "Conservative" are words used to describe political connotations. I have a few liberal views, but, for the most part, my point of view is a moderately conservative one. Based on your posts, I can infer that your political connotation is moderately liberal. I don't think it's very farfetched to make either of those statements.

I will not call President Bush dumb, just like I will not call President Obama or Nancy Pelosi dumb. That is blatantly desrespectful, regardless of political connotation.

My statement was meant to be a joke, hence the at the end of the post. If you'd like to read more about these "jokes," you may want to use the Google search engine. I'll even supply you with an example:

Can you say shallow?

Yes, I can. In fact, I can say it in three different languages.

Take note of the at the end.

Whew...thanks guys...that makes it all better.  I mean, that justifies makes it all make so much sense to me now.... :

Perhaps a 220+ year old argument that was only truly indicative and representative of what we were supposed to stand for.  And, there was a use of my making my comments on this subject...it just really helps me understand some things a little more and a little less.

You'll have to forgive me...I'm having trouble staying focused...it's really a little too late for me to take my Aderall.  And, I just really couldn't think of the best thing he did...guess that's probably not what you meant by along those lines, huh?

Heck no I don't think that the southern states would have ratified anything that would have prevented them from making money off of the blood, sweat and tears of other human beings.  In doing so, they wouldn't have an adequate avenue to vent their frustrations and take them out on.

I really don't need the history lesson.  Besides, I would rather have history plus some good ole moral senses than just the history.  They couldn't afford...LOL.  You are probably right about that...they couldn't AFFORD.  There was money to be made and since everyone else was doing it and the country wouldn't be here...we should just feel so blessed that AT LEAST we overcame that.  Thank you for having the time and fortitude to do the right thing ancestors.  It shouldn't have been lawful...for anyone. 

I couldn't have made it any more simple than I did. At that time, the equation was something like this:

No slavery = No Ratification = No Constitution = Weak, disorganized USA = Probable British Invasion = No USA

Slavery = Ratification = Constitution = Strong, centralized USA capable of beating off British invaders (which we did in the War of 1812)

It's as simple as that. Sure, it was morally wrong, but sometimes things don't go as well as we'd like them to. Occasionally, we have to make a few concessions on a few issues. In the end, slavery was abolished and it's still useless to argue a 220+ year-old decision.

Whew...thanks guys...that makes it all better.  I mean, that justifies makes it all make so much sense to me now.... :

Perhaps a 220+ year old argument that was only truly indicative and representative of what we were supposed to stand for.  And, there was a use of my making my comments on this subject...it just really helps me understand some things a little more and a little less.

You'll have to forgive me...I'm having trouble staying focused...it's really a little too late for me to take my Aderall.  And, I just really couldn't think of the best thing he did...guess that's probably not what you meant by along those lines, huh?

Heck no I don't think that the southern states would have ratified anything that would have prevented them from making money off of the blood, sweat and tears of other human beings.  In doing so, they wouldn't have an adequate avenue to vent their frustrations and take them out on.

I really don't need the history lesson.  Besides, I would rather have history plus some good ole moral senses than just the history.  They couldn't afford...LOL.  You are probably right about that...they couldn't AFFORD.  There was money to be made and since everyone else was doing it and the country wouldn't be here...we should just feel so blessed that AT LEAST we overcame that.  Thank you for having the time and fortitude to do the right thing ancestors.  It shouldn't have been lawful...for anyone. 

Ok, you said there were no white slaves, there were........now you bring up you dont need a history lesson. PNGkid is throwing facts as I do to support my statements. The history is history, it cannot be changed, BUT we can learn from it. In order to learn from it, you have to know it and understand it!

About 40 messages ago I gave my spill on the things I thought Bush did well. I have to agree, Homeland security is one of the best things he's done. 

Although I did pose the question about if white people had been slaves...earlier than that, I posted that there were white people that were indentured.  I believe there is a slight difference in the two.  My eternal thanks to you and kid for "learning" me about slavery with all of your facts.  Sadly, many facts have never been published in books, but as long as America was able to prosper and the select few were able to become profiteers at the expense and maltreatment/murder of others...hey, it's all good.

I don't know what his legacy will be.  Maybe that he rid the world of hussein, but at what expense?  9/11 was a test that no one could have truly been ready for.  I think that we had no other choice than to go after binladen and it was the right thing to do, but I think that invading Iraq was not.  I mean, in the history books, what will be said about why we invaded Iraq besides that hussein was responsible for some horrific atrocities.  I just wish that he would have had the ability to either realize that he made a mistake (and not just with Iraq) and apologize for that particular decision. 

How about we knew he had WMDs, he had UN resolutions to answer to, he had to let our weapons inspectors see if he was indeed hiding anything (we know he was, what do you think he did, kissed those 250,000 Kurds to death?). Our inspectors were getting close and he ordered them at gun point to leave, which they did. Do you think he got rid of those weapons during that time? Hmmmmm.

Sadaam Insane had scud (dud) missiles to deliver his explosives. I, to this day, don't know how we kept the Jews from all out attacking him. We kept them at bay by protecting them with our patriot anti-missile defense system. Some scuds still got through and did some damage and killed some people. Do you realize the magnitude of the situation, had he been able to hit the Jews  with a WMD??????

Anyone here that doesn't think Sadaam Insane had WMDs is a fool. BTW, where were you when all of this was taking place....under a rock?

One more thing. Americans did not execute Sadaam Insane. We turned him over to the Iraqis and they let him drop.

I still love what the soldiers said to Insane when they found him....''Greeting from President Bush!"

GREAT POST!!!!!

I can't understand how some of you people let Bush and Cheney pull you off track to think Sadaam was the enemy?

We had reason to believe that Sadam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction within the borders of Iraq as early as 1998. This was a clear violation of the treaty Iraq signed with the United States and the United Nations after the first Gulf War. President Bush was taking care of an issue that President Clinton refused to take care of. I support our decision to go into Iraq; however, I do believe that this war has been handled badly. Much like in Vietnam, we let politics get involved in a war that didn't need politics. We should have kept the promises we made to the Iraqi people at the beginning of the war, and I truly believe that President Bush did his best to keep those promises (i.e. infrastructure upgrades, schools, hospitals, etc.), but it's not easy to run a war when you've got some prominent members of Congress that won't cooperate and keep calling in the media every time they have a score to settle.

Whew...thanks guys...that makes it all better.  I mean, that justifies makes it all make so much sense to me now.... :

Perhaps a 220+ year old argument that was only truly indicative and representative of what we were supposed to stand for.  And, there was a use of my making my comments on this subject...it just really helps me understand some things a little more and a little less.

You'll have to forgive me...I'm having trouble staying focused...it's really a little too late for me to take my Aderall.  And, I just really couldn't think of the best thing he did...guess that's probably not what you meant by along those lines, huh?

Heck no I don't think that the southern states would have ratified anything that would have prevented them from making money off of the blood, sweat and tears of other human beings.  In doing so, they wouldn't have an adequate avenue to vent their frustrations and take them out on.

I really don't need the history lesson.  Besides, I would rather have history plus some good ole moral senses than just the history.  They couldn't afford...LOL.  You are probably right about that...they couldn't AFFORD.  There was money to be made and since everyone else was doing it and the country wouldn't be here...we should just feel so blessed that AT LEAST we overcame that.  Thank you for having the time and fortitude to do the right thing ancestors.  It shouldn't have been lawful...for anyone. 

Ok, you said there were no white slaves, there were........now you bring up you dont need a history lesson. PNGkid is throwing facts as I do to support my statements. The history is history, it cannot be changed, BUT we can learn from it. In order to learn from it, you have to know it and understand it!

About 40 messages ago I gave my spill on the things I thought Bush did well. I have to agree, Homeland security is one of the best things he's done. 

Although I did pose the question about if white people had been slaves...earlier than that, I posted that there were white people that were indentured.  I believe there is a slight difference in the two.  My eternal thanks to you and kid for "learning" me about slavery with all of your facts.  Sadly, many facts have never been published in books, but as long as America was able to prosper and the select few were able to become profiteers at the expense and maltreatment/murder of others...hey, it's all good.

I don't know what his legacy will be.  Maybe that he rid the world of hussein, but at what expense?  9/11 was a test that no one could have truly been ready for.  I think that we had no other choice than to go after binladen and it was the right thing to do, but I think that invading Iraq was not.  I mean, in the history books, what will be said about why we invaded Iraq besides that hussein was responsible for some horrific atrocities.  I just wish that he would have had the ability to either realize that he made a mistake (and not just with Iraq) and apologize for that particular decision. 

You truly believe that there's a 140 year-old conspiracy to cover up facts about slavery in our history books? Where's your evidence?

Gonna disagree with y'all on Homeland Security being one of Bush's better moves. All this did was lump several Gov. agencies into one and POURED tax dollars into this new stew pot. While some of this money appears to be well spent, (i.e. the Coast Guard being better equipped) you only have to look at FEMA to find the financial messes and gross mismanagement (under Bush!). The Border Patrol and Immigration services have not improved either. The DHS is another "big brother" organization that is eroding the liberties of all American. Not all bad, but certainly not all good. I don't see it as a good marker for GWB to hang his legacy on.

Lumping all these agencies into one completed the communications that was missing before. Some say 9/11 could have been prevented if everyone would have communicated. It's not a perfect system, but better than we had. FEMA we could debate. Although, I agree it needs some tweaking, I think some people want FEMA to be a save all, do all, and I disagree. Local governments are in charge of disaster relief, then FEMA should step in afterwards.

Agreed. DHS isn't perfect, but it increased efficiency, improved security, and played a pivotal role in keeping a post-9/11 America safe.

Whew...thanks guys...that makes it all better.  I mean, that justifies makes it all make so much sense to me now.... :

Perhaps a 220+ year old argument that was only truly indicative and representative of what we were supposed to stand for.  And, there was a use of my making my comments on this subject...it just really helps me understand some things a little more and a little less.

You'll have to forgive me...I'm having trouble staying focused...it's really a little too late for me to take my Aderall.  And, I just really couldn't think of the best thing he did...guess that's probably not what you meant by along those lines, huh?

Heck no I don't think that the southern states would have ratified anything that would have prevented them from making money off of the blood, sweat and tears of other human beings.  In doing so, they wouldn't have an adequate avenue to vent their frustrations and take them out on.

I really don't need the history lesson.  Besides, I would rather have history plus some good ole moral senses than just the history.  They couldn't afford...LOL.  You are probably right about that...they couldn't AFFORD.  There was money to be made and since everyone else was doing it and the country wouldn't be here...we should just feel so blessed that AT LEAST we overcame that.  Thank you for having the time and fortitude to do the right thing ancestors.  It shouldn't have been lawful...for anyone. 

Ok, you said there were no white slaves, there were........now you bring up you dont need a history lesson. PNGkid is throwing facts as I do to support my statements. The history is history, it cannot be changed, BUT we can learn from it. In order to learn from it, you have to know it and understand it!

About 40 messages ago I gave my spill on the things I thought Bush did well. I have to agree, Homeland security is one of the best things he's done. 

Although I did pose the question about if white people had been slaves...earlier than that, I posted that there were white people that were indentured.  I believe there is a slight difference in the two.  My eternal thanks to you and kid for "learning" me about slavery with all of your facts.  Sadly, many facts have never been published in books, but as long as America was able to prosper and the select few were able to become profiteers at the expense and maltreatment/murder of others...hey, it's all good.

I don't know what his legacy will be.  Maybe that he rid the world of hussein, but at what expense?  9/11 was a test that no one could have truly been ready for.  I think that we had no other choice than to go after binladen and it was the right thing to do, but I think that invading Iraq was not.  I mean, in the history books, what will be said about why we invaded Iraq besides that hussein was responsible for some horrific atrocities.  I just wish that he would have had the ability to either realize that he made a mistake (and not just with Iraq) and apologize for that particular decision. 

How about we knew he had WMDs, he had UN resolutions to answer to, he had to let our weapons inspectors see if he was indeed hiding anything (we know he was, what do you think he did, kissed those 250,000 Kurds to death?). Our inspectors were getting close and he ordered them at gun point to leave, which they did. Do you think he got rid of those weapons during that time? Hmmmmm.

Sadaam Insane had scud (dud) missiles to deliver his explosives. I, to this day, don't know how we kept the Jews from all out attacking him. We kept them at bay by protecting them with our patriot anti-missile defense system. Some scuds still got through and did some damage and killed some people. Do you realize the magnitude of the situation, had he been able to hit the Jews  with a WMD??????

Anyone here that doesn't think Sadaam Insane had WMDs is a fool. BTW, where were you when all of this was taking place....under a rock?

One more thing. Americans did not execute Sadaam Insane. We turned him over to the Iraqis and they let him drop.

I still love what the soldiers said to Insane when they found him....''Greeting from President Bush!"

And the bad part about that is the fact that the world would have screamed had Israel been attacked by Iraq and we had had a chance to stop it. It's kind of funny how that works.

i definitely prefer the familiy's reaction here to the one that we got in lumberton. 

I couldn't agree with you more. Noone is jumping the gun or making accusations. Everyone seems to be waiting for the facts before they start doing anything controversial. This is a much better way to handle things.

War will never cease...not everywhere. 

Pelosi is how far from the presidency?  I think that politicians lie...heck... I think that most people lie or at least have.  How far from the presidency was Bush when he justified (lied to us about) invading Iraq because they had WMDs? 

And, I think that most people look to blame others for the ills of the world.  It's really not that new of a concept.

Yea, it was Bushes fault. Funny how Obama is changing his mind on a lot of security issues...... acting a little like Bush.  Bush was not as dumb as the left plays him. For a dumb guy, he sure got a lot of things done.   

Correction: played him. They can't play President Bush for dumb when President Obama starts doing the same things President Bush did while in office. Oh, wait, they're liberals. They don't have to make sense. Nevermind, then.

Yep, we bullied our way in and took some land. As I said in another post, every piece of land ever owned by any person or the government was taken by somebody that lived on or used the land.

Every group of people and every race did it. Heck, even the American Indians did it to each other. So what's the big deal? That is the very way countries were formed from mere collections of huts, then cities and then countries. So yes, you are correct.

The Constitution does guarantee liberty for everyone. I see no slaves today. The fact is that many people back then knew slavery was abhorring, it was the law of the land in this part of England, of which we were a part at the time of the Revolutionary War. It is true that many people let it go because of political expedience. They may never have gotten the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution passed if they drew a line in the sand and said no slaves. If there had been no slaves, then there may have been no country. The Constitution that did not free everyone immediately, eventually did.

The Constitution did not create slavery nor did it condone slavery. It did leave slavery in place that was here long before the Constitution was ever thought up, before any war of indepence was ever contemplated and within 74 years of its signing, the country fought the Civil War that ended slavery. The United States of America (not counting the Confederate States) lost 140,000 soldiers killed during the Civil War. The USA lost more people in a battle to free the slaves than in World War I, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War combined. Think about that for a minute.

It is a big deal.  It was a big deal when Hitler was conquering lands.  The Constitution DID NOT guarantee everyone freedom because at the time it was created...not all were free.  The fact that you state you see no slaves today is how it should have been from day one.  Didn't many people come here to escape religious persecutions and to be able to form a democratic society where all should have the rights to all that the Constitution represents?  I guess all of the formerly oppressed groups should just feel blessed that we've come so far?  Sorry, but if the foundation of our country states that ALL are guaranteed freedoms and liberties...ALL is a fairly defining word.  While I am glad that I am here, the fact that one group of people profited at the expense of another through oppression, abuse, neglect, murder, separating families...that turns my stomach as I type this.  I think that walking in other's shoes "may" change people's views.  Kind of gives a new perspective on things. 

No, the Constitution did not create slavery...in an indirect way, I would have to respectfully disagree that it did not condone it because through inaction, that's essentially what happened.  The fact that slavery existed...so.  Religious persecutions and dictators and all of the other potentially harmful ways of the world were also here before the Constitution was here, but again...those were also ideals and things that our forefathers believed should not be a part of our America.  The United States might not have lost 140,000 lives had slavery not been allowed to become a disgusting part of who we were supposed to be.

We just executed Saddam Hussein because of how he treated his countrymen (and others) and the atrocities that he masterminded and followed-through with and we want to lead these other countries to be a democratic society where freedoms are a "guarantee"...yet, it took us how long to guarantee those freedoms to our own citizens and countrymen?  How would you feel if you were a slave (a mother) whose "master" stole her child and sold that child to another owner because he was so determined to break her?  Not much different than what Hitler and the Nazis did during WWII. I would ask you to think about that for a little more than a minute.   

Slavery was accepted back then. I'm glad we abolished it, but it was not just in the United States. When you say selling a mothers child, they did that in Africa as well.  No matter what Country, it's still wrong. America figured that out over time. There is still slavery in Africa. I never hear blacks speaking negatively about Africa. Dick Vital actually thought African groups never took over lands. The more you look at both countries, the more we "were" the same.........now we are different in many ways, such as America has no slaves.

Accepted you say?  By who?  It shouldn't matter that "it was not just in the U.S."  Our U.S. was supposed to be better than that.  Who cares what they did in Africa?  Atrocities have happened all over the world, then and now...that does not justify (or at least should not justify) the atrocities of slavery in this country in the past.  And, you are right...the more we look at both countries and others, the more we were the same...except that America was supposed to be founded on the notion that EVERYONE was guaranteed FREEDOM and EVERYONE did not include EVERYONE until not so long ago.  From the initiation of the Constitution...America should have had no slaves. 

How would we feel if white people had been the slaves?  I know I wouldn't be a happy camper...or slave.  I would have a hard time believing that anyone would.  Of course, I would have probably been lynched or hanging in the next tree because what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong, no matter how convenient it may be to say...well, look at that country...they were doing it.  That's not very mature.  The nonchalantness is kind of disturbing...almost as much as the post about not caring about car bombs and children being killed.  Well, we could always justify our participation in slavery and oppression and all of the sins committed to keep it intact with the people setting off the car bombs and killing INNOCENT people.  NOT! 

I would like to point out that no slavery would have meant no Constitution, meaning a very loose union working under the Articles of Confederation and probably an eventual breakup, meaning no United States of America and making the eastern seaboard easier for the British to take back. All of the states had to ratify the Constitution, including the southern states. Do you really think that the southern states would have ratified the Constitution if it meant giving up their slaves? Our forefathers were already under fire for not having a bill of rights in the original Constitution and had to make a promise to add them post-ratification. They couldn't afford to make another controversial move. They had to make some concessions or face the loss of our then-infant nation.

I believe that slavery is morally wrong.

Now, that being said, this argument is about decisions made before our great, great, great, great grandparents were even gleams in the eyes of our great, great, great, great, great grandparents. There's no use in arguing the ethics of a 220+ year-old decision.

This thread is about the best decision/action President Bush made/took during his presidency. Let's get back to that. I'll start:

The creation of the Department of Homeland Security. This action organized all of our nation's various security agencies into one functioning body, increasing efficiency. It laid down department-wide standards that had to be upheld and precautions that had to be taken. DHS played a pivotal role in protecting a post-9/11 nation.

Anyone else care to offer something along these lines into the record? Remember, we're talking about the best thing President Bush did while in office.

Clinton was not faced with HALF the ridicule that Obama has, and he was involved in a MAJOR scandal while in office. Even with that said, and done, I would rather have THAT guy back than Bush. Look, we can go back and forth all day long...You are not going to change my mind about Bush being greedy and causing problems for America while in office, and I can't get you guys to realize that President Obama CAN and WILL run this country effectively....Just leave it at that. We all have our views and opinions at the end of the day...Right, left, black, white, green....It really should be about what's best for OUR country. I hope that we can at least agree on that.

If you quit bringing up all those points, then maybe we could agree on some things........but your the one that brought up Race!

Agreed. If you (DickVitale) would stop making false accusations, we wouldn't have a problem here.

I wouldn't mind seeing PN-G take on Dayton. It'd be interesting to see how things would turn out now that we have a new coaching staff and a new system. Another good game would be PN-G vs. WO-S. Both Dayton and WO-S would be challenging teams, but I think our new coaches and players could leave those games with a lot of experience.

Back then, it wasn't called "bullying," it was called "nation-building." It was deemed acceptable and it was something that every nation on the planet did.

Can you prove that President Bush was a "bully"? Can you offer me one tidbit of evidence that might even remotely incriminate him? No, you can't. All you can offer is a few, very questionable "documentaries" that were directed and produced by some very questionable characters. It could be argued that the very same people who have given you these "facts" were the true criminals. It could be argued that they were the ones with the personal agendas, that they were the ones with their own interests in mind, and that they, or, at least, several others of the same political connotation, have played a bigger part in the recent decline of our nation than any other party or politician, including President Bush.

(A) Bullying use to be called The Manifest Destiny and ( An example?  Sure, remember "Shock & Awe?

In response to (A), thanks for proving one small part of my point.

In response to (, Shock & Awe wasn't "bullying," it was a military operation designed to demoralize the Iraqi army by putting on, literally, a fireworks show by repeatedly bombing strategic targets or the remains thereof, causing a decline in the will to resist and ultimately saving American lives. "Bullying" suggests that the operation was pointless violence, and it most certainly was not. Virtually no lives were lost in Operation: Shock & Awe on either side. It was just a way to "soften up" Iraq, much the same way we did in Vietnam with Operations: Linebacker, Linebacker II, and Rolling Thunder and in WWII with the intense bombardments of Normandy immediately previous to Operation: Overlord and the various Pacific islands we took during our "Island Hopping" campaigns.

Guess what....He is STILL your president...Hate that, don't you? How can you with good conscience attempt to point the finger at HIM? You guys mentality is amazing. You and your people at FOX news did all you could to TRY to smear his name so that he wouldn't get the nomination...Didn't work...Then you tried to keep him out office during the campaign claiming he was Muslim....Still didn't work...Give up folks....He is here and he will continue to fix what Bush screwed up...Get over it...Move on...Next topic, please.

You are characterizing me as a racist based on the area I live in, and, frankly, I find that characterization insulting and slanderous. You, sir, are the ignoramus in this situation. You make claims with absolutely no evidence to affirm them and do so based solely on emotions and hearsay. I have nothing against President Obama based on his race or questionable religous background; my only concerns are based on his political positions and agendas. The idea that I am a racist is something that you are inferring with no factual basis whatsoever.

"From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this, though: despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there’s a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death." - David Feherty

I think that about sums it up for me as well.   8) ;D

  Anyway, she's about as truthful as Cheney......

Well then that makes it ok, huh? When does one stand on one's own two feet and stop pointing fingers? She has gotten herself into the same place as Obama....between a rock and a hard place. Bush's poilicies are looking better all the time. Maybe now, the ''fickle finger of fate'' will be pointed in the right direction.

Those policies in 'Not so Real America' still stink.  I could care less what she knew and when she knew it.  It wasn't Pelosi who said "we need to go to the dark side....." and it darn sure wasn't NP who gave the torture orders, okayed the memos---pre writing of them.  All Dick 'The Penquin' Cheney---former Vice Chicken Hawk.  Pelosi, as well as other Dems at the time, went along so they wouldn't seem 'soft' on terror in 'Real America'

Like I said earlier, when GWB gave the orders for the CIA to go into Afganistan----teaming up with the 'Northern Alience'(which had the help of Iran btw), they did good running the Taliban(remember them? they took credit for 9/11)out of Afganistan.  Then the NeoCons step in and Conned us all....

A car bomb ripped through a packed street in Pakistan's city of Peshawar TODAY and killed 11 people, including women and children, near an ice cream shop and Internet cafe Saturday, officials said.

The blast exploded in the densely populated Kashkal area of Peshawar, the northwest city where people have sought shelter after escaping a Pakistani military offensive against Taliban militants in three districts further north.

For those of you that think the war is over and that America is safe is living in a fantasy world.  Bush has a lot to do why those car bombs are exploding in Peshawar and not in our own backyard! For some of you, it's going to take another 9/11 to make you understand that.

Making excuses for Pelosi shows how far the left will go to protect it's own. You do realize she said she did not know, then she kinda knew. Do you really believe that?????    Pathetic!

Well you seem to be speaking for all the Chicken Hawks on this board.  Get off the keyboard and do something about it.  Go enlist and say you want to go to the Stands ASAP to protect 'Real America'

To be honest, I sometimes wear a 7.25 inch size tin hat.  Since Pakistan has no oil(that we know of), there won't be another hit here.  No need for the Carlyle group and others to use the Shock Doctrine to set up shop in Pakistan.....  ;D ;D

Thats really your response?? I guess I messed you up when I post facts.

thetragichippy, some people are just looking to blame someone else for the world's problems. It's sad that the man who protected us is taking the blame for doing his job.

Excellent post by stang and I will admit, tvc makes a fairly good point as well, but I have do disagree when you say that taking one's land is "no big deal". It is a VERY big deal...You don't see that as a wrong doing, tvc? Can you name a group of Africans that stole any land? What about on the Australian continent? You said it was a common practice and I sorely disagree with you...It was common among EUROPEANS, maybe, but it was not a common practice to bully land and cheat people out of what was already claimed. 

Its very funny how this culture has tried to rip everyone out of their own cultures and mold them into this European fairy tale.  For example, it is SO strange how every movie that portrays Cleopatra, shows her as this rich powerful white woman...She was EGYPTIAN...Last I checked Egypt is in AFRICA, and Cleopatra did NOT look like the one on the big screens or in the textbooks...However, this country was so adamant about hiding the truth, they want the public to believe that the QUEEN of EGYPT was a white woman..Thats just a single example, but this sort of thing has gone on for centuries, and yet today, the lies continue. Lets not even speak about how the Native Americans were ripped of THEIR culture.  When are we going to get the truth from this great country about what is real? No more fabrications...SLAVES BUILT this country, not the slave owners (your forefathers) It was built by SLAVES...Piece by piece, but you will NEVER see that part in a textbook for your kids to know the truth. Its time folks. Its time. And not taking away from what the anglo saxon race has done in their own right throughout history, because they fought and died for ALL our civil liberties too...But stop making excuses and tell the truth...I'm not a racist, just a realist...

Here is a link to an article about warring tribes in Africa:

Excellent post by stang and I will admit, tvc makes a fairly good point as well, but I have do disagree when you say that taking one's land is "no big deal". It is a VERY big deal...You don't see that as a wrong doing, tvc? Can you name a group of Africans that stole any land? What about on the Australian continent? You said it was a common practice and I sorely disagree with you...It was common among EUROPEANS, maybe, but it was not a common practice to bully land and cheat people out of what was already claimed. 

Its very funny how this culture has tried to rip everyone out of their own cultures and mold them into this European fairy tale.  For example, it is SO strange how every movie that portrays Cleopatra, shows her as this rich powerful white woman...She was EGYPTIAN...Last I checked Egypt is in AFRICA, and Cleopatra did NOT look like the one on the big screens or in the textbooks...However, this country was so adamant about hiding the truth, they want the public to believe that the QUEEN of EGYPT was a white woman..Thats just a single example, but this sort of thing has gone on for centuries, and yet today, the lies continue. Lets not even speak about how the Native Americans were ripped of THEIR culture.  When are we going to get the truth from this great country about what is real? No more fabrications...SLAVES BUILT this country, not the slave owners (your forefathers) It was built by SLAVES...Piece by piece, but you will NEVER see that part in a textbook for your kids to know the truth. Its time folks. Its time. And not taking away from what the anglo saxon race has done in their own right throughout history, because they fought and died for ALL our civil liberties too...But stop making excuses and tell the truth...I'm not a racist, just a realist...

Most notably, the British.

Here is a link to a list of indigenous Australian tribes that have fought over territory on the Australian continent for centuries:

Excellent post by stang and I will admit, tvc makes a fairly good point as well, but I have do disagree when you say that taking one's land is "no big deal". It is a VERY big deal...You don't see that as a wrong doing, tvc? Can you name a group of Africans that stole any land? What about on the Australian continent? You said it was a common practice and I sorely disagree with you...It was common among EUROPEANS, maybe, but it was not a common practice to bully land and cheat people out of what was already claimed. 

Its very funny how this culture has tried to rip everyone out of their own cultures and mold them into this European fairy tale.  For example, it is SO strange how every movie that portrays Cleopatra, shows her as this rich powerful white woman...She was EGYPTIAN...Last I checked Egypt is in AFRICA, and Cleopatra did NOT look like the one on the big screens or in the textbooks...However, this country was so adamant about hiding the truth, they want the public to believe that the QUEEN of EGYPT was a white woman..Thats just a single example, but this sort of thing has gone on for centuries, and yet today, the lies continue. Lets not even speak about how the Native Americans were ripped of THEIR culture.  When are we going to get the truth from this great country about what is real? No more fabrications...SLAVES BUILT this country, not the slave owners (your forefathers) It was built by SLAVES...Piece by piece, but you will NEVER see that part in a textbook for your kids to know the truth. Its time folks. Its time. And not taking away from what the anglo saxon race has done in their own right throughout history, because they fought and died for ALL our civil liberties too...But stop making excuses and tell the truth...I'm not a racist, just a realist...

Are you suggesting that a white actress should not be allowed to play the part of Cleopatra simply because she is white?

Typial SE Texas thought.... : :

That was a well thought out remark......... typical

That generally means, "I have no other comeback against the facts so I'll have to make some silly quip".

Exactly.  Notice how not one of them have refuted what you posted.

Why argue with the brainwashed Bush followers?....Waste of time...Thats the SE Texas way..  Once again if you folks think that the economic situation that we are in is not a DIRECT result of your boy George W., then you are dumber than I thought you were. HOW can you go back to the Clinton years and attepmt to blame THEM? Our economy was BOOMING during those years! Bush was a BULLY....Just like your forefathers were BULLIES back in their day...Thieves, liars, and backstabbers! ALL OF THEM....Sad. Wanna refute that fact? Didn't think you would. Just thought they could just TAKE what they wanted...JUST LIKE GEORGE W.

Were these not your forefathers as well?

Back then, it wasn't called "bullying," it was called "nation-building." It was deemed acceptable and it was something that every nation on the planet did.

Can you prove that President Bush was a "bully"? Can you offer me one tidbit of evidence that might even remotely incriminate him? No, you can't. All you can offer is a few, very questionable "documentaries" that were directed and produced by some very questionable characters. It could be argued that the very same people who have given you these "facts" were the true criminals. It could be argued that they were the ones with the personal agendas, that they were the ones with their own interests in mind, and that they, or, at least, several others of the same political connotation, have played a bigger part in the recent decline of our nation than any other party or politician, including President Bush.

National Security

I don't like it, but, with a $9 Billion drop in the budget, I guess we've got no other choice.

ozen's 05 and 06 game they lost by one point both years by the same score 26-25

Who did they play?

i am going with lc-m.coach crouch knows  the kids  and know what thay can do already becouse wo=s has played them a few times,he is no stranger to lc-m football

Maybe, but LC-M has had a rough few years. They've got a lot of rebuilding to do.

good point, blue dove.  no black man has ever beaten up a white man solely on the basis of race.  speaking of living in a dream world...

I knew you of all people would agree with me, but I was only refrring to TJ High in Port Arthur, Texas

How do you bullets13 or you BLUEOVE3 possibly KNOW that?  I'm following along with this thread because like you, I think it is important.  But please tell me how you have the knowledge that NO BLACK MAN (insert the number of Black Men in the USA) has NEVER beaten up a white man (insert the number of White Men in the USA) solely on the basis of race.  HOW DO YOU KNOW?

I could be wrong, but I think that bullets13 Q was being sarcastic. I don't know about BLUEDOVE3, though.

The poor people should go on an economic strike for 2-days and the you will see their importance in our society. The govt. has had to take stands to get rights for it's working poor. The ending of slavery was due to government intervention. The ending of Jim Crowism was due to govt. intervention. I guess I can see why some of you hate the govt. for interferring into your lives.

Did I say that all poor people are useless? No. I pointed out that there are quite a few who would rather sit at home and live off of our tax dollars than work (because, for some stupid reason, we enable them to do that), but I also said that there are working poor out there. These working poor have my respect moreso for their character and values than their importance to our economy. Those are the ones who, even though they know they can just live off the government like so many others, deserve the assistance and even commendation of our society.

Well, I guess that I wasn't offended by the whole goobers in beer joints comment like I was about the freeloaders from Section 8.  My point is you can see it from the outside and develop your opinions, but until you live in that world...you have no clue.  Seeing things from the outside doesn't compare to living in it.  You might have been exposed to some of it (seeing it in your mom's line of work), but it still is not the same. 

Trust me, my opinions are based on my life experiences.  I think that it would be a fair assumption to believe that most people do form their belief and value systems on their experiences.  Again, it all goes back to what people experience.

I, too, have seen kids of freeloaders turn to crime, but believe it or not, I have probably encountered as many who came from "non-freeloader" families who committed crimes, did drugs, etc.  I have seen many times (personally and professionally) what crack does to individuals, their families, and society, but I can't tell you why people "choose" to continue doing crack because I have never smoked crack.  It's too easy for us to sit on the outside and judge how & why people should act. 

I can tell you, though, that I have experienced Southeast Texas' ignorance on several issues...personally.  Based on those experiences, I have concluded that most of Southeast Texas could benefit from learning to respect others' cultures (and, I am not just talking about white people learning about black people...it should be across all cultural, racial, and religious spans).  I try to respect everybody's opinions...may not agree, but that doesn't mean that I won't voice my opinion.

P.S.  Could you please enlighten me on what new level we have suddenly reached?  I've had a long day and my brain isn't quite functioning like it should be.   

tragichippy...I don't recall much racial anything being taught in high school.  I would apologize for your thinking that I have been "racial double-standarding"...but, I don't believe I am.   

When it comes to drugs, yes, I have probably seen just as much of it from families that aren't dependant on the government, but, when it comes to violent crimes (i.e. murder, gang-related violence, assault, etc.), I have yet to see it out of economically independent families on the same scale as we see it in government-dependant families and housing complexes. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen; however, in my experience, it's less common.

Southeast Texas may be ignorant, but that is a societal problem, one that can (and probably will) work itself out in (a lot of) due time. The government has no place in telling people what their opinions should be, even on the race issue. Teaching people how to remain respectful, perhaps, but not their views on other races. I am not a racist, I just believe that people have a right to their opinion on anything for any reason at all, no matter how stupid that opinion is or that reason is, and that the government doesn't have the right to force people to have certain opinions. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, for whatever reason, and may freely express that opinion, so long as they do so in a respectful, courteous manner, and do not harm another. That's one of the founding virtues of our nation.

We've created a system for the "less fortunate" to sustain themselves with money from others while not actually earning money, themselves. Paychecks are earned, not given. We sustain ourselves through the fruit of our labors individually, not collectively. That's the beauty of America; we have the ability to chart our own course, put our own food on the table, clothe ourselves, and ultimately determine our own destiny. That's the idea this nation was founded on, and, in that light, the idea of providing for a class of people that refuses to provide for themselves is absurd.

That doesn't mean we need to do away with the welfare system, but we do need to revise it. We need to be rolling our able-bodied, able-minded welfare recipients, regardless of race, religion, or gender, into workforce development and place them in jobs, not allow them to sit at home (typically in Section 8 housing) and feed off the system and the hard-earned money of the working classes. The only people we need to take care of are the old, the orphaned, and the disabled (And when I say "disabled," I don't mean substance abusers. Other than the money used to throw them in jail, they have no business with our tax dollars.), and that's only if they can't afford to take care of themselves.

Again, and as I stated earlier, I don't believe that all welfare recipients are "freeloaders," but a great many of them are, and they have no business feeding off of our tax dollars. In other words, if you are physically and mentally capable of providing for yourself and intend to live off of government welfare, then you will work, you will contribute something to society, you will stay clean (mandatory drug tests all the way), and you will, eventually, become independent, regardless of whether or not you want too. Welfare should be about teaching capable people how to provide for themselves (much like the education system, which also needs some work, and I don't mean that we need to just throw money at it in hopes that it will go away), not providing for them.

Siphoning off millions of tax dollars during a recession, coupled with a bad bond proposal, is not anti-improvement.  I believe 3,200 other people will attest to that also.  So your idea of talking "up" the school district is throwing more money at it?  With all due respect, friend, this type of thinking is what got it defeated.  How about this novel approach:  Be a good steward with the tax dollars you have and as efficient as possible.  Remember: I questioned the maintenance dept. for letting the school get in such bad shape.  One maintenance individual wrote back and said it was the "administrations" fault.  I don't care who's at fault, just fix the problem. 

How about:  79%  --  21%   Sweet!

what will you do now smitty that the bond is over?  Next i guess you will finding other ways to talk down about the School district and the people that are in favor of improving their town.

smitty, you can only fix the leaks in the hull so many times before the ship finally sinks. You guys need new schools. Sometimes, the maintenance department doesn't have the equipment to fix the problem, and sometimes the school district's administration doesn't have the money to buy the equipment or to hire people who have the equipment. At some point, the school district will have no other choice but to replace those schools, and you're getting closer and closer to that point every time you fail a bond. I agree that this one seems like a little much (although I still thought it would have passed), but you're going to have to get new schools sometime soon.

race is not an issue in this case.  it amazes me how some folks try to make EVERY issue a racial issue.  if anything, had he been a black officer, he may never have been fired so that the department could avoid possible allegations of racism.

I think just as some of us bring up racial issues there is an opposing side who are in denial about how race affects our society. Just the fact that you have students in this area who have never had contact with kids from other races until they enter college still is hard for me to imagine. Bridge City, Lumberton, Vidor, etc. Race is real! Race denial is real too!

I lived in Port Arthur for 27 years.  It was a 50 50 mix of white and minorities. When I was in High School it was not a black white issue, it was a blacks/whites being racial against Asians and Vietnamese. You are the opposite extreme of white racism. Based on all your post, you use emotion to form a conclusion instead of facts.....OR you use one fact (a man is dead) without looking at any other facts.

S what does your statement have to do with my post above? Its a very true statement I say above.

I thought my post was pretty clear.  You claim that Bridge City, Lumberton and Vidor kids never have contact with other races. While maybe not in school, they do go to other places besides school.  I brought up my history to let you know I grew up in a diverse school district with friends of all races. So, my comments are not from a guy that was raised by the KKK.  As for Laws, rules or anything pertaining to the black race you see the glass half empty.  I reviewed your post and not one positive thing about race has been brought up by you. You have only supported the black side. I am trying to weigh out both sides and choose the side that's right. (not being political).  Dove, you seem to be passionate about your beliefs, and I like that.  More people might give your beliefs a second thought if you would look at all sides.

And, again, the very action of saying that they have not come into contact with people of other races just because of the area they live in is a characterization that is no better than one based on race. You've just replaced the race factor with the area factor.

I respect your opinion Bandkid but very much have to disagree. The voters didn't "overeact" to the boards decisions they reacted to them in the only way possible, by voting them out. The "old school" board created many of the problems you say we are turning around from. Two of the three that lost were long term members who had a say in many of the decisions to get us where we are today and the third was very close to those same decisions.

And the point that we're at today is a point of being poised for a turnaround, one that the school board, in part, got us to. That idea was the point of my entire comment. As much as I hate to say it, this school district has been going down since the 80's, and that decline was accelerated by the "Robin Hood" chapter and the recent hurricanes. We've been trying to turn that around for the last few years, we're about to do it, and that school board helped to get us this far. I just think that people took some things that the school board did out of context. Some assumed that there were ulterior motives when there was no evidence of such. It's just a little controversial.

If "qualifications" was an issue, then Obama would not be the president.

I am not knocking his win nor failing to acknowledge that he is the fair and square winner. Being elected doesn't mean that someone is the "most qualified" but someone that hopefully more people agree with on opinions.

There were certainly way more "qualified" candidates that were Democrats than Obama. They had their shot and lost. So did the GOP in the general election. Does not being as qualified as some other person negate the winner's legitimacy or the fact that the person ran on a ticket?

If so, we need to stop selecting our party nominees by primaries and caucuses and appoint a blue ribbon panel to list the people according to "qualifications". In the name of objectivity, we could even scale it by giving points for such things as:

1. Prior Senate/House experience.

2. Prior state level experience.

3. Cabinet experience.

4. Committee chairmanship experience.

5. College Degree(s).

6. Etc.

That way we could get the "most qualified" candidate and not simply the most popular.

History and everyday events tells us that most individuals are selected based on their popularity or who they know. Or better known as the good ole boy system.

I think the timing was just right for a person like Obama to come in and win (obviously). What I didn't like was the hatred that came out towards the man.

And I just think that he had a very effective, successful marketing strategy.

Much better than McCAIN & Palin...obviously

Like I said, sometimes slogans and plays on emotions are the best kinds of marketing strategies.

Although it does sound to me like you're admitting that President Obama won just because he said "Change," "Hope," and said that Republicans were bad. 

Seeing and experiencing are too completely different things.  And, "all of the freeloaders" don't live in section 8...some of them are the reason that we are where we are today, economically speaking.  Some of them pay big bucks looking for loopholes that allow them to continue freeloading.

I guess that you feel that way because your candidate did not win.  Just because Obama won does not mean that the people who voted for him were ignorant.  Both sides did their fair share of playing on people's emotions and slogans.  These "sad" times have been here for quite some time...we didn't just get here.

I did not say that people who voted for him, specifically, were ignorant. I said that there were ignorant votes on both sides, as displayed below.

I believe that more people cast an ignorant vote for both sides than in any other election in our history

Seeing and experiencing are too completely different things.  And, "all of the freeloaders" don't live in section 8...some of them are the reason that we are where we are today, economically speaking.  Some of them pay big bucks looking for loopholes that allow them to continue freeloading.

I guess that you feel that way because your candidate did not win.  Just because Obama won does not mean that the people who voted for him were ignorant.  Both sides did their fair share of playing on people's emotions and slogans.  These "sad" times have been here for quite some time...we didn't just get here.

Never did I say that all freeloaders live in Section 8 housing. Again, my response was to BLUEDOVE3's judgemental comment, which is pasted below.

Yep, she brought all the Goobers out of the beer joints

I love how you're not calling out BLUEDOVE3 for his judgemental comments, you're only calling me out for my seemingly judgemental comments.

Seeing and experiencing are too completely different things.  And, "all of the freeloaders" don't live in section 8...some of them are the reason that we are where we are today, economically speaking.  Some of them pay big bucks looking for loopholes that allow them to continue freeloading.

I guess that you feel that way because your candidate did not win.  Just because Obama won does not mean that the people who voted for him were ignorant.  Both sides did their fair share of playing on people's emotions and slogans.  These "sad" times have been here for quite some time...we didn't just get here.

What, exactly, is that supposed to mean? I've seen this ordeal countless times with my own two eyes. I've seen the freeloaders and the hard workers, and I've seen the children of the freeloaders who turn to crime and living off the system because they've never known anything better. I've seen all of it. Again, you're talking to the son of a social worker. I've grown up around this stuff, I've grown up going to the office with my mother and watching all of this unfold, and I can name countless experiences to back up everything I say. You're assuming that I have no experience in this field because of my point of view and the area in which I live and have grown up. You're taking the same judgemental action that you claim the good people of Southeast Texas do. You're characterizing me based on no factual information, whatsoever.

Seeing and experiencing are too completely different things.  And, "all of the freeloaders" don't live in section 8...some of them are the reason that we are where we are today, economically speaking.  Some of them pay big bucks looking for loopholes that allow them to continue freeloading.

I guess that you feel that way because your candidate did not win.  Just because Obama won does not mean that the people who voted for him were ignorant.  Both sides did their fair share of playing on people's emotions and slogans.  These "sad" times have been here for quite some time...we didn't just get here.

Yes, we have been here for a long time, and it's been getting worse and worse with every election, but we've reached a new level, and for you to deny that can be construed as the epitome of ignorance, much as you, BLUEDOVE3, and DickVitale (a.k.a. Quanell XYZ) like to try and characterize Southeast Texas as.

Seeing and experiencing are too completely different things.  And, "all of the freeloaders" don't live in section 8...some of them are the reason that we are where we are today, economically speaking.  Some of them pay big bucks looking for loopholes that allow them to continue freeloading.

I guess that you feel that way because your candidate did not win.  Just because Obama won does not mean that the people who voted for him were ignorant.  Both sides did their fair share of playing on people's emotions and slogans.  These "sad" times have been here for quite some time...we didn't just get here.

Oh, no ma'am. I don't feel this way just because Senator McCain didn't win. Most, if not all, of my opinions are based on my own real world experiences, of which I have many. I have felt the same way about these "freeloader" issues for most of my teenage years, and those opinions and feelings come from my own experiences with the welfare and social systems.