If anybody else gets a chance, check out Dennis Miller tonight.

He has a very enlightening interview with Don King tonight.

Now Mr. King has been very controversial during his career.  Exploitive, explosive, and confrontational are often used in describing him.  But in a very surprising interview, he reveals that he is enodrsing...  President Bush!

He went on very elequantly that during this time, we need enclusive politics that put America first.  And that while both the Democrats and Republicans have their faults, only the Republicans are trying to bring everybody into the "American Dream".

I wonder what some people will make of THAT.  I don't think ANYBODY can accuse Don King of being yet another "talking head".

If anybody else gets a chance, check out Dennis Miller tonight.

He has a very enlightening interview with Don King tonight.

Now Mr. King has been very controversial during his career.  Exploitive, explosive, and confrontational are often used in describing him.  But in a very surprising interview, he reveals that he is enodrsing...  President Bush!

He went on very elequantly that during this time, we need enclusive politics that put America first.  And that while both the Democrats and Republicans have their faults, only the Republicans are trying to bring everybody into the "American Dream".

I wonder what some people will make of THAT.  I don't think ANYBODY can accuse Don King of being yet another "talking head".

Dennis Miller's relationship to the Bush Administration is like five year old's relationship to Mr. T.  It's just embarrassing to watch the guy go on about how "D-i-c-k Cheney's as tough as nails," and "Bush kicks terrorist butt!"  I mean, the guy says his favorite magazine is the Weekly Standard which is to politics what pro-wrestling is to athletics.  Miller is delusional and pitiable, but then again, it's hard to feel sorry for him because he's such a mean little twit.

As for Don King, he's just a rich old clown, out of touch with reality, waving American Flags and Tomming it up for the white man's party.  That's right the GOP's elected politicians are 99% white.

What I can't understand is how Don King gets his hair so pointy.

Don King is a totally corrupt clown, why would anyone want to put weight on anything
he has to say?

So, because Don King is indorsing Bush, that means that I should? I don't vote for or against anyone because someone-and it doesn't matter WHO that someone is, indorses them. I can make up my own mind of who to vote for.


BTW, Carlos Santana is endorsing Kerry.  ;)




Cat

As for Don King, he's just a rich old clown, out of touch with reality, waving American Flags and Tomming it up for the white man's party.  That's right the GOP's elected politicians are 99% white.


Oh yea, I forgot.  He is just another "Uncle Tom".

And of course, since the average percentage of Black Officers in the military is around 6%, it is also raceist.  And the percentage of Black FBI agents is around 4%, so it also is raceist.

For me, the telling thing is what percentage of Blacks try to run in the Republican party.  I seriously doubt that any who seriously try to apply would be turned out.  And I continuously find it offensive that any that are Republicans are consistantly branded as idiots.

Look at some of President Bush's highest advisors.  Ms. Rice and Mr. Powell.  I defy anybody to tell them they are "Tomming up to the white man's party".

Myself, I think it is because the "quality" that the democrats is lower.  The Republicans prefer to just elect the best person for the job, and not look at race when making that decision.  They Democrats actually look to elect "Blacks", and to win those elections they tend to tell the constituants how miserable they are, and how only the Democrats will help them out.  


"There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public.  Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs - partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays."

Booker T. Washington, 1911

So, because Don King is indorsing Bush, that means that I should? I don't vote for or against anyone because someone-and it doesn't matter WHO that someone is, indorses them. I can make up my own mind of who to vote for.


Actually, I posted it because it was kind of ironic.

Don King has long been known to be racially devisive and to bring race out in almost everything he does.  And he is "nobody's man", and makes his own decisions.

Dennis Miller's relationship to the Bush Administration is like five year old's relationship to Mr. T.  It's just embarrassing to watch the guy go on about how "D-i-c-k Cheney's as tough as nails," and "Bush kicks terrorist butt!"  I mean, the guy says his favorite magazine is the Weekly Standard which is to politics what pro-wrestling is to athletics.  Miller is delusional and pitiable, but then again, it's hard to feel sorry for him because he's such a mean little twit.

As for Don King, he's just a rich old clown, out of touch with reality, waving American Flags and Tomming it up for the white man's party.  That's right the GOP's elected politicians are 99% white.



Thank you, thank you, thank you! You hit it square on the head! Don King is an ass no one pays attention to anymore.

Tanya

Oh yea, I forgot.  He is just another "Uncle Tom".

And of course, since the average percentage of Black Officers in the military is around 6%, it is also raceist.  And the percentage of Black FBI agents is around 4%, so it also is raceist.

For me, the telling thing is what percentage of Blacks try to run in the Republican party.  I seriously doubt that any who seriously try to apply would be turned out.  And I continuously find it offensive that any that are Republicans are consistantly branded as idiots.

Look at some of President Bush's highest advisors.  Ms. Rice and Mr. Powell.  I defy anybody to tell them they are "Tomming up to the white man's party".

Myself, I think it is because the "quality" that the democrats is lower.  The Republicans prefer to just elect the best person for the job, and not look at race when making that decision.  They Democrats actually look to elect "Blacks", and to win those elections they tend to tell the constituants how miserable they are, and how only the Democrats will help them out.  


"There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public.  Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs - partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays."

Booker T. Washington, 1911


Quite honestly, I suggest you read more on Booker T. Washington before you quote him. Since I figured you haven't, you would know that Mr. Washington felt that Blacks were only suited for farming and manufacturing jobs, not anything considered white-collared. His biggest opponent was W.E.B. DuBois who insisted that Washington could not think higher for himself by suggesting that Blacks could not be the doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc for which they aspired to be.

As for your opinions, it's very hard to believe that you hold them. Anytime you have a country as diverse as America, the percentages should be higher. There shouldn't be any low numbers. It's unacceptable! As for suggesting that the Democrats look low and elected Blacks, that's highly offensive. No, the Republicans do not seek quality over race. If that's the case, George W. Bush would not be president.

Tanya

Thank you, thank you, thank you! You hit it square on the head! Don King is an a** no one pays attention to anymore.

Tanya


Thanks. Mushroom sure didn't think so!

Oh yea, I forgot.  He is just another "Uncle Tom".



I was referring to no one but Don King. 

The Republican Party has its PR about its benefits to African Americans.  Reality shows me another.  Elected and appointed African American party members have their own reasons for the affiliation.  I didn't imply Powell, Rice or anyone else was an Uncle Tom. just Don King  Some black Republicans are.  BTW, I prefer to address the two mentioned as General Powell, or Secretary Powell,  and Dr. Rice, rather than Mr. and Ms.
I'm just glad Don King is waving those flags for Bush, and not for Kerry!
:P

Quite honestly, I suggest you read more on Booker T. Washington before you quote him. Since I figured you haven't, you would know that Mr. Washington felt that Blacks were only suited for farming and manufacturing jobs, not anything considered white-collared.


Oh yes, you are so right.  Dr. Washington believed that blacks were only suited for farming.  *THAT* is why he help found the Tuskegee Institute.  He believed so strongly that blacks could only hold menial jobs, that he helped found one of the premiere centers for higher education for blacks.

And yes, I know quite a bit about Dr. Washington.  You see, I now live in Southern Alabama, fairly close to Tuskegee.  Dr. Washington is a very popular man around here.


As for your opinions, it's very hard to believe that you hold them. Anytime you have a country as diverse as America, the percentages should be higher. There shouldn't be any low numbers. It's unacceptable! As for suggesting that the Democrats look low and elected Blacks, that's highly offensive. No, the Republicans do not seek quality over race. If that's the case, George W. Bush would not be president.


Actually, please do not think so of me.  If you have read some of my past messages, you will know that that is how I do believe.

One thing about statistics.  If you are Black, or White, or Asian, or any other race, that is how you are.  It is a simple fact of how you are born.  However, to be a Mechanic, a Doctor, a Police Officer or FBI Agent, or a Military Officer, you have to APPLY.  The same thing goes for being a Democrat, Republican, Communist, Anarchist, or even a Fascist.  Those are all CHOICES.

It is a fact, the military has been trying hard for YEARS to get more blacks to apply to be officers.  The problem is, the percentage of blacks that apply are much lower then the national average based on population.  Is that the fault of the military?  And as I have said in the past, statistics can easily lie.  For a more realistic look, look at the percentage of races in the ENLISTED ranks.  Those tend to run almost the same percentages as the population in general.

My point is, people are *MORE* then just their race.  I do not look at somebody as Black, or Asian, or Hispanic, Gay, Straight, or even Male or Female.  I just look at them as people.  I really do not CARE what race somebody is.  I just want the best person for the job doing that job.

When Booker T. opened Tuskegee it was an agricultural college, and he wasn't
above asking students to "perform" for white visitors, singing, dancing if that is
what they wanted to see.

As for the FBI, the racism in that organization was rampant. Until the 80's the few African
Americans who were able to make it into the ranks we assigned to an area dubbed "willy wonkas chocolate factory" It was found that the FBI, in addition to covering up crimes of the KKK
throughout its history, withheld information right up into the 90's on the Birmingham church bombings that killed thefour little girls.  They had known who did it, but never pressed charges and never provided
their intelligence until forced.

www.pbs.org/newshour/media/clarion/kc_birmingham.html

It would be naive to believe that the internal organization has changed to a degree that would
African Americans would feel their talents would be used in other than a demeaning way.
And I do believe that you are quite naive in believing that  qualified people who apply are
be able to enter into positions without regard to their ethnicity.  We still have a long way to go
on that score.

It is a fact, the military has been trying hard for YEARS to get more blacks to apply to be officers.  The problem is, the percentage of blacks that apply are much lower then the national average based on population.  



Comparing it to the general population is misleading, since not just anyone from the general population qualifies to apply.  I'm curious how that number compares to the national average based on the number of people who do actually qualify to apply to be commissioned officers.  

But in a very surprising interview, he reveals that he is enodrsing...  President Bush!


Not much of a surprise, he's already revealed his endorsement.  I saw a brief interview with him, it was at least several days ago, if not longer (can't remember exactly when or which program, because I generally don't care who the celebs endorse to make mental notes about such things, but I'm thinking it might have been on The Daily Show) in which he talked quite enthusiastically about endorsing Bush. 

IMHO, Don King just likes to hear himself talk.  He and Jessie Jackson (both Sr. & Jr.) are a couple of blowhards that, I believe, have done more harm than good in making the US a truly equal society, in terms of "color".

I wouldn't put Jesse Jackson in the same box as Don King.  I mean, Jackson has his faults, but....

First, as the daughter of retired military personnel, I've seen countless friends of my dad go unnoticed in the ranks despite their high qualifications. They've seen their opportunities given to their less qualified white counterparts. So, the die-hard "recruitment" of persons of color is a myth. The military is a fraternity. If you aren't one of the good ole boys, you face much more difficulties.

Second, living in Alabama does not make you a Booker T. Washington expert. It just means you live in the same college he helped found. As Danoota correctly stated, Tuskegee was founded as an agricultural school, not one that stress other academia. The curriculum and mission has changed over the decades. I am an alumnae (my husband is an alumnus) of a historically black college, if you have any questions about one, ask us. In addition, if you truly read and understood the mission of Mr. Washington, your argument could be greatly invalidated.

Third, Don King and Jesse Jackson are not the same entities. Two entirely different people. Yes, at one time, Jesse had a positive agenda. Now, he is somewhere in limbo. However, Don King never served a true purpose to society other than promote the violent "sport" of boxing.

Tanya

Comparing it to the general population is misleading, since not just anyone from the general population qualifies to apply.  I'm curious how that number compares to the national average based on the number of people who do actually qualify to apply to be commissioned officers.  


Actually, from what I remember, the acceptance is about the same for almost all ethnicities.

There is a vigerous pre-screening process, in which most who know they will not qualify remove themselves from application.  And the requirements are MUCH tighter for Officers then they are for enlisted.

As I have said for years, do not look to the Officer Corps for "racial equality".  It is not typical.  And this is not raceist, it is simply how things are.  Here are a few of the requirements before you can even apply for a commission:

1.  GPA of 3.0 or Higher
2.  4 year Bachelor's Degree
3.  US Citizen
4.  SAT Verbal and Math combined must be 1,000+
5.  Have no serious criminal convictions.
6.  Ability to pass a security clearance
7.  NO drug convictions.
8.  Willing to serve for 4-6 years.

Of course, the physical requirements also have to be met.  Because the Officer Corps is the "best of the best", of course it is not going to follow national norms.  And because the requirements for the FBI are even more stringent, it is not surprising that they are even more skewed.

To get a more REALISTIC view, look at the Enlisted (especially NCO and Staff NCO) statistics.  Those tend to be within a few percentage points of the population.  And in the same way, look at Police Officers, Governemnt Police, Sherrif's departments, and the like to see if Law Enforcement is really "racially fair".  After all, how many police departments REQUIRE 4 year college degrees, normally in Psychology, Law, or Criminal Sciences?

BTW, why is the only Black Republican Congressman NOT a member of the "Congressional Black Caucus"?

First, as the daughter of retired military personnel, I've seen countless friends of my dad go unnoticed in the ranks despite their high qualifications. They've seen their opportunities given to their less qualified white counterparts.


You must be talking of the military of 30+ years ago.  It certainly is not that way now.  That was a different time, almost a different world.  And I am really not interested in rehashing the mistakes we made in the past.  I am more interested in making sure those things do not happen in the future.

I know that when I was in the Marines (1983-1993), there was no consideration at all for race in Enlisted promotions.

For Enlisted promotions E-2 through E-3, it was a simple "Time In Grade" system.  If you have the required time in grade (normally 6-12 months), you were promoted.  It is that simple.  Commanding Officers in Batallion sized units (or smaller Detachments) get a quota of "Meritorious Promotions".  That is normally about 1% of their unit strength, for the ranks E-2 through E-5.  The sub-units (Company level) will nominate 1-2 people, and the Unit Commander will promote the highest candidates.  Since this is such a small percentage, this really does not count for most people.

For NCO Promotions, it works a bit different.  Each month, you got "points" based on your time in the Marines (2 points), and the time in your current rank (5 points).  Added to that was points awarded for your skill on a semi-annual phyiscal fitness test, annual rifle qualification score, a written skills test, and on your conduct.  Those all added up to a score, which was adjusted every 3 months.

In Washington DC, a bean counter looked at the current requirements for people to be promoted, based on job skill.  They would count down a set number of people, and then that score was the "Cutting Score".  Anybody who had that score or higher was promoted.  During most of my time in, promotion to Corporal in the field of 0311 (Infantry Rifleman) was around 1,600.  Depending on the Job Specialty, the score can vary from around 1,400 to over 1,800.

Because it was based on the needs for promotions in each job skill, it normally means that some people are promoted faster then others.  In some areas like Infantry, the score was fairly low.  For highly technical skills with few positions like Armorer, it was fairly high.  In fact, because there are so few positions for Armorer in the rank of E-6 and above, normally somebody has to retire or die before anybody else can be promoted.

And NOWHERE is there race anywhere in the consideration.  In fact, nobody in Washington even knows who is being promoted.

In the Navy, it goes off of tests.  When you become eligable for promotion due to time in your current grade, you can take a test that relates to your job.  If you pass the test and there is a vacancy, you are promoted.  The Navy for the lower ranks (E1-E6) is often one of the FASTEST ways to get promoted.  That is compensated though, because promotion to E-7 is much harder.  It all tends to even out.  I am not sure how the Army and Air FOrce handle Enlisted promotions.

In a career of 10 years, I can't think of a single instance where race made any impact on a promotion.  In fact, at least ½ of the NCOs and Staff NCOs I worked for were minority, most often Black.  In one Company I was in, the First Sergeant, 5 of 11 Staff Sergeants and Gunnery Sergeants, and about half of the Corporals and Sergeants were black.  And 2 of the 5 Officers were minority (1 Black, 1 Hispanic).

Actually, I am not. But, there are many barriers still faced by military members of color that seriously need to be thought of, not put under the rug again or simply denied.

Tanya

I recently worked with an ex navy seal and asked him why he left.  His answer was that
he had gone as far as he could go.  To go any farther he would have to be related because
when it came down to it that is what it took.  He is white.  Let the peons fight among themselves
while the power brokers keep it all in the family.

BTW, why is the only Black Republican Congressman NOT a member of the "Congressional Black Caucus"?


J.C. Watts? Because he refused to join.

J.C. Watts? Because he refused to join.

And he's retired, so there's no "only" Republican African-American Congressman anymore!
::)

I just think that the President has, in four short years done so much to reverse the vast amount of cultural and social progress we made in America during Clinton's 90s. I'm talking about racial equality and affirmative action, I'm talking about improved attitudes toward gays, lesbians and bisexuals, I'm talking about the progression of the separation of church and state (something that is completely necessary for a true society of equals and impartial government).

Not to mention the nerve of Bush trying to saddle Clinton with the economic catastrophy that Bush himself created with his tax-cuts and frivolous squandry of the surplus. When Clinton left office, he left a stable economy and a BALANCED budget. Know that!

Bush means to divide us with issues like gay marriage which shouldn't even be an issue, let alone a constitutional amendment. I can think of a lot more worthy amendments to the constitution, other than the mean and meaningless deprivation of marital rights to a certain group of people. Last I chequed, the Constitution wasn't a tool used for discrimination.

I just think that the President has, in four short years done so much to reverse the vast amount of cultural and social progress we made in America during Clinton's 90s. I'm talking about racial equality and affirmative action, I'm talking about improved attitudes toward gays, lesbians and bisexuals, I'm talking about the progression of the separation of church and state (something that is completely necessary for a true society of equals and impartial government).

Not to mention the nerve of Bush trying to saddle Clinton with the economic catastrophy that Bush himself created with his tax-cuts and frivolous squandry of the surplus. When Clinton left office, he left a stable economy and a BALANCED budget. Know that!

Bush means to divide us with issues like gay marriage which shouldn't even be an issue, let alone a constitutional amendment. I can think of a lot more worthy amendments to the constitution, other than the mean and meaningless deprivation of marital rights to a certain group of people. Last I chequed, the Constitution wasn't a tool used for discrimination.


When I read the first few words of this post I thought "oh no, another repub".  Glad I continued on (as I always do).  Welcome to the board, companiero!

Right on, McDonald! I like your thinking style!

Tanya

Welcome to the fold MacD,  :)

Actually, I am not. But, there are many barriers still faced by military members of color that seriously need to be thought of, not put under the rug again or simply denied.


Yes, you are so right.  I had blinders on for 10 years of my life.  How could I ever have missed such obvious raceism.

I am now sorry I ever brought this topic up, and I bow out of it.  When imaginary barriers are more "real" then facts, it is not worth continuing.

Yes, you are so right.  I had blinders on for 10 years of my life.  How could I ever have missed such obvious raceism.

I am now sorry I ever brought this topic up, and I bow out of it.  When imaginary barriers are more "real" then facts, it is not worth continuing.


You obviously are a white male, not a female or a person of color. If you were a member of these groups, you wouldn't be so flippant about reality. To say the barriers mentioned by many people are imaginary, it illustrates how out of touch you really are with society.

If you are part of a group where almost none of these barriers exist (with the except of socioeconomic), of course, the barriers would seem imaginery b/c you've never experienced them. Just b/c an agency promotes its rhetoric, it doesn't mean it's truthful. Seek knowledge from those in the groups mentioned above. They are the ones who truly receive what the rhetoric fails to mention (most of the time on purpose).

It's unfortunate that you feel you shouldn't have brought the topic up. But, we have to learn from each other and a lot of times as we learn, we must pop those protective bubbles of denial or arrogance to truly be receptive of what learn. Don't be afraid to bring up a topic. Just be prepared to hear/read something different than yours.

Tanya

You obviously are a white male, not a female or a person of color.


So since I am white, I can't understand?  Now *THAT* sounds like a raceist comment if I ever heard one!


If you are part of a group where almost none of these barriers exist (with the except of socioeconomic), of course, the barriers would seem imaginery b/c you've never experienced them.

FYI, I have probably lived through much more hardships then you have by far.  How much time have you spent homeless?  How much time have you tried to fight through a beaurocracy to get medical care, just to be refused because the facilities are being closed and cut back by an apathetic president?  Have you been refused assistance because of your race?  I have been.

But the difference is that I did not hold a "pity party" for myself.  I just picked myself up and went on with my life.  I know that in my 10 years of Military service, that I did not see any raceism based promotions (or denial of promotions).  I served proudly in 4 different organizations, and can't even remember anybody suggesting that they were not promoted because of race.  This is a fact.  In fact, one fine Officer I worked with once chewed out a Marine for bringing up false raceism charges against another Marine.  The one who made the charges was kicked out about 6 months later after his second positive drug test.

BTW, the Officer who did the butt chewing was Black.

So since I am white, I can't understand?  Now *THAT* sounds like a raceist comment if I ever heard one!
It's not because you are white that you can't understand, it MAY be because you are stubborn.



FYI, I have probably lived through much more hardships then you have by far.  How much time have you spent homeless?  How much time have you tried to fight through a beaurocracy to get medical care, just to be refused because the facilities are being closed and cut back by an apathetic president?  Have you been refused assistance because of your race?  I have been.

But the difference is that I did not hold a "pity party" for myself.  I just picked myself up and went on with my life. 
I don't care if you through a pity PARADE for yourself with full regalia and fireworks.  That's YOUR business.  Horatio Alger stories reflect not socio-economic realities, that's why obfuscating right-wingers love 'em so much.  Anyway, when I read the above paragraph about the new white man's burden, the "pity party" sentence seems a wee bit ironic!

BTW, there's no "e" in the word "racist."

It's not because you are white that you can't understand, it MAY be because you are stubborn.


Maybe I am just sick of this entire "you can't possibly understand" garbage that some people insist on spreading.  It is nothing short of "you are not like us, so you can't understand".

It is a convient way to dodge facts, and bring in pure emotion.  You see, I do not base IMPORTANT decisions on emotion.  I base them on facts.  It is a fact, the US has IN THE PAST made some very racist decisions.  But that is exactly what it is, the past.

I do not carry on the past to the current generation (or future generations).  What Japan and Germany did in World War II was horrible.  But I do not blame people in Germany TODAY for those actions.  What Spain did during the Inquisition was truely a crime against humanity, but I do not blame Spanish citizens today.  The Aztec nation practiced ritual canibalism and human sacrifice, but I do not blame modern Mexicans.

To me, that is wrong.  If we obsess on the past, we can never truely change the future.  We just get stuck wallowing in a pit of self pity.  European Jews did not spend the next 60 years crying about how they were wronged by Hitler.  They largely moved on.  They vow to never forget, but they also chose to not live in that past, but to make a new future.

So I guess as a "White Man", I just can never understand.  But as a "Native American", I guess I can also not understand. 

Unconsciously, I think you threw yourself a pity party. Yes, I have been homeless. I had to move place to place b/c of my father's intent on throwing his wife and their four children out. So, yes, I understand what that means. No, I haven't been denied medical care b/c of my race. But, members of my family have b/c they unfortunately decided to try a hospital closer to them that only admitted whites, only to go to a "Coloreds Only" hospital that had half (if that) the services provided by the previous hospital.

You've dealt with hardships, I am not denying that. But, they were socioeconomic ones as many dealt with. In fact, it is often the most prevalent thing that unite others. However, I've dealt with gender, racial, and socioeconomic issues - all throughout my life. While I don't throw a pity party for myself, I don't forget them as often desired by others. I remember those who do not have the power of conviction and confidence to speak for themselves.

As a white person, you can certainly empathize. You would be less than human, if you didn't. I'm not saying that you don't, I believe you have a level of it. However, when you don't have to deal with the issues that others deal with (gender, racial, or otherwise), it's often easier to say that things aren't as hard as they look or seem. It would be easy to say men have it great, but I see the fatigue on my husband's face after coming home from a hard day of work or being stopped by a police car for the fifth time in a week. So, I don't have the mind set to do so.

We are deal with struggles in our lives. However, some aspects do make it harder (indirectly or directly) for some individuals. All I ask it that you considered that instead of brushing it off easily. Yes, you will say that you do, and you may think you do, but your posts almost say something else. Also, being a Native American, I know that you do understand, so I shouldn't have to say that.

I will keep you in my thoughts! I have no ill will towards you. It's against my nature to do so. Don't think my posts answering yours are personal attacks. They aren't.

Have a good day,

Tanya

Unconsciously, I think you threw yourself a pity party. Yes, I have been homeless. I had to move place to place b/c of my father's intent on throwing his wife and their four children out. So, yes, I understand what that means. No, I haven't been denied medical care b/c of my race. But, members of my family have b/c they unfortunately decided to try a hospital closer to them that only admitted whites, only to go to a "Coloreds Only" hospital that had half (if that) the services provided by the previous hospital.

You've dealt with hardships, I am not denying that. But, they were socioeconomic ones as many dealt with. In fact, it is often the most prevalent thing that unite others. However, I've dealt with gender, racial, and socioeconomic issues - all throughout my life. While I don't through a pity party for myself, I don't forget them as often desired by others. I remember those who do not have the power of conviction and confidence to speak for themselves.

As a white person, you can certainly empathize. You would be less than human, if you didn't. I'm not saying that you don't, I believe you have a level of it. However, when you don't have to deal with the issues that others deal with (gender, racial, or otherwise), it's often easier to say that things aren't as hard as they look or seem. It would be easy to say men have it great, but I see the fatigue on my husband's face after coming home from a hard day of work or being stopped by a police car for the fifth time in a week. So, I don't have the mind set to do so.

We are deal with struggles in our lives. However, some aspects do make it harder (indirectly or directly) for some individuals. All I ask it that you considered that instead of brushing it off easily. Yes, you will say that you do, and you may think you do, but your posts almost say something else. Also, being a Native American, I know that you do understand, so I shouldn't have to say that.

I will keep you in my thoughts! I have no ill will towards you. It's against my nature to do so. Don't think my posts answering yours are personal attacks. They aren't.

Have a good day,

Tanya




http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gif





Cat

http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gif


Cat


I Second That Emotion

Good post, Tanya.  ;)

Thanks Bobby, Danoota, and Cat!

Tanya

To me, Don King supporting Bush is another reason NOT to vote for Bush. And Charles Barkley and Ahhnold too. As a Republican, I think the GOP can do better. But I still wouldn't vote for Kerry. And voting for Ralph Nader or another 3rd party candidate is not a vote for Bush, IMHO.
So, because Don King is indorsing Bush, that means that I should? I don't vote for or against anyone because someone-and it doesn't matter WHO that someone is, indorses them. I can make up my own mind of who to vote for.


BTW, Carlos Santana is endorsing Kerry.  ;)




Cat

http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gif





Cat


I agree completely. 

Let me just pick up on one point Mushroom made regarding Vet Admin services and remind everyone that it is the CURRENT admin that has advocated further cuts.  Support our troops (ie our policies) but to h311 with the vets.

I agree completely. 

Let me just pick up on one point Mushroom made regarding Vet Admin services and remind everyone that it is the CURRENT admin that has advocated further cuts.  Support our troops (ie our policies) but to h311 with the vets.


This is why I can't understand the support given by the Veteran groups. If they only knew what was going on, I seriously doubt they would back him.

Tanya