Mickey

Who said hate is one sided? Would you vote to keep those laws on the books or to take them off?

So let me get this straight, the REPUBLICAN governor of the state who strongly supports this referendum is using this as a political football??? Hmmmmm, that kind of doesn't make sense. This is really a family fight within the republican party in Alabama. You have the sane, rational republicans led by the governor on one side and some near raving lunatic republicans on the other. You say there is a ton of cash "apparently" wrapped up in this. Not so, read the links to the actual legislation. It does just what you advocate. It simply and literally crosses out the offensive language. Again, this is not simply my view, it is the view of the very conservative republican governor of Alabama.

The article does say that Voters Outreach of America is "also known as America Votes". Weird. Maybe VOA was also using the AV name to make registrants think they were democrats? If their goal was to attract democrat registrants so that they could trash their registrations so they couldn't vote in November, they might try and decieve the registrants into thinking the were somehow affiliated with AV. Weird. Have to see how this plays out.

That's why I said "if" you were in Alabama. That is a long way from Alaska. Unconstitutional? Riiight. They are blatantly unconstitutional and yet, taking them off the books is not a done deal. Either the people who want to keep them on the books are able to muster some argument supporting the constitutionality of those laws that I can't even imagine or they have some other reason for wanting to keep them around. Why would that be? I'm thinking racism is a good explanation. I am hoping that the people of Alabama vote for that referendum in huge numbers and that the 40% that went the other way on interracial marriage do better this time around.

Laws are changed all the time. It is what legislatures do. Legislators don't get paid by the hour. Picture a black kid in a civics class coming across a law in a book entitled "The Laws of the State of Alabama" or whatever they call their code, that says under the law he is not allowed to go to school with whites. Do you think he will be comforted to know that the law is not enforced? Defunct laws are routinely removed, otherwise, over the years you have a code that has tons and tons of laws and nobody can recall which are good and which aren't. It is simple housekeeping and normally doesn't cause much fuss. The fact that dumping this defunct set of laws in Alabama is a big deal is ridiculous.

...and so the proper response to concerns about affirmative action is to vote to keep racist laws on the books? Wasn't "whitey" pretty mean from say 1776 until around, oh, lets say 1964? What is that, 188 years of slavery followed by Jim Crow? I can see why they would be so put out by dealing with some affirmative action programs ove the last 30 years. Not every person who is against affirmative action is a racist. Anyone who is for keeping laws on the books that require segregation and prohibit interracial marriage, with few exceptions, is a racist.

I'm sure there are bib but I can only put up one post at a time and I couldn't find any predominantly black states with a history of segregating whites that were voting on a referendum to remove laws that are a relic of a racist past. When I do, I will be sure to post on it. There may be lots of black racists but they aren't very good at it. As far as I know, white racists were able to keep black slavery legal from 1776 until sometime after the civil war while black racists haven't managed to have white slavery legal for even a day. I think the lynching numbers still favor white racists over black racists by an impossibly large margin. Black racists haven't managed to pass any Jim Crow like legislation disenfranchising whites while white racists were able to accomplish that in more states than I will bother listing here. I confess that I am more concerned about white racists since there just seem to be so much more of them and the fact is, they are much better at it than black ones are. Black racists say things like "White people can't dance" while white racists say things like "blacks are not human". I find one attitude far more dangerous though technically, both are racist. My point isn't that republicans are racists but that they harbor too many. The governor of Alabama, a republican himself, would likely agree as he supports the referendum. How many republicans in this thread have responded with support for the referendum? All have found some reason to avoid the issue. Look at the responses which range from "democrats have racists too" and "those racist, discrimatory and illegal laws were not harming anyone". That is where the republicans on this board find themselves, so partisan that they can't just say, "yeah, those hateful, antiquated laws ought to be scratched". Would that be so very terrible? Why does this have to be an argument? If you were in Alabama would you vote to keep those laws on the books? If so, why? If you would vote to have them taken out, why?

Why don't you explain to me why 40% of Alabama voters wanted to keep a prohibition against interracial marriages on the books? Explain to me why it is that a republican governor has to fight to get a defunct law requiring segregated schools off the books in Alabama?

There is nothing attached to it. Opponents of the referendum are trying to convince people otherwise to give them a palatable reason to defeat the referendum. Here is a brief on the referendum: 03-203 Provides a constitutional amendment which, if approved by voters, would removes references to segregation of public schools from Alabama's constitution of 1901. Specifically, it would repeal portions of Section 256 and Amendment 111 relating to the separation of schools by race and portions of Amendment 111 concerning the constitutional construction against the right to education and Section 259, Amendment 90, and Amendment 109, relating to the poll tax. [H.587] You can read the text of the act including the provisions being changed at: Alabama Referendum The first change gets rid of the language that says: "Separate schools shall be provided for white and colored children, and no child of either race shall be permitted to attend a school of the other race." The next change simply elimenates language that permitted the state to shut down a school to preserve order. The only time it had been used was as an excuse to shutdown "black" schools to preserve public order. This law had stated that the state was not required to provide for public education which allowed the state to simply ignore black students which it often did. Technically, it could also opt not to educate white students which, of course, it has never done. The change requires public education which Alabama already does anyway, it just elimenates that exception which was historically used against black school children only. The last change with regard to schools was to repeal a law that allowed parents to pull their kids from a desegregated school to put them in a school "provided for their own race". The other changes are not school related and simply remove the poll tax laws still on the books. Having examined the text of the act, I see nothing but changes removing the last traces of Jim Crow from the Alabama Code. Where is the pork you speak of so authoritatively? The governor of Alabama is a republican and he supports this referendum, is he a champion of pork which is apparently your take or, is it possible that there are some republican extremists out there who do not want to see the last vestiges of segregation removed as I surmise? Afterall, there were 40% of Alabama voters just 4 years ago who were against removing the prohibitions against interracial marriage. Was there also pork attached to that act? I suppose it is just a coincidence that Bush has such a strong lead in a state where 40% of the people voted to make interracial marriage illegal and where a governor actually has to fight to get rid of overturned laws supporting segregated schools. Who do you think those 40% of extremists are going to vote for? When the Republicans talk about a "big tent", I guess they mean it is large enough to accomodate die hard racists.

...that they own this state. There is a referendum this year on getting rid of the laws still on the books requiring separate education facilities for blacks and whites. Segregationist laws are still on the books in many southern states and Alabama is no exception. Oddly enough, the referendum may not pass. Four years ago a similar referendum dumping the prohibition on interracial marriages passed but a whopping 40% voted to keep the law on the books. The Judge who fought so hard to ram the 10 commandments down everyone's throat is opposing this referendum. Bush now leads Kerry in 'Bama, 59-22 with 19% undecided. Of course, if you took away that racist 40% from Bush, it would be a toss up state. I'm thinking that bodes well for democrats in the south in the future. As race fades as an issue as it inevitably will, even in Alabama, democrats will be increasingly viable south of the Mason-Dixon. For now though, Bush is welcome to that 40%. Alabama to vote on Segregation

I think he will go with the "nuisance" thing first, repeat it a few dozen times and then slip into the "wrong war, wrong time" refrain with some "global tests" sprinkled liberally through out. Of course, the fact that those are all foreign policy sound bytes and this is a domestic policy debate won't matter. He will squeeze them in somehow.

I guess the story was too long for you to read it all. You apparently missed this part: "Eric Russell managed to retrieve a pile of shredded paperwork including signed voter registration forms, all from Democrats. We took them to the Clark County Election Department and confirmed that they had not, in fact, been filed with the county as required by law." The employees actually presented trashed voter registrations and they were all democrats. They were checked to see if those people were ever registered and they were not. I know you have an entirely different standard for acceptable evidence when the issue is democratic malfeasance so I am not surprised.

So does the LA Times site.

The RNC funded these crooks??????? Somebody should go to jail but since the FBI is doing the investigating, I am sure that won't happen.

With the electoral college, the election always comes down to a numbers game and this year is no different. The LA Times has a great feature on their site that has an interactive map. The reds are Bush, the blues are Kerry and the whites are swing states. You can turn any state to white, red or blue and see how it effects the race. It has the latest poll numbers from each state as well. Basically, Wisconsin, Florida, NH and Ohio are very, very close. Assuming that each candidate wins where he is currently ahead, the election comes down to Florida. NH is a dead tie but it has too few votes to send either over the top. Florida has one poll showing Bush ahead and an overlapping poll showing Kerry ahead. The latest poll in Ohio has Kerry ahead if only by the barest of margins. The latest in Wisconsin has Bush ahead, but just barely. The same is true in New Mexico. The result is that it all comes down to finicky Florida once again. I give Bush the edge for now. Kerry can only win if he takes Ohio and Florida while Bush can lose Ohio and still win if he gets Florida. His brother is the governor, it is still a southern state so I have to give Bush the ege there. One of the closest scenarios is if Kerry wins Ohio and Wisconsin but loses Florida. He is ahead in Ohio and only behind in Wisconsin by 2%. It could happen. That would put the entire election into the hands of New Hampshire which is dead even at 47%-47% with 6% undecided. What this means is that if Kerry loses NH, he can't win the election without Florida as the only way to overcome losing Florida is to sweep Wisconsin, Ohio and NH. If Kerry somehow pulls it off in Florida but loses in Ohio and Wisconsin, once again, it all comes down to NH. He who wins there, wins it all. If Kerry does win Florida, Bush is in the same predicament of having to sweep Wisconsin, Ohio and NH. Here is my favorite scenario just because it will result in Bush being declared the winner before midnight EST but by dawn the next day Kerry will emerge as the winner leaving the entire media speechless. I call this the "N-state" theory as it involves states starting with the letter "N". It goes like this: Kerry loses Florida and Wisconsin so that he can't get the Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Ohio sweep needed to overcome the loss of Florida although he does win in Ohio and New Hampshire. As the nation, at least the eastern half, goes to bed, it is clear that Bush is going to win. However, during the night, the late returns form western states Nevada and New Mexico start coming in and despite narrow Bush leads in the polls before election day, Kerry nabs both of them. Why not? New Mexico has voted for the dem. candidate in '92, '96 and '00. Nevada is well within the margin of error and went for a democrat 3 out of the last 4 elections. In that scenario, Kerry uses New Hampshire, Nevada and New Mexico to overcome the loss of Florida and win 272-266. The "N" states rule over the states from lesser parts of the alphabet. The wild card in all of this is the number of new voter registrations. The polls are largely based on "likely voters" and to get in to that category so that you are contacted by a pollster, you have to have voted in some prior election. That means that these new voters are not really being figured into these polls. Accordingly, there is no reason to beleive that the polls are all that accurate in the states that are really close. Bottom line, I don't think I will go to bed that night having any idea who the winner is.

Let's see, "freak", "wacky" and "assmonkey". How nice to have you around, you add so much.

We didn't know that Sullivan and Williams and Teague and Rube were going to be that bad. Your comment on not adding 5 good lineman as opposed to changing QB's doesn't make sense. Let me start out with one simple truism: there is no offensive plan, theory, or play that does not require effective blocking to succeed, none. The idea that you can have a QB elusive enough to make plays behind the worst line in football is delusional. There is no such QB in existence. Take a look at Michael Vick this year, he is learning that. The idea that a better QB would take substantially fewer sacks than Drew does is just silly. Face it, there is no remedy for a bas line. That is why no matter who the coach is, who the QB is or what strategy they use, the result is the same. If you don't block, you don't win. Take Losman. Is he more mobile than Drew? I am sure he is. Is he Houdini? Is he a better scrambler than McNabb or Vick? Not hardly. Do you really think that Losman can succeed behind a line that does not block? Do you really think that Losman is good enough to make Seymour and Bruschi miss if they come in unblocked on a play busted because the RB went the wrong way? Why do people have such a hard time absorbing the concept that you can't move the ball without blocking. We are going to need a revamped line no matter who our QB is.

It is not about hate, it is about making bad decisions and he has made plenty. He hired Greg Williams and even he will tell you that was a mistake, afterall, he is the one who fired him, right? That was the most important decision he has made as our GM and it was a bust, a total bust. He decided to let Price go and drafted Reed to be his replacement. Those two decisions were so good that we had to spend our first round pick on a receiver this year. Reed was a second round pick. That means we could have paid Price the $ needed to keep him and saved ourselves two top picks. What kind of offensive line would we have with a first and second rounder on there? You applaud him for McGahee? Not me. We did not need and could not afford Willis. Travis was fine. We could have drafted Eric Steinbach, the best guard in the draft. Instead we are starting Smith, a no talent nobody. Even when Willis is out there and playing well, that just means that Travis is gathering dust on the bench and he is a 2nd round pick himself. Either way you end up with a top pick riding the pine. TD drafted Henry. Either that was a good pick and we didn't need Willis or it was a bad pick so we had to take Willis. No matter how you cut it, that is two top picks in exchange for only one starter. The highest pick he made for this team was Mike Williams. Result? Major bust so far. He traded up to get Denny so he cost us two picks. He turned out so good that we had to draft another LDE, Kelsay. That is 3 picks to try and get one decent starter and we still don't have one yet at LDE. He also signed Posey who, at best, has been no more than serviceable. He wouldn't sign Hollis to a decent contract and instead signed Lindell. He has made some good moves like Fletcher and to a much less extent, Spikes. The bottom line though is that he has not made any "finds" in the draft or FA. He has had to pick multiple time to try and fill the same holes and still, they are open. The results of his work are on the field every Sunday for all to see and it ain't good.

What is your point? These are very, very bad people. I am not aware of anyone on the board that holds a contrary viewpoint. If your point is that we are better than them because we don't decapitate prisoners, bravo. Thank goodness you are around to settle that burning controversy.

Find them and kill them. No need for torture, just kill them. We can't scare them into submission, we can't talk them out of what they do, they can't be negotiated with or intimidated. They can be killed. What is more, we have a pretty good idea where they are on the Afghan/Pakistan border. We have been afraid and too few in that area to go after them in their strongholds. That needs to change but that will have to wait until the whole Iraqi diversion is done with.

I am not sure it is fair to characterize Kerry as a "peace activist" based on what he did in 1972. Would it be fair to characterize Bush as nothing but a drunk driver? I know I am not the same person I was in 1972. People grow and learn and change. Kerry had no kids back then. I can't think of anyone who is the same person as a parent as they were before they had kids. As far as his plan being based on what people want to hear, I disagree. If anything that is what the Bush plan, if you can call it a plan, is based on. All this stuff about us being safer than we were is precisely what people want to hear. The truth is, OBL and AQ are still at large and growing in numbers. Their operations are expanding. More and more people are dying. As much power as we have now in Iraq, we are unable to prevent the enemy from hitting Iraqi police recruits over and over and over with car bombs. How long is it before we see the same tactics here in the US? Not long I fear. The only real plan left to us anyway is to build stable governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is what the next President is going to have to try and accomplish no matter who is elected. The question is whether Bush, the most hated and despised man in the Middle East and many parts of Europe, is the best person to get that job done or if Kerry would do a better job. As this involves predicting the future, no one know the answer for sure. What we do know is that the pre-war diplomatic effort was an abject failure. The military aspects of the invasion was a success. The post-war effort has thus far failed pretty spectacularly from Abu Ghraib to the latest beheading. Lastly, the pre-war intel upon which the war was justified has unraveled before the world making us look, well, a little stupid frankly. Say what you want about France, they were right about the WMD's, they were not deceived by the faulty intel that the administration embraced as gospel truth. That is the Bush record so far. Would Kerry have done any better? I can only speculate. At this time however, I have lost all confidence in the President's judgment and in the competence of his administration. This leaves me little choice but to give Kerry a chance.

Yeah, but you have to figure that given the utter lack of respect for the Constitution on the right and their willingness to change it whenever it gets in their way, there will probably be an effort to change it to allow Bush to run again or, in the alternative, to allow Arnold to run.

Riiighhht. If we did that, then the next time we complained that they tortured someone, they would say, "so what? so do you". At that point, the only response we would have, and it would be a pretty weak one, would be "oh yeah? but you started it". When we make our case to others we would use what they do as proof that they are barbarians, uncivilized killers. The response would be "yeah, but you are doing the same thing" and again, our weak response would be "but they started it". Why haven't we learned yet that they do not care if they die or are tortured? They are willing to strap a bomb on their back, jump on a bus crowded with kids and then blow themselves to pieces. Just how thick and slow do you have to be before you learn that they don't care about getting killed? We won't win this war simply by trying to out butcher the terrorists. We need to be a lot smarter than that.

Yeah, that is exactly what he meant, don't be an idiot. He would like to see terrorism reduced to that level, wouldn't you? And we wonder why all we ever get from either candidate is canned stump speeches sanitized to the point of having no meaning. Could it be that if they ever say anything that could possibly be twisted into something ridiculous it is and then propagated from idiot to idiot like a virus that feeds on morons?

I would love to see a decent LG and C for just one game, just to see what happens.