You may be correct. That $250K+ crowd will be up in arms...

 

I know it's been discussed on here numerous times, but do you honestly believe he's going to be able to pay for all his plans by only increasing taxes on the wealthiest group?

I know it's been discussed on here numerous times, but do you honestly believe he's going to be able to pay for all his plans by only increasing taxes on the wealthiest group?

 

I know some of you guys on here are a bit young, but the last democrat to sit in the White House ran a campaign in 92 that promised tax cuts for the middle class and immediately upon taking office (literally), broke that promise. Surely, some of you older BGP'ers remember this very clearly. I know I do.

I know it's been discussed on here numerous times, but do you honestly believe he's going to be able to pay for all his plans by only increasing taxes on the wealthiest group?

 

In combination with getting out of Iraq, yes.

No riots. Why do people want to make an issue out of race?

You think that's what the police are doing? :confused:

In combination with getting out of Iraq, yes.

You're in for a real shock then.

Really?

 

More divided since the Civil War? Seems 2000 was pretty divided. The man with largest popular vote lost. He lost when a recount was halted by an administration whose Governor was the winning candidate's brother. The Supreme Court ruled along party lines and practically gave the election. I think the process worked. Some did not. The appearance of political collusion was heavy but riots didn't break out and system ruled and moved on. I'd say we were pretty divided then.

 

More divided since the Civil War? Did you catch the 60's? When a minor but vocal faction did all they could legal and illegal to stop an unpopular war. Meanwhile the South was being torn apart where federalized troops had to enforce new laws of desegregation. At the same time riots that consumed major cities flamed in the streets in '65 and later at the death of King in '68.

 

 

 

Why are we considering that now we are more divided?

 

Is it because both have charged up the level of do or die, life or death on this election? ("If Obama wins it will bring the wrath of God on us", or "If Obama loses it will have been because he is black.")

 

Are we divided by politic? Surely. But while the rhetoric is maybe hotter than many other times I see nothing more than the American Experience at play.

 

Here is another example of liberals not facing the facts. The original count showed that Bush had won. After the election there were numerous recounts that showed that Bush had indeed won.

I guess I'd have to disagree on this one. I am old enough to remember Watts, Kent State, the 1968 Democratic National Convention, etc. I truly do not believe that we will see anything similar; unless, as has already been noted, the election somehow turns into an appointment.

:thumb: I agree.

The only supporters that will riots will be Obamas.

Nice. I'd like you to point out just one BGP member that would be disappointed with that. This is the height of rhetoric and well beneath you RM.

 

 

I didn't even say they'd be BGP members, did I? I guess we see who does the assuming around here.

 

I stand by my statement, and have no qualms about what I said.

In combination with getting out of Iraq, yes.

Who ever takes office will SLOWLY get us out of Iraq. But don't think for a minute that the troops will come home or that all of a sudden all of this money will be available. Most if not all resources going to Iraq will be moved to Afgan.

No riots. Why do people want to make an issue out of race?

Who said anything about race?

I guess I'd have to disagree on this one. I am old enough to remember Watts, Kent State, the 1968 Democratic National Convention, etc. I truly do not believe that we will see anything similar; unless, as has already been noted, the election somehow turns into an appointment.

 

 

In stating that the country will be divided, I am not saying that there will be riots like those you mention although I do believe there will be significant unrest in large cities if Obama loses.

 

I am saying that the country will be seriously split particularly if Obama tries to force his "wealth redistribution" agenda on the country. Those who have worked to accumulate some degree of wealth and comfort for themselves and their heirs will not passively go along with his socialistic plans. Also, those who have traditional Judeo-Christian values and beliefs will not passively accept his secular humanist agenda. And, therein is where we will find the split.

 

Preservation of beliefs, ideals, and dreams that there are some absolutes in this life will be a strong incentive for those so inclined. I assure you that I am one of that group and will act accordingly. I'm sure many are of this same mindset.

Your "analysis" of what took place in 2000 is, to be nice, less than factual. Apparently, you are not aware that the vote in the Supreme Court in Bush v Gore was actually 7-2 that the procedure being used in Florida to "recount" votes was not constitutional. The 5-4 vote was in regard to the remedy. In the 7-2 vote, Justice Souter, an appointee of George H. W. Bush, voted with the minority (Gore). As for the 5-4 vote on the remedy, Souter and Stevens (a Ford appointee) voted with the minority (Gore).

 

Try actually reading the case before giving an analysis. You can't depend on the media to give you the truth.

 

I will stick by my statement concerning the division of the country. And, if Obama is successful in his "redistribution" efforts, it will get worse. You can bank on that.

 

First of all I was very well aware of the 2 seperate decisions and their votes. Maybe you should consider giving up the mind reading trade.

 

You even spelled out the truth of the decisions. The first decision was on the procedure but the second decision was as you put it "the remedy" which effectively ended the counting and declared the election over. If my use of "gave the election" offended you, my apologies. I've never looked at it as a tainted election but to not admit the "appearance" of collusion was my point and if you REREAD my post you will see I agreed with the decisions and outcomes. Geesh. And for good measure here is the statement again:

 

The man with largest popular vote lost. He lost when a recount was halted by an administration whose Governor was the winning candidate's brother. The Supreme Court ruled along party lines and practically gave the election. I think the process worked. Some did not. The appearance of political collusion was heavy but riots didn't break out and system ruled and moved on. I'd say we were pretty divided then.

 

I choose to point out that just because you and I agree that the decision was right and that at no time did Bush trail in the counts the perception is what haunted the election (not the facts). If this had happened in any other state (say Virginia) the perception factor would not have been there and the country would have moved on easier.

 

I also stick to the my argument. Despite appearances there were no riots.

If McCain wins out right I will say no riots, just a lot of disapoint folks.

 

Now if there are some funny stuff like Bush-Gore, then we may see some ticked off folks protest.

Who said anything about race?

 

I agree.

 

I think some immediately thought of the riots after Rodney King, MLK, and '65.

 

However I thought of even more devestating riots in our past (less than 100 years). I thought of the riots after Jack Johnson won the Heavyweight title in 1910.

 

The outcome of the fight triggered race riots that evening — the Fourth of July — all across the United States, from Texas and Colorado to New York and Washington, D.C. Johnson's victory over Jeffries had dashed white dreams of a finding a "great white hope" to defeat him. Many whites felt humiliated by the defeat of Jeffries and were incensed by Johnson's comments.[1]

 

Blacks, on the other hand, were jubilant, and celebrated Johnson's great victory as a victory for the entire race. Black poet William Waring Cuney later highlighted the African-American reaction to the fight in his poem, "My Lord, What a Morning". Around the country, blacks held spontaneous parades, gathered in prayer meetings, and purchased goods with winnings from backing Johnson at the bookmakers. These celebrations often drew a violent response from white men.

 

Some "riots" were simply African Americans celebrating in the streets. In certain cities, like Chicago, the police allowed them to continue their festivities. But in other cities the police and angry white citizens tried to subdue the celebrations. Police interrupted several attempted lynchings. In all, riots occurred in more than twenty-five states and fifty cities. At least 23 blacks and 2 whites died in the riots, and hundreds more were injured. A few white people were injured when they tried to intervene in a crowd's beating of a black man.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Arthur_Johnson

 

 

And the Tulsa riots of 1921:

 

The Riot began on May, 31,1921 because of an incident the day before. A black man named Dick Rowland, stepped into an elevator in the Drexel Building operated by a woman named Sarah Page. Suddenly, a scream was heard and Rowland got nervous and ran out. Rowland was accused of a sexual attack against Page. One version of the incident holds that Rowland stepped on Page's foot, throwing her off balance. When Rowland reached out to keep her from falling, she screamed. The next day, Rowland was arrested and held in the courthouse lockup. Headlines in the local newspapers inflamed public opinion and there was talk in the white community of lynch justice. The black community, equally incensed, prepared to defend him. Outside the courthouse, 75 armed black men mustered, offering their services to protect Rowland The Sheriff refused the offer.

 

A white man then tried to disarm one of the black men. While they were wrestling over the gun, it discharged. That was the spark the turned the incident into a massive racial conflict. Fighting broke out and continued through the night. Homes were looted and burned.

 

http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/departments/hpolscrv/VdeLaOliva.html

 

 

And Rosewood in Florida:

 

http://www.displaysforschools.com/history.html

 

 

The reality is that Americans have rioted for various reasons in our history (and 100 years is not that long ago in the scope of history). Will we riot this time? If we do it will be in my opinion because the hyperbole of both sides has ratched to the point of inciting the lawlessness. Just as what usually happens.