Boortz: "[S]ome time over the next couple of weeks, Cynthia McKinney will show her ass again"
After previously referring to Rep. Cynthia McKinney as "a welfare drag queen," calling her a "ghetto slut," and claiming that a recent haircut made her "look[] like ghetto trash," Neal Boortz stated, on June 20, that "some time over the next couple of weeks, [Rep.] Cynthia McKinney [D-GA] will show her ass again."
During a conversation with Jamie Dupree, a Cox Radio Washington correspondent, on the June 20 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Neal Boortz stated: "As ... sure as I'm going to stick my foot in my mouth some time over the next couple of weeks, [Rep.] Cynthia McKinney [D-GA] will show her ass again." Dupree responded, "I'll move onto other things, before I hit Media Matters." Boortz then said: "That wasn't a very pleasant thought."
Boortz previously referred to McKinney as "a welfare drag queen," likened her to a "ghetto slut," and claimed that a recent haircut made her "look[] like ghetto trash." Several days after making those remarks, Boortz appeared to apologize to McKinney, stating: "Well, I've known Cynthia McKinney for a long time, and there is no way in the world that that word should be used to describe her or her hairdo or any woman -- unless she really is -- or her hairdo."
From the June 20 broadcast of Cox Radio Syndication's The Neal Boortz Show:
DUPREE: Onto ethics, you referenced it on your webpage -- the police unions up here backing the officer who was involved in that incident with Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, urging the House Ethics Committee to investigate. The interesting part about this is the way that the Ethics Committee rules are set up now in the Congress: Outside groups cannot spur an investigation by the committee. Another lawmaker would have to submit a complaint or the committee would have to decide to look into that. Part of me says it's the last we've heard of this, but part of me says maybe some Republican wants to stir up a hornet's nest and see if they can keep it going. We'll see.
BOORTZ: Well, as soon as a Republican did that, they'd be branded as a racist.
DUPREE: I don't know about that.
BOORTZ: Oh, come on, that's a cinch.
DUPREE: I don't know. I don't know. Maybe a political opportunist, a little more.
BOORTZ: We just wait for Cynthia McKinney to do it again. As -- as sure as I'm going to stick my foot in my mouth some time over the next couple of weeks, Cynthia McKinney will show her ass again. We just sit and wait for it to happen.
DUPREE: I'll move onto other things, before I hit Media Matters. A jury today --
BOORTZ: That wasn't a very pleasant thought.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
Boortz is a ghetto slu*. He lives in the same city with Mckinny, so he has his radar tuned in on her.
Boortz, do something productive for a change.
should keep is pre-civil war nostalgic desires to himself. If she did in fact show her "a$$" he would have a heart attack.
...long before McKinney "shows her ass" again.
Boortz and bor. Christ, republicans are scum. As for showing ones ass,
Ah, so I have no current plans to indict rove is this tremendous vindication but no Mc Kinney indictment is a travesty of justice. You live by the sleaze, you die by the sleaze.
She's really off the hook. We'll see about rove.
Because if you or I or any other ordinary citizen hit a cop, we would not be allowed to waltz off and then be let off the hook in a couple of months. We would probably be face down on the ground with a knee in our backs being cuffed.
Surprisely though, I do not want anything to happen to keep her our of office. She is too valuable as a poster child for the radical left. Also, she is such a caricature that no one really takes her seriously. Someone like Denise Majette who had knocked her off for a term, who is nearly as liberal, is going to get a lot more credit and would be better positioned to successfully push liberal legislation. That district is probably not going to elect a Republican, so I would just as soon they continue to have ineffectual representation in McKinney.
Well, why the hell NOT?
The Republican tells you he'll end abortions, so you vote for him. In office, he "fixes" Medicare by turning it over to the HMO's and Big Pharmaceuticals, and your COSTS skyrocket. Likely as not, you'll have to become uninsured. Meanwhile, he doesn't do a thing to end abortions.
The Republican tells you he'll get a LAW to ban burning flags. In office, he'll neglect his "oversight" duty, and allow the Administration to ride roughshod over the LAW, over the Constitution, and to violate privacy rights wholesale. He'll turn a blind eye towards a President who IGNORES the law of the land, and attaching a "signing statement" to every law passed by Congress saying HE doesn't have to follow the law. You'll LOSE your Constitutionally granted FREEDOM. Oh, and he won't be able to deliver on that flag burning ban.
The Republican tells you he'll PREVENT gay folks from getting married. You'll sure vote him in for THAT. Once in office, he'll take bribes from various special interests, go golfing on their dime, furnish his house by doing their bidding, and the things they ask for will erode your quality of life. They want to pollute, they want to keep you out of court and prevented from suing them, they want NO-BID contracts, they want WAR EVERLASTING, they want your Union destroyed and regulations for workplace safety repealed (or not enforced). The Republican will DELIVER on all that, for his fat-cat buddies (for a price). But, once in office, will he ban gay marriage? Nope. He'll need that issue to hook you in NEXT election.
The Republican tells you he's got INTEGRITY, and he's got GUTS. Once in office, he'll rubberstamp a WAR based on LIES, and you'll notice that when he had a chance to serve in uniform, he had better things to do. And so do his kids. He won't support the troops on the ground, and he won't support returning Vets. He WILL smear and demean actual decorated combat veteran heroes, if they dare run against him.
The Republican will tell you he's fiscally responsible. Once in office, he'll skyrocket the DEBT, spend like there's no tomorrow, and allow "industry" to set their own prices ... not based on "the market", but on collusion. The Republican will APPLAUD secret energy meetings; the PEOPLE can't know what was SAID, but we must live with the RESULTS: Higher prices at the pump, record profits for Big Oil, gouging of consumers of energy, and a whine that "there's nothing Congress can do!"
So, yeah, maybe there ARE some people who have noticed and registered that Republicans are not good legislators for this nation. That they bait and switch. That they are corrupt. That they serve only the wealthy. That they have no integrity.
Oh, and those promises they make? They never DELIVER on those. But they DO get very rich, while shafting the American people.
Fortunately, that area is atypical of the metro area where most people could see through the smoke of the points you made and bona fide, conservative Republicans get elected. I mean, there is that tired line about "lies" and the war and the regular attack on corporations - oooh...oil companies make a profit. Imagine that...actually getting a return on the money they invested. They are just benefiting from radical policies that have hamstrung our ability to improve our ability to provide own energy in the U.S. ANWR, off shore drilling and insufficient refining capacity ring a bell? I seem to recall a fair number of Democrats leading the way a few weeks ago rejecting opening additional areas of the gulf for exploration (to be fair, you had some NIMBY Republicans joining in). So, I really do not want to hear any hyprocritical points from Democrats about gas prices until they make an effort to help the problem rather than throwing up roadblocks.
Gotta love it - of all the points made above, you've managed to ignore/not respond to pretty much all of them by focusing on gas prices and profits of oil companies? I have NO problem with oil companies making a profit. I DO have a problem with ANY EXECUTIVE OF ANY COMPANY getting a $400MM+ retirement package, raping shareholders of their equity to pay for it - many of whom are decent, hardworking people with their money invested through their mutual funds and 401Ks. These guys should be lined up along a wall and shot. Sorry, but no punishment is good enough for these greedy bastards. $400MM is enough for 100 families for 10 lifetimes. Ridiculous - period.
Now, for the other points? Republicans LOVE to use moral issues to get their rabid religious voters to the polls - issues that have zero, ZERO effect on their every day lives. And they're dumb enough to fall for it, time after time after time. The Republicans have proven two things. 1) they're good at duping the public and winning elections, and 2) they don't know how to govern or manage. I'm going to borrow from Ed Schultz's rules about Republicans:
1) they will do anything to win 2) It's all Clinton's fault 3) they think you're stupid ( and unfortunately, on that one, they're right)
You said those items you listed where why people would not vote for a Republican. Right there your premise was flawed. A Democratic candidate could be the slimiest, most corrupt politician on record and would, in all likelihood, win that district. It is not some rational approach to the issues. So, since you premise was wrong and obviously partisanly biased, I am not going to waste my time addressing each little point. Even if some are valid, you would never acknowledge the ones that aren't.
Oil company executive pay - is $400 million a lot? I can agree with you there. But do you really believe people should be punished for simply making an income the market will bear? I would say I would rather see an executive make an exorbitant income than a high paid athlete because that executive is responsible for thousands of direct jobs and thousand more indirect jobs. Also, the financial performance of the company impacts the financial positions of likely millions of investors. Yes, $400 million is a lot but that is called the free market. If the market would not bear, he could not make. If you do not like it, then you have the right to avoid using that company's products, buy stock and pressure the board to make changes, or protest. What you do not have the right to do - and which is an example of the lack of appreciation of the freedoms our country offers - is to suggest that power of government should move in and prevent someone from legally earning whatever the amount of income. Do I make $400 M a year? No way! I cannot even sniff at $1 million, but I do not begrudge that this man earns that much. It does not impact me. If anything, I wish I had bought stock and could have enjoyed some of the recent profits.
As for moral issues, I do not need you telling me what impacts my life. First, you do not know what impacts me or what my values are. Second, it is none of your business. I happen to want a representative and a senator who will fight to keep America from sliding further into the moral morass we seem to be wading around in. Do I realize that getting change in things like an abortion laws or other moral issues will be easy? Yes, because I am intelligent and realistic, something that is opposite of what the Democrats think - the real party who thinks we are all stupid.
So the Republicans think we are stupid? Who is the party that does not seem to think that people can thrive on their own without excessive government programs? The Democrats. Who is the party that sends the message that black people cannot hope to achieve success on their own merits by continuing to push affirmative action? The Democrats. Who is the party that exploits the economic ignorance of American citizens in routine attacks on corporate America and by constantly attacking opportunity (see you attack on executives above)? The Democrats. Who is the party that adamantly opposes any meaningful school choice other than, often times, woefully inadequate school systems? The Democrats. The Democrats are the ones that over and over imply that the American people cannot live their lives and flourish on their own with the big hand of government guiding them in so many areas. Yes, the Republicans can fall into this trap as well, but typically much less often than the Democrats.
Oh...and it's Clinton's fault? We only said that when that could have been the case? Maybe we did not give him enough benefit of the doubt. But he brought much of that own himself, something Bush has not done (and don't start with your "HE LIED" line) anywhere near to the same degree. At least we did not try to blame Bill Clinton for bringing about hurricanes.
After reading and re-reading your comments and putting some thought into what I thought you were *trying* to say, I have come up with the following argument fallacies which renders your entire post fallacious:
Overall post argument violations: fallacies of Audiatur et Altera Pars, Dicto Simpliciter, Ignoratio Elenchi, Extended Analogy and Petitio Principii.
Paragraph one borders on fallacy of argumentum ad crumenam. As stated, it doesn't necessarily invalidate your argument, but it could lead the reader to believe that you insinuate that because the oil exec has more money and works for a big oil company, his ability to take that amount of money is OK.
Paragraph two: fallacy of amphiboly (premises are ambiguous because of grammar or incorrect parsing) and straw man fallacy.
Paragraph three: borders on fallacy of pluriam interrogationum - one simple answer cannot even come close to answering all of the questions involved with your premises. You also employ the fallacy of tu quoque (you do it too, so nyah nyah nyah) and again, the good old-fashioned strawman fallacy.
You may want to at least rethink your premises. They stink.
thanks for stepping in - first chance I've had to take another look since posting. Graysonbuzz seems to think that I believe it's OK for movie stars or athletes to make huge sums of money - I don't - I think it's ridiculous, period, and as such I personally do not watch professional sporting events, and I can count on one hand the number of movies I've seen in the last 12 months. I work hard for my money, and don't care to piss it away on professional sports or celebrities who could care less about you and me. Graysonbuzz also seems to have serious misconceptions about what Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats believe. He(She?) seems to think that providing the underprivileged in this country a hand up is NOT ok, but corporate welfare is just a wonderful thing. As far as this country falling into a "moral morass" well, that's what as an individual, under our constitution, has the RIGHT to determine for themselves what is considered moral or immoral for themselves. As long as any belief in what is moral is based on personal religious learnings, it has no place in law. No argument based on the Bible, Torah, Quran, or any other religious text has any credence with me, as our government, much to the dismay of the looney religious right, was NOT based on the bible. I have a degree in Constitutional Law - and, sorry wingnuts, it wasn't based on Christianity. And it sure as hell wasn't designed to support a tyranny of the majority. Let me sum it up for the idiots - the Constitution of the United States of America, which the Republicans are using as toilet paper, was written to protect the rights of the minority, NOT to support the will of the majority. Is that simple enough for you Graysonbuzz? Or too many words? Won't fit on a bumper sticker? And, sorry, if two members of the same sex get married and it has some impact on your life? Find a therapist, 'cause you need one.
Whoa...LoC when did I say that giving people a hand up is a bad idea? I have no problem helping people who cannot help themselves or to help them develop skills and abilities to help themselves. I did NOT make any such claim and would challenge you to cite something that is clearly taking such a position. Also, where did I even address corporate welfare? You take this condescending, superior tone but yet you just randomly draw unsupported conclusions. (For the record, it depends on the exact nature of "corporate welfare." Our economy is complex and those companies that get such benefits often create jobs as a result or develop wealth for American investors. It is a nice buzzword but you need more details to make any real analysis of the issue. And I think my MBA in Finance trumps your degree in Consitutional law on this point.)
As far as you point on the Constitution, I agree completely. We are a country of laws, not majority rules. So my question is when will the Democrats embrace that? Will they repeal hate crimes laws which are nothing more than criminalization of thought? Will they stop fighting the right of Americans to own a gun? Will you repudiate the actions of the Clark Co., NV schools and the ACLU for cutting off a young girl's microphone during graduation just because she wanted to state her faith in Jesus Christ? I would really welcome Democrats to embrace the Constitution. I know I do and I think it is the backbone of our republic. But you cannot pick and choose which pieces of it you like.
Will they repeal hate crimes laws which are nothing more than criminalization of thought? Will they stop fighting the right of Americans to own a gun? Will you repudiate the actions of the Clark Co., NV schools and the ACLU for cutting off a young girl's microphone during graduation just because she wanted to state her faith in Jesus Christ?
(1) Hate crime laws do not "criminalize thought" any more than it criminalizes thought to have varying degrees of murder based on the killer's intent. Hate crime laws do not make anything a crime that wasn't already a crime; they typically operate by enhancing the penalty when a predicate crime (murder, assault, kidnapping, etc.) was motivated by animosity based on the victim's race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
(2) Democrats aren't fighting "the rights of Americans to own guns." However, understand that the 2d Amendment is not absolute, any more than any of the other amendments are. Your rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, a speedy trial, etc. can be infringed by the government when the government has a good enough reason. So too can the right to bear arms. Also, the 2d Amdt. has never been interpreted by the Supreme Court to provide the kind of expansive right that groups like the NRA demand.
(3) The young woman in Nevada did not merely want to "state her faith in Jesus Christ"; she wanted to cross the line from a valedictory speech into proselytizing, according to the School Board. She had agreed on a modified speech that still allowed her to express her faith and what it had meant to her, but at the last minute she chose instead to go ahead with what apparently amounted to a sermon. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored functions and courts have ruled that speeches given at those ceremonies are likewise considered school-sponsored, so there can't be sectarian proselytizing. The graduation ceremony is for the whole class, which consists of many faiths; it isn't a forum for one individual to preach a sectarian sermon. The school was protecting the rights of all of the students.
(1) [Hate crimes] typically operate by enhancing the penalty...was motivated by animosity based on the victim's race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
And what is animosity? A THOUGHT. A MENTAL STATE. Thus, when you add additional punishment because of animosity, you have just effectively criminialized certain types of thought in certain situtaions. This should be crystal clear. Furthermore, this is repugnant and completely opposed to the principles of freedom of expression we are supposed to embrace in America. An assault is an assault, it does not matter if the victime is gay, black, female, etc. and it does not matter if the perp liked them or not.
(2) Your rights...can be infringed by the government when the government has a good enough reason.
Wow. Where did you get that concept? Dunno about you, but that scares me to death. The government can just decide that criticizing [something, someone, etc.] is just not beneficial to society so we will just suspend Constitutional rights when we have this reason. I am sorry...I missed that clause that just allowed the government to suspend our rights, essentially at their will. Doesn't the charges of Republicans walking over the Constition ring a little hollow right now?
So too can the right to bear arms. Also, the 2d Amdt. has never been interpreted by the Supreme Court to provide the kind of expansive right that groups like the NRA demand.
I am not talking about the NRA. I am talking about the simple ability to walk into a gun store, buy a simple gun such as a handgun - not even talking about an assault rifle here - and being told come back in a week. I do not have a problem with an instant background check and that is feasibility with the computing resources we have today. But I do not need the government effectively taking away my right to bear arms when they can perform all necessary checks on the spot.
(3) The young woman in Nevada did not merely want to "state her faith in Jesus Christ"; she wanted to cross the line from a valedictory speech into proselytizing, according to the School Board.
And if she did, so what? She is not an employee of the school? That is her right to freely express that. That does not violate the Constitution which in its wording saying NOTHING about local school boards and addresses the establishment of religion. This was not establishing a religion - it was freedom of speech, but where is the outcry from the left about that right being abridged?
She had agreed on a modified speech
Because the choice given her was to be denied the honor she had earned or have her freedom of speech abridged.
Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored functions and courts have ruled that speeches given at those ceremonies are likewise considered school-sponsored, so there can't be sectarian proselytizing. The graduation ceremony is for the whole class, which consists of many faiths; it isn't a forum for one individual to preach a sectarian sermon. The school was protecting the rights of all of the students.
This is why Republicans are so concerned about departures from strict interpretations of the Constitution. I am not denying that this is what courts have ruled. I am arguing they are DEAD WRONG. Read the First Amendment:
Congress [Note: Not the Clark Co., NV school board - CONGRESS.] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [NOTE: How is this girl, expressing HER opinion, not claiming to speak for the school, establishing a religion? The answer - she is not! This does not say that hearing a religious point of view is establishing a religion. THIS is a result of the courts run amok.], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [NOTE: Even if you want to dismiss the fact that this applies to CONGRESS, the CCSB sure did prohibit this young lady's free exercise of her religion]; or abridging the freedom of speech [NOTE: Even if the broad interpretation of the first part of the amendment is taken to be accurate, they sure did abridge her right to freedom of speech.] If the principle had made the comments, I might could at least see more of the point as it would be a school officials (of course the loose interpretation would still stand). This is not defending our Constitutional rights.
Your post shows an ignorance of our system of law that is, unfortunately, fairly typical in America. I don't blame you because these principles are very difficult to grasp sometimes, which is why people go to a very intensive specialty school for three years to learn them. There isn't room enough on this site for me to explain to you from the ground up why you're wrong, but I'll rebut some of the more glaring errors.
(1) Hate crime laws do not punish the expression of ideas. Assaulting or murdering someone is not constitutionally protected expression. For quickie information on the theoretical underpinnings of hate crime legislation, try Wikipedia.
(2) Where did I get the concept that the government can infringe your constitutional rights? I got it in law school while I was getting my J.D. Virtually all of equal protection and due process jurisprudence involves determining whether the government interest is sufficient to justify infringing some right. If you think the government can't limit your free speech, walk into an airport and tell a TSA official you have a bomb. If you think the government can't limit your religious expression, tell a DEA agent that you are growing and using peyote to practice your Native American religion.
The clause you missed is the due process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments, which allows the government to deprive you of "life, liberty [including constitutional rights], or property" as long as you are given due process of law.
I'm sorry if you feel put out by the fact that you have to wait a week to buy a handgun, but the government has authority to regulate their sale in that manner. There is no genuine legal controversy about that. If you don't like it, call your legislators.
(3) The school's graduation ceremony was not an open forum for free speech. The girl did not have aright to speak to the graduating class at all. The school board was completely within its rights to limit her valedictorian speech, just like it could limit what a teacher can talk about in class.
The 1st Amendment does not apply only to Congress. It applies to the states by operation of the 14th Amendment. As for your opinions on the establishment clause, I suggest reading the Supreme Court decision in Lee v. Weisman and remembering that the girl who wanted to preach about Jesus isn't the only person in that room with rights. The other students also have the right not to be subject to religious prosleytizing at a school event that is, for all practical purposes, obligatory.
tag
For someone who is so sensitive about hearing Republicans called greedy warmongering racists, you sure are free with the wildly inaccurate stereotyping of Democrats. Everything you say about them is false.
I have tried to counter the charges here with reasoned discussion. Tell me where my observations of liberals are wrong. I am willing to hear your points.
Your "observations" about Democrats were just the same vaguely-worded retread stereotypes that have been tossed around for years. They can't be refuted any more than you can refute me saying that Republicans are just greedy ignorant jerks who love guns and NASCAR and hate black people.
I earnestly ask for information to give me additional perspective. After making the charge, this request goes unheeded. I think that speaks for itself. I thought I was the one making generalizations and unsubstantiated comments, yet I was honestly asking for information and it gets brushed off.
You made a bunch of unsupported general statements about Democrats, and then demand support to show they're not true? Interesting tactic, but I think the onus is on you.
You know I have a hard time figuring out where to start so I will start at the beginning. One of the reasons we have every right to complain about a 400 million salary is because I HELP PAY FOR IT. And I am not talking about the money I spend on gas. The oil companies receive tax incentives from you and me. I think now that they have record profits they should pay the money back. So you see the “free market” is not the only thing involved, if it were then they would not be receiving “corporate welfare”. As far as your asinine comment about not using their products I guess we all need to go back to the horse and buggy. And buying stock is about as effective as uh calling the president. Unless you control a sizable share of stock executives will not care. I wonder what moral morass you believe we are falling into? Well whatever it is I really don’t care. That’s because I don’t believe the it really affects you. You may not like it and that’s ok. But unless it affects your liberty it does not matter. Let me give you an example. Let’s say you don’t like gay marriage (don’t know if this a true or not). Unless you want to marry someone of the same sex as you it can not really affect you. So many of you conservatives state that many of these issues affect you when in reality they only offend you. Sorry, but this is America, I’m offended daily by things I see and while I do not like them I know that people have a right to do them. If there is a moral issue that you really believe affects you then please please please say what it is? I would be interested in how it affects your life. Next up excessive government programs. Hmmm well last time I checked the Republican’s were the party in power. Yet they have been spending like “drunken sailors”. I would say it is generally true that Democrats tend to look for programs that will assist the lower classes so they have a better opportunity to improve their station in life. On the other had Republicans tend to create programs that give more resources to the people that already have them with the profound hope that the leftovers will trickle down to the masses. As far as school choice that is all a big fat lie. It is meant to send money to the private schools for the children who have and remove funds from schools where they have less. Sure a handful of children from poor neighborhoods will benefit. But the children who can’t afford the better school even with the money from their district or are too far away from any good schools or are special needs will be left at schools with less resources. We are the richest country on the planet but we spend less per capita than most other industrialized nations. Yes the schools need to be fixed but the voucher program is not the way to do it. Sure Clinton lied about sex and had an affair. But I guess that’s worse than being a coke head (Bush). Or maybe it’s worse than asking your wife about divorce while she is in the hospital for cancer (Gingrich). Maybe it’s worse than saying you know a brain damaged woman is responding to loved ones when in fact she is not (Frist). I could go on for days but you get the point.
I preface my comments with a discussion I have had here before. Corporations do not hold wealth. Their income and wealth flows through and impacts real people. Either customers via prices they pay, higher or lower, or shareholders, through dividends and/or equity appreciation/depreciation.
That being said - Fine...take away the incentives. You decrease the profits. The company is still going to expect certain margins, certain returns on their investments. Prices go up. Assume all those benefits are passed through tax cuts (that is not going to happen most likely), then you are just shifting money around - lower taxes, higher gas prices and other prices impacted by oil/fuel in the supply chain - it's a wash. Assume prices stay fixed and the company allows margins to decrease. Then the stock declines hurting investors - and remind investing is no longer an arena for the wealthy - or dividends decrease having a similar effect. Yes, this is simplified, but any incentives helping the corporation, wind up helping real people. Furthermore, if you rescind any incentivizing of corporations there could be far reaching effects in R&D and business expansion that could have negative effects. When those government incentives are in place, they wind up helping real people. If you repeal them, they just go into the massive government coffers and we have little to show for it as far as I am concerned.
As for not using their products - GO TO A COMPETITOR!! I am talking about the company with the $400M CEO, presumably ExxonMobil. He is not the CEO of the industry.
As for moral issues, I believe gay "marriage" devalues the entire institution and, may eventually destablize the institution of marriage. I am not debating that again here because it is more degenerative than the debate on Iraq - there is no "proof" on either side there has been a huge debate on that here on MMFA already. I am sure it is still there somewhere. Abortion. It takes millions of lives (an estimate...I do not have exact figure handy) each year and that is a direct violation of the principles of this country - the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. No, I was not aborted, but I am concerned abotu the cavalier treatment of life and I feel it could well degrade our humanity and that, in many cases, it promotes irresponsibility and selfishness, aspects that do impact daily life.
First - you are right...the GOP are spending like drunken sailors and these guys do not deserve to keep their jobs. No debate from me there. However, I would ask what the GOP is doing to "give" something to people who already have something. Cutting taxes just lets me keep more of what I have. Look - and I know we will get protests - but look how strong our economy has been in recent years. That can likely be attributed, at least in part to the tax cuts. This creates better environments for business, the businesses that provide us jobs which allows us to better our lives. Business creates opportunities, not government. How many millionaires (not that money is everything) has government created out of regular citizens via its programs? Business allows people to use their talents to achieve and succeed and getting the government off their backs is going to help in many situations.
Regarding schools. Let's presume your points are accurate (and I do not necessarily think they are). But if schools are facing such a dire outlook what are they going to do? What are the leaders going to do (at least if they are smart enough to do so)? They are going to improve! They are going to fight to avoid losing their position like any company does when its future is questioned. While it is not perfect, competition is a huge motivator of excellence and the search for improvement. Right now, there is no real competition for government education. If you have vouchers all of a sudden the schools have to compete and they likely going to get a lot better in a hurry. Simply throwing money at schools does not fix problems. My understanding is that in metro Atlanta, the district that spends the most per student, is one of the worst public districts in the metropolitan area. If money were the answer, it would be the best. That is just not a strong correlation as far as I am concerned.
as to what that compensation package was composed of or how it is to be paid out? I doubt it. Also, do you have any idea what that CEO did for the company? Once again, I doubt it. CEO's are paid big bucks to make tough decisions...decisions no one in any of those 100 families could ever make.
But hey, that's what Dem's want you to think. We all have an entitlement to those evil, rich bastards' money because they certainly did something illegal (like hard work and applying oneself) to get that money.
And from your previous post, it certainly does seem that you have problems with oil companies making profits. How about all the companies that made much more "obscene" profits than the oil companies...where's the hate for them???
You think lies, corruption, and a lack of leadership only apply to Republicans. Ponder this for a moment, and then explain how it is that you apply this only to Republicans.
How can you tell whan a POLITICIAN is lying? When he/she opens his/her mouth.
Seems fitting, regardless of political party. But of course, your precious Democrat leaders would never lie to you, right?
Because if you or I or any other ordinary citizen SHOT OUR FRIEND IN THE FACE WHILE HUNTING (AND CONSUMING A BEER), we would not be allowed to waltz off and then be let off the hook in a couple of months. We would probably be face down on the ground with a knee in our backs being cuffed, AFTER OUR FAILED BREATHYLIZER....
Okay...back on topic, can Boartz be any more bigoted?
I get so tired of the misuse of the term "racist." It happens here (and in society) all the time it seems. Do I think Boortz is bigoted? Perhaps that argument could be made, but I do not think you can argue he is racist. Frankly, I just think he is not politically correct and we are so used to people tip-toeing around so many things in an effort to be PC, when someone boldly makes a statement, it results in such accusations. That does not mean I always think he is right, but I do think he is blunt and does not care if he hurts someone's feeligns.
So what types of things do you think people have to tip toe around because they are being PC? I'm always interested when people say the world is too PC. I'm not going to make assumptions about what you think people should be able to say but don't. Would you give some examples?
Many people are afraid to be open and really discuss racial issues. They are scared to death of being labeled - as several here on MMFA are doing - of being labeled a racist when something they say might be controversial or insensitive. Neal does not care if someone says this and he will deal with racial issues dead on. Is he always right? Probably not. But his co-host is black and he apparently does not allows disagree. Now he disagrees strongly with some of Neal's comments at times but he gets his say. This is just one example of topics that often too PC to deal with.
What "racial issue" is Boortz fearlessly dealing with when he says someone looks like a "ghetto sl*t" or "ghetto trash"?
"As -- as sure as I'm going to stick my foot in my mouth some time over the next couple of weeks, Cynthia McKinney will show her ass again."
I don't know about Congresswoman McKinney, but you already stuck your foot in your mouth by completing that sentence.
..But I guess some just need to have it said. A person who acts as she did usually has a habit of it. It just a matter of time, and when she does, make no mistake about it, she will not have any consequences then either.
He has the decency to merely push it against the mic and let it flatulate to his base.
We just get to hear his ass.
gets him in trouble.... even if he's right!
Who is Neal Boortz? I have never heard of this guy. If that is him in the picture, he is ugly. I feel sorry for his kids.
Sure he's a jerk, and possibly a racist who has made racist comments in the past, but I don't think it's racist to say someone's going to show their ass. Doesn't it just mean "to do something outrageous"?
I think you're kind of picking nits here, guys.
McKinney has a history of making a spectacle of herself. Her district is a virtual lock for a Democrat so short of her murdering someone, I expect her to be reelected until there are enough crossover Republican votes to knock her off in the primary. She knows this and as such probably has little incentive to change her behavior.
As for someone playing a race card on any Republican pursuing an ethics complaint, again there is precedence. Within hours of hitting a cop McKinney was in front of the media hollering racist and playing her "Get out of jail free" race card. Thus, again...hardly misinformation.
And finally, Mr. Kite, I find it funny you engage in name calling as opposed to dealing with substance but in doing so you are so far off target it is funny. Boortz is hardly a Republican and if you knew what you were talking about with him as opposed to drawing such conclusions from MMFA, you might realize this.
If what Rep. McKinney has done is so reprehensible to you and seeing that she is part of the "radical left", your party has the power to get rid of her...
While they're at it, instead of sending their media attack dogs after her, why don't they attack her for real?? I know there's a faction of your party that's just itchin for a "good ol' fashioned" lynchin...
"yeah! that'll put those darkies back in their place..".
I wonder how far from the truth those kinds of thoughts are with regards to some from your party.
I'm not making any excuses for Rep. McKinney's actions, but seems to me there are republicans that are doing far worse and those of us that aren't part of "your base" are feeling the repercussions every day...
You look like the bigger hypocrite GRAYSON... I find it interesting that you come around here with your dismissive attitude... If what we think around here is so insignificant.. Why do you bother to care?
To everyone else, i apologize for the emotion and sarcasm, I'm just tired of being belittled by these "cons" that come around here with their chests all puffed out like they are our lord god almighty rulers..
This is still America and "it don't work like that"...
I know there's a faction of your party that's just itchin for a "good ol' fashioned" lynchin...
"yeah! that'll put those darkies back in their place..".
Can some of y'all every stick to the issues without getting into name calling and absurd, disgusting, and unsubstantiated allegations? Who wants a "lynchin"? Back this up if you are going to make smear comments like this. It is this kind of race baiting, and radical comments that create much of the racial tension in this country. I do not know if any of the Democrats here will or not, but I will call you on it and demand either proof or a retraction. This race baiting by some on the left MUST STOP.
As for how the GOP is supposed to get rid of her, I would like you to tell me just how that is supposed to be done. Whether I like or her not, she is duly elected representative of her district. She has not been charged or convicted here. You would hope that eventually her district would be embarassed to be represented by her, but that is up to them not me.
Also, here is another allegation. Please support this with a specific example. I do not recall any GOP members striking a police officer. This another of the routine unsubstantiated smears that are allowed to pass here so please back it up:
I'm not making any excuses for Rep. McKinney's actions, but seems to me there are republicans that are doing far worse and those of us that aren't part of "your base" are feeling the repercussions every day...
And you are tired of being belittled? Well we are tired of being called racists. We are tired of being called warmongers. We are tired of being called greedy. This is a lot worse than what little sarcasm I may have used. I DO NOT engage in personal insults here. You may not like my points, but I do not level any of the above absurd charges against y'all on a regular basis. So if you are tired of being "belittled," think about that the next time you start rattling off personal attacks that have little or no basis in reality.
"It is this kind of race baiting, and radical comments that create much of the racial tension in this country."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Boortz's issues with McKinney seem to have a racial component to it, and he introduced that with the racially tinged name calling. You know ghetto sl-ut and criticizing her "natural hair texture" that he found offensive. Introduction of this kind of rhetoric shows his issues with McKinney goes byeond his political disagreements with her. You were quick to accuse Spin of race baiting, but Boortz gets a pass; intentional or not that's adouble standard. Besides I think that things like what are listed below are more likely to be the culprits creating continued racial tension:
<[link to www.innercitypress.org]
<[link to cc.msnscache.com]
<[link to www.hrw.org]
<[link to www.sentencingproject.org]
<[link to www.hhs.gov]
not sure why I can only get links to work intermittently. But the links are to recent reports showing racial disparities in financial lending practices, criminal justice sytem arrests & sentencing, and in the administering health care services and treament. I'll try this one: <[link to www.hhs.gov]
You are talking about Boortz. I conceded in another post that perhaps an argument could be made that Boortz makes some bigoted comments. But what he said about McKinney is not the same as accusing people of wanting to carry lynchings.
Some of y'all can write long posts taking exception with my criticism of Democrats but only one person even attempts engage in discussion of Spin's point??? THAT IS SAD and frankly, I think it is hypocritical.
Come on now ,what more would you expect from a college dropout flunky,who got his high school education in a public school,who drools over the War in Iraq,but was a draft-dodger when it came time to serve his country!Recieved a law liscense from a non- accredited night school,which limits his law practice to Georgia,but not before the Georgia Supreme Court.Boortz is a backwater hick,who reminds me of a fish called the remora. This fish is always seen swimming around and under sharks.Boortz is a smalltime player in the big leagues,just hanging around hoping to make it big one day!
listens to Mr. BOORTZ?? Only the "TRAILER TRASH" Republicans. Not to be meant as a slur to people who live or have lived in trailer parks. I did so myself. I mean all of those Radio Repubs that ACTUALLY believe that they are in the same Republican Party as BUSH/CHENEY etc.
so I think Boortz is probably correct. She is an embarrassment and her actions are indefensible.
Please Neil, oh please ---get as close as you possibly can when she does, cuz I hope she's eaten some beans & has a gaseous moment on your account.
And you get "Boor". Yup, that covers it nicely.
he said ass
and he proves it with his Strom Thurmond-like obssession with the Congresswoman's body.
He is obsessed with her and wishes he could rape her. It's obvious.