I hear people comparing Rush Limbauigh and George W. Bush to the Nazis
all the time and it sickens me, since this administration has been the
most pro-minority Administration in over 100 years since
Reconstruction.
An African American woman has been nominated for Secretary of State.
A Jewish American has been nominated or Secretray of Homeland Security.
A Hispanic American has been selected at Attorney General.
I suppose the description of Al Franken as the Democrat's Goebbels was
less than gracious, but his lack of respect for opposing opinions is
fascistic. If Al Franken was our President, opposition figures would
face IRS audits, wiretapping, and would probably have other serious
problems . the man hates. I still suspect Clinton,as a jealous
husband, had something to do with the untimely demise of Vince Foster.
And you should read 'It Didn't Start With Watergate " By Victor Lasky.
But the description of the terrorists as Islamofascists is sound based
on their desire to install a clerical and totalitarian regime that
would be intolerant of other faiths...
Your folks do not know how fortunate itb is that John Kerry and Al
Gore never came to power in the face of Al Qaeda.

wrote:

I hear people comparing Rush Limbauigh and George W. Bush to the Nazis
all the time and it sickens me, since this administration has been the
most pro-minority Administration in over 100 years since
Reconstruction.

Aren't you taking a rather provincial view of Bush and let's say
African-Americans. African-Americans in general don't seem to view
Bush or Limbaugh as someone with whom they agree and quite frankly
that's a good point of view. Bush does have some African-American
support but sadly most of it seems more interested in what money and
power it can gather ala Armstrong Williams or even the Reverend Lusk,
or sadly homophobia as a motivation.

Since you've already made up your mind that nothing Bush can do is
trending towards fascism, I won't ask just what else government able to
grab an individual and hold that individual without court proceedings
for three years is an indication of?

An African American woman has been nominated for Secretary of State.
A Jewish American has been nominated or Secretray of Homeland
Security. A Hispanic American has been selected at Attorney General.

What of these nominations, should the nomination of single individuals
really prove anything? How many African-Americans agree with
Condoleeza Rice? Aren't there issues with the Atty General nominee
that should worry most thinking folk like claiming that the Geneva
Conventions don't apply at the whim of the President (hint, the Geneva
protocols also cover folks who are not in uniform)

Art Clemons writes:
African-Americans in general don't seem to view
Bush or Limbaugh as someone with whom they agree

Didn't they just now vote for him, against Kerry, in record numbers?
(Oh, I forgot! It was all a fix. The past two elections were a fraud.
Bush was never legitimately elected.)

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:

Didn't they just now vote for him, against Kerry, in record numbers?
(Oh, I forgot!**It*was*all*a*fix.**The*past*two*elections *were*a
fraud. Bush was never legitimately elected.)

I missed something somehow. African-Americans did not in general vote
for Bush even in the states where Bush got the most African-American
votes. Most of the African-American community seems to view Bush as a
horrendous mistake. Since you quoted me referring to
African-Americans, somehow you're trying for a non-sequitur that just
won't fly. Your point?

Art Clemons writes:

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
=20
Didn't they just now vote for him, against Kerry, in record numbers?
(Oh, I forgot!=A0=A0It=A0was=A0all=A0a=A0fix.=A0=A0The=A0 past=A0two=A0=
elections=A0were=A0a
fraud. Bush was never legitimately elected.)
=20
I missed something somehow. African-Americans did not in general vote
for Bush even in the states where Bush got the most African-American
votes. Most of the African-American community seems to view Bush as a
horrendous mistake. Since you quoted me referring to
African-Americans, somehow you're trying for a non-sequitur that just
won't fly. Your point?

Bush increased his black vote (by about 3 points) relative to=20
the 2000 numbers, while Kerry's huge effort to get more black
voters to the polls totally failed and he lost those points.
Most blacks didn't vote for Bush -- Bush gained black votes
and Kerry lost black votes.

Art Clemons writes:

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
=20
Didn't they just now vote for him, against Kerry, in record numbers?
(Oh, I forgot!=A0=A0It=A0was=A0all=A0a=A0fix.=A0=A0The=A0 past=A0two=A0=
elections=A0were=A0a
fraud. Bush was never legitimately elected.)
=20
I missed something somehow. African-Americans did not in general vote
for Bush even in the states where Bush got the most African-American
votes. Most of the African-American community seems to view Bush as a
horrendous mistake. Since you quoted me referring to
African-Americans, somehow you're trying for a non-sequitur that just
won't fly. Your point?

Bush increased his black vote (by about 3 points) relative to=20
the 2000 numbers, while Kerry's huge effort to get more black
voters to the polls totally failed and he lost those points.
Most blacks didn't vote for Bush -- Bush gained black votes
and Kerry lost black votes.

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:

Bush increased his black vote (by about 3 points) relative to=20
the 2000 numbers, while Kerry's huge effort to get more black
voters to the polls totally failed and he lost those points.
Most blacks didn't vote for Bush -- Bush gained black votes
and Kerry lost black votes.

Let's see, Kerry beats Bush by almost 9 to 1 in the African-American
community but Bush claims a mandate with 51% to 48% in the general
population. The other amazing statistic btw is that Kerry got more
votes for president than other candidate for president but one. I
finally note that Bush at his best still got less support than Richard
Nixon or Bob Dole in the African-American community. Hmmm, you can't
spin this one, African-Americans in general don't approve of Bush, and
that would still be true if instead of 3% more he had doubled his
percentage in the African-American voting populace.

Bush can claim the support he pays for in the African-American
community, one way or another and that's about it.

First, i am no racist. That's absurd, defamatory and ignorant.
Second, I am not a Republican automoton. I disagree with much of the
Patriot Act, the GOP position on stem cell research and I am strongly
in favor of gay marriage.
I am not a scholar of the Geneval Convention,.but I understand the"
ticking bomb "theory of torture and I think some light persuasion or
psych pressure on people who know about a vast terrorist network just
might save the lievs of innocent people.
As for the appointment of minorities to the Cabinet, the mere fact that
other minority group embers do not agree with them is irrelevant to the
fact that the GOP, whatever its flaws, is breakling new ground by
including representatives of these groups. that is to Bush's credit.
Finally, Mr. Huseein is being tried as a human rights criminal. His
emoval from office was morally justified even if our government had
some erroneous intelligence about WMD's. I can'rt see blaming Bush Rice
etc. for the mistakes of the
British intelliegcne that supplied the data.

wrote:

As for the appointment of minorities to the Cabinet, the mere fact
that other minority group embers do not agree with them is irrelevant
to the fact that the GOP, whatever its flaws, is breakling new ground
by including representatives of these groups. that is to Bush's
credit.

Bush isn't doing any more than Clinton did in absolute numbers. Sure
Bush has the first African-American female Secretary of State and the
likely first Mexican-American Atty General but that proves little, the
real question would be how representative of said groups his nominees
are or how most of said groups view Bush. For that matter, Bush's FCC
chairman has been a disaster for the likely future of broadcasting and
for that matter on other telecommunications issues too and his policies
to a great extent actually have lead to fewer minority broadcasters
than when he first became either an FCC commissioner or chairman.
There is this little thing called results and on that, so far a bunch
of duds has been what's occurred from my perspective and apparently
that of most "minority" voters.