Obama and his cronies are at it again...

bacon.jay

I can't believe the feds actually reversed this ruling, let alone even interfered with something on such a local level. Absolutely rediculous, not to mention how insulting it is to the intelligence of the voting public in the area referred to...

Justice Dept: Blacks MUST Have Democrat Label To Know How To Vote

smbrink

I am truly at a loss for words...

jsnake

I have nothing nice to say so......

phobicsquirrel

I think what this all means is that there needs to be two parties, not only one. I could be wrong but that is what I got from it.

stephen_hannibal

WOW... and I'm black....

Vulchor

I am truly suprised to see anything controversial or one-sighted, or dare I even say written for the closed minded, written from the award winning, pulitzer prize authors at "gopusa.com"-----usually the beacon of light in the darkness of the news media.

phobicsquirrel

Vulchor:

I am truly suprised to see anything controversial or one-sighted, or dare I even say written for the closed minded, written from the award winning, pulitzer prize authors at "gopusa.com"-----usually the beacon of light in the darkness of the news media.

lol.... people only read headlines, didn't you know...?

bacon.jay

Vulchor:

I am truly suprised to see anything controversial or one-sighted, or dare I even say written for the closed minded, written from the award winning, pulitzer prize authors at "gopusa.com"-----usually the beacon of light in the darkness of the news media.

I think I'm detecting some sarcasm... Haha

kuzi16

Vulchor:

I am truly suprised to see anything controversial or one-sighted, or dare I even say written for the closed minded, written from the award winning, pulitzer prize authors at "gopusa.com"-----usually the beacon of light in the darkness of the news media.

the left has never posted anything that is one sided... or wrong for that matter.

Vulchor, you often give critical comments of the political right with very little explanation or evidence supporting your side. you refuse to look at any evidence when it IS presented to you especially if you feel it is from a "biased" news source.

....yet you call yourself open minded.

the fact of the matter is, there are facts on both sides. FOX news does lean to the conservative side, but they do present facts that are true. there are news sources that lean left (MSNBC for example) that also produce facts.

i dont know too much of this story, but to be quite honest, it doesnt matter because im sick of you hate mongering and bashing anything that isnt liberal in scope. just because you dont agree with it does not make it "illogical" or "wrong"

it makes it different.

as a liberal you should understand that people have different points of view and live differently than yourself.

quit being so intolerant.

kuzi16

BTW, i can tell you didnt read or care about the article because there is a link to the washington times that confirms the entire story...

Justice concludes black voters need Democratic Party

Vulchor

kuzi16:

Vulchor:

I am truly suprised to see anything controversial or one-sighted, or dare I even say written for the closed minded, written from the award winning, pulitzer prize authors at "gopusa.com"-----usually the beacon of light in the darkness of the news media.

the left has never posted anything that is one sided... or wrong for that matter.

Vulchor, you often give critical comments of the political right with very little explanation or evidence supporting your side. you refuse to look at any evidence when it IS presented to you especially if you feel it is from a "biased" news source.

....yet you call yourself open minded.

the fact of the matter is, there are facts on both sides. FOX news does lean to the conservative side, but they do present facts that are true. there are news sources that lean left (MSNBC for example) that also produce facts.

i dont know too much of this story, but to be quite honest, it doesnt matter because im sick of you hate mongering and bashing anything that isnt liberal in scope. just because you dont agree with it does not make it "illogical" or "wrong"

it makes it different.

as a liberal you should understand that people have different points of view and live differently than yourself.

quit being so intolerant.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks Kuz.....Ill be quiet now, and not as intolerant as I have been. Please continue your elitest talk and over inflated ego as too the value of your opinion on various topics, as well as redundant speech on what the constitution says and doesnt say. Also, please delight us with long retorts to statements with your own quotes and links to "evidence" that only someone with too much time on their hands has. Also, dont forget to take each persons statement and try to prove how your always right and they are always wrong----even on topics and discussions where your not invovled. I will sit quietly and watch. btw....not a liberal.

stephen_hannibal

kuzi16

Vulchor:

kuzi16:

Vulchor:

I am truly suprised to see anything controversial or one-sighted, or dare I even say written for the closed minded, written from the award winning, pulitzer prize authors at "gopusa.com"-----usually the beacon of light in the darkness of the news media.

the left has never posted anything that is one sided... or wrong for that matter.

Vulchor, you often give critical comments of the political right with very little explanation or evidence supporting your side. you refuse to look at any evidence when it IS presented to you especially if you feel it is from a "biased" news source.

....yet you call yourself open minded.

the fact of the matter is, there are facts on both sides. FOX news does lean to the conservative side, but they do present facts that are true. there are news sources that lean left (MSNBC for example) that also produce facts.

i dont know too much of this story, but to be quite honest, it doesnt matter because im sick of you hate mongering and bashing anything that isnt liberal in scope. just because you dont agree with it does not make it "illogical" or "wrong"

it makes it different.

as a liberal you should understand that people have different points of view and live differently than yourself.

quit being so intolerant.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks Kuz.....Ill be quiet now, and not as intolerant as I have been. Please continue your elitest talk and over inflated ego as too the value of your opinion on various topics, as well as redundant speech on what the constitution says and doesnt say. Also, please delight us with long retorts to statements with your own quotes and links to "evidence" that only someone with too much time on their hands has. Also, dont forget to take each persons statement and try to prove how your always right and they are always wrong

it is very clear that you have no idea what a debate is. if i am in a debate, it only makes sense to try and prove my point. if i just flatly agreed with everything i would be spineless and there would be no debate.

im sorry if you feel that i have too much time on my hands. It just so happens that i enjoy reading political banter as a hobby. if you have a hobby in any way shape or form does that also mean that you have too much time on your hands?


are you telling me to butt out of public conversations on a forum? if you dont want me involved in your conversation, please keep it in PMs or on a forum that i am not on. otherwise, expect anyone to chime in at any point.
even if they are not involved

you have also done the same thing on other threads. I dont complain that you join in. i just challenge you to prove me wrong.
(you never have.)

...but you do make excuses that you dont have time to
or that i have too much time on my hands.
or claim that all my sources are biased.


feel free to talk of how i have too much time on my hands, or that i am an idiot for taking the political stance i have taken, or using the references that i use, or typing long winded responses to others posts.

i am going to continue to read much as i can in an attempt to further my hobby of political/economic awareness.

Vulchor

yeah!!!!

Thewelder

Just to throw it out there I'm down the middle. But did anybody read the Washington times article or just the GOP? When it comes down to it it doesn't matter if the guy is Dem or Rep. This is quoted from the page two paragraph one "Others noted the absurdity of partisan elections since Kinston is essentially a one-party city anyway; no one among more than a half-dozen city officials and local residents was able to recall a Republican winning office here." So even if it as partisan or not a Republican isn't going to be losing or winning the place of office.

jihiggs

if george bush said it, there would be a riot.

clearlysuspect

The Washington Post article quoted one person as saying "This is un-American!"

Although I do not agree with the reasons that the Justice Department gave for rejecting the vote, according to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, they are acting completely within their rights to resend the vote. Therein, any changes to voting laws must be approved by the Justice Department.

I believe this goes back to the thread "Is America a Democracy?" If it were, then the popular vote would be upheld and there is nothing the Justice Department could do. However, since we are a republic and governed by law, not majority, the law is on the side of the Justice Department.

phobicsquirrel

Vulchor:

yeah!!!!

That's probably the best thing to say. Kuzi likes to say that "you prove me wrong" speech but really it doesn't matter. As I have pointed out in a few threads or two proving him wrong on how since the 80's and especially the last 8 years of the deregulation on wallstreet, the banks and large corporations however he keeps on wanting more (just as one example). I'm not attacking him but my point is that I have tried as has Urby and Laker on other issues. And the simple fact is that if deregulation works then this whole mess would not be unfolding in terms of the economy and what-not. About this thing on the voters, I really haven't dug deep enough into it but I'm thinking that what the justice department wants is a two party voting system there as that does make sense. I personally think since both parties have proven themselves unable to really do what is needed it is time to either get the money out of the political areana and/or bring in other parties so that instead of just a 2 party race, we have 3 or 4. I liked the 3 party debates we had in the 90's. Also you have to realize that all these people who scream when obama farts said NOTHING while this country was torn apart the last 8 years. So that really sums it up. Republican's did nothing for this country the last 8 years, and dem's are quite simply not doing nearly enough to get things back where they should be and yes I know it's only been 10 months and this all took many years to get to this point but no regulations have been put in place, the infrastructure money that was suppose to be mostly made up of the stimulus bill got slashed (mind you 2.2 trilion dollars is needed to get our infrastructure to a , the emissions bill got hammered, so yeah it's something but not enough. I personally wish, I REALLY WISH both parties could come together and do what is best for this nation instead of trying to quabble over money and their business masters. Big business(s) are not what makes AMERICA great, the people are and I think Washington needs to get that through their heads or things are going to get much, much worse.

TatuajeVI

squirrel - deregulation does work, but it is certainly not an exact science, nor was it truly ever "deregulation." I would argue that a good portion of the housing market mess was made by REGULATION, not deregulation. Our Federal government forced banks to give loans out to unqualified people for years. This was under the false assumption that housing prices always go up! When the housing market crashed, those who "bit off more than they could chew" defaulted on their loans. When you are not required to put a down payment on a house, it DOES get more people to purchase homes, but from a buyers standpoint, when this house you just purchased is now worth 50% of what you paid for it, it's hard to imagine ever making your purchase cost back. So bankruptcy or defaulting on loans is an easier choice.

I would also say that REGULATION, not deregulation, is a large part of why our auto industry has been failing for so long. Our Federal government (and my incredibly incompetent State government) has been taxing and regulating the ever-living-crap out of the auto-industry since before I was born. When our government forces the auto industry to meet higher and higher fuel economy standards, that is regulation. If the auto industry was allowed to decide for themselves (or rather the Market would essentially tell them what consumers want) that would be deregulation. Course you will NEVER see that in our lifetime. Big Business rarely ever deals with deregulation - our Federal and State governments have far too much of their filthy paws in ALL business.

You'll notice I didn't mention the Left or the Right. Or Dems/Republicans. I have pretty much lost faith in all of them. So have many on the Right. In general, you could say the Left wants more regulation/control, but the Right isn't much better.

Vulchor

Tat, you make some good points and I can see some of them. But on the overall, I think the auto regulation-----if done like it shoudl have been, wouldve made the manufacturers make better cars instead of losing out to overseas makers as we have. The failure to enforce better gas mileage, better made cars, ect. has helped to make Toyota and other the giant they are today-----and while I love a good deal, I do try to support American business as much as I can.As far as loans and mortgages failing due to too much regulation, I cant see this arguement at all. It is greed and the desire for the higher profit (no matter what the cost) combined with Regan and Bush era deregulation that ruined banks and the credit market-----although just to blame them is unfair, as it is a HUUUUUUUGE picture issues with a lot of variables.And indeed squirrel, its best to just agree with some people who have a real need for that "ego boost", cant debate anything when someone cant fathom the idea they may ever be wrong.

PuroFreak

It's funny, because you both always argue that there has been less governemnt involvment, but neither of you have pointed to how that is true. There are hundreds and thousands of new government regulation on the housing market since the 70's, how can you honestly call that de-regulation? That is what doesn't make sense to me... Same goes for the auto industry.

Vulchor

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.-----Bertrand Russell

PuroFreak

Vulchor:

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.-----Bertrand Russell

But when a man is offered no evidence, he tends to think it's a load of B.S. and there still has not been any evidence that any industry has actually had any de-regulation. There may have been some regualtions done away with, but when you take away one and add 10... That is hardly de-regulation.

gmill880

Vulchor:

Tat, you make some good points and I can see some of them. But on the overall, I think the auto regulation-----if done like it shoudl have been, wouldve made the manufacturers make better cars instead of losing out to overseas makers as we have. The failure to enforce better gas mileage, better made cars, ect. has helped to make Toyota and other the giant they are today-----and while I love a good deal, I do try to support American business as much as I can.As far as loans and mortgages failing due to too much regulation, I cant see this arguement at all. It is greed and the desire for the higher profit (no matter what the cost) combined with Regan and Bush era deregulation that ruined banks and the credit market-----although just to blame them is unfair, as it is a HUUUUUUUGE picture issues with a lot of variables.And indeed squirrel, its best to just agree with some people who have a real need for that "ego boost", cant debate anything when someone cant fathom the idea they may ever be wrong.

On the banking debate - I saw first hand how the govt can cause mortgages to fail ...As a mortgage loan officer I packaged a mortgage and sent in to underwriting even though it failed all bank guidelines because to put it bluntly we were told if the customer is black send it anyway ( I dont mean for this to offend anyone and I'm not being racist just telling what happened) They turned it down flat and my supervisor called and wanted to know why I even sent it in !!! I advised him this was a black couple. He says " ohh - ok I'll get back to you" Long story short in a few days it was approved !!! Customer could nor afford it and was behind alot while I still worked there. Now tell me regulation has nothing to do with mortgage failures !!! Saw it , was involved in it , know it ...I'm just sayin'...this is not an opinion or point of view... it is fact ...period !!!

PuroFreak

http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/

Take a look for yourself if you don't believe me... Look at all the new government laws that have been enforced just on the housing market and show me how this is a case of de-regulation failing...

Vulchor

If they have no money, are there no prisons? Are there no poor houses? If it should be they die, then get to it....and help decrease the surplus population-----------Ebeneezer Scrooge

Vulchor

gmill880:

Vulchor:

Tat, you make some good points and I can see some of them. But on the overall, I think the auto regulation-----if done like it shoudl have been, wouldve made the manufacturers make better cars instead of losing out to overseas makers as we have. The failure to enforce better gas mileage, better made cars, ect. has helped to make Toyota and other the giant they are today-----and while I love a good deal, I do try to support American business as much as I can.As far as loans and mortgages failing due to too much regulation, I cant see this arguement at all. It is greed and the desire for the higher profit (no matter what the cost) combined with Regan and Bush era deregulation that ruined banks and the credit market-----although just to blame them is unfair, as it is a HUUUUUUUGE picture issues with a lot of variables.And indeed squirrel, its best to just agree with some people who have a real need for that "ego boost", cant debate anything when someone cant fathom the idea they may ever be wrong.

On the banking debate - I saw first hand how the govt can cause mortgages to fail ...As a mortgage loan officer I packaged a mortgage and sent in to underwriting even though it failed all bank guidelines because to put it bluntly we were told if the customer is black send it anyway ( I dont mean for this to offend anyone and I'm not being racist just telling what happened) They turned it down flat and my supervisor called and wanted to know why I even sent it in !!! I advised him this was a black couple. He says " ohh - ok I'll get back to you" Long story short in a few days it was approved !!! Customer could nor afford it and was behind alot while I still worked there. Now tell me regulation has nothing to do with mortgage failures !!! Saw it , was involved in it , know it ...I'm just sayin'...this is not an opinion or point of view... it is fact ...period !!!

Your bank made the deciision to pursue the matter, forfear of being sued due to discrimination. No one at the end of the day is responsible for giving that loan than the bank...period. Shoudl have have been denied? Your d@mn right they should have, then get busy denying....not granting loans that will likely fail under the hope of success which would mean more money because of the higher interest rate.

PuroFreak

Vulchor:

If they have no money, are there no prisons? Are there no poor houses? If it should be they die, then get to it....and help decrease the surplus population-----------Ebeneezer Scrooge

Thats about what I expected. You have nothing to back up your case so you make some irrelevant quote that is in no way productive in the debate. Regulation is what has choked this country into the trouble it is in.

Vulchor

You can do a search as easy as I can and find dozens of links about the problems and amount of deregulation----then youll say every one is wrong and your souces are right......yeah, let me waste my time on trying to influence your close minded beliefs.....lol, sure.

PuroFreak

Vulchor:

You can do a search as easy as I can and find dozens of links about the problems and amount of deregulation----then youll say every one is wrong and your souces are right......yeah, let me waste my time on trying to influence your close minded beliefs.....lol, sure.

Oh, so you expect me to do the things you try to do... Like discredit any source someone puts forth like you did with the story from the GOP website... So this is a whole do as I say not as I do type of thing huh?

Vulchor

yes, yes----thats the ticket!!!!!lol