Where Two Or More Are Gathered..........

This is the place where all are welcome to join in and engage in spiritual, uplifting and intellectual conversation.Please do join us,won't you.....

Monday, July 18, 2005

The Republican Party Needs You...


Last week, President Bush was trying to appeal to Black Voters while attending the Indiana Black Expo. The Expo is an annual event that promotes black businesses, healthcare, jobs, education and other opportunities for the Black Community. In Bush’s speech he stressed that small businesses and black homeownership is at an all-time high under his watch. He also talked about his efforts to improve education, Social Security and increase aid to Africa. The timing of this speech couldn’t have been more ironic- considering he just left the G8 Summit, where he tried to convince other Nations to decrease their aid to Africa to make it appear that America’s aid was increased. He also conveniently left out the fact that black homeowner foreclosure is at an all-time high under his watch.

At the same time Bush was delivering his speech, Ken Mehlmen (RNC Chair) was addressing members of the NAACP at their annual convention. He even went as far as to express regret for “Republican attitudes towards Blacks in the past. Saying that, “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization.” That’s the first sign of truth that I’ve heard from someone in the Republican Party in a long time. It makes me wonder what they’re up to. The Republicans can’t expect that just mere acknowledge of such mistreatment will cause Black voters to come running back to the Republican Party. There is much work yet to be done.

Since the 2000 campaign, Bush has only reached out to carefully chosen minority audiences. In fairness, all of his audiences- black or white- are carefully chosen. Since taking office, Bush has declined several invitations to speak at NAACP sponsored events. Some think it’s because of an ad that was run during the 2000 campaign that portrayed Bush as being unsympathetic towards the dragging death of James Byrd. In the past couple of years, the IRS is investigating whether or not these ads violated the NAACP’s non-profit status. Many think the investigation is revenge.

Whatever the motive is for the recent push to motivate Blacks to vote Republican, it’s cause for Blacks to be on alert. We must hold ALL political parties accountable for our vote. Obviously the Black vote has power. We must recognize that power and use it to our advantage. It’s time to start getting some stuff done for our community.

61 Comments:

Blogger soundboyz said...

> It’s time to start getting some stuff done for our community.

What...your HAIR!!!!?

Mon Jul 18, 03:02:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

My hair, my nails... I need a new Prada bag and shoes to match. I need some stuff, I tell you!

Now you see why Mehlman admitted they just ignore us! We're too busy worried about material things that don't mean anything. Black folks for far too long have misunderstood real wealth. They want to "appear" wealthy without really understanding (and having the discipline) how to be wealthy.

Mon Jul 18, 03:21:00 PM 2005  
Blogger soundboyz said...

So, my basement apartment at my Mother's place is gaining appreciation, meanwhile, my Escalade on 29's ..(I doose it real BIG!!!)...is steadily LOSING value? The HELL you say?

Which just reminds me...I am going to have hydraulic stairs put on the runners so I can get into it!!!Now that's uplifting the community!!!Funky Fresh!!!

Mon Jul 18, 03:31:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

If you're living in your Mama's basement- it ain't an apartment. It's a room in your Mama's basement!

*Imara prays to God* "Dear Lord, please knock some sense into this brotha!" If you gave up the Escalade and the 29s you'd probably have enough to purchase your own home with your own basement. Now how's that working for ya? Well, that's barring you haven't already messed up your credit rating.

... Still get the hydraulic stairs, though. They'll help you get into your new Scion! ;)

Mon Jul 18, 03:40:00 PM 2005  
Blogger soundboyz said...

>... Still get the hydraulic stairs, though. They'll help you get into your new Scion! ;)


Imara.....YOU DIDN'T NEED TO GO THERE!!!!



Besides , I sold my Scion...to get the system for the Escalade!!!

Mon Jul 18, 03:46:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

I'm really interested to see what the Republican's have to offer. I'm not convinced that they have "Our" best interest at heart. So far, I don't see it. I wonder if they will "take us to the dance", like Rev. Al said but, then won't leave with us. :( Well, I atleast hope they serve some greens and sweet potato pie at this party! I'm hungry.

Mon Jul 18, 03:46:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

How's your financial planner?? "June-bug" and dem from around the way!! With these gas prices, how can you afford to drive your kitted out ride? Or do you just leave it parked in your Mother's driveway and have your "boys" come scoop you up?

Mon Jul 18, 03:50:00 PM 2005  
Blogger soundboyz said...

And don't worry about my credit Imara....I'm FINE!!!!Yep, according to your post, we're ALL doing fine!!


I'm in debt up to my EYEBALLS!!!Somebody please help me!!!I'm about to forclose on my tree house Imara!!!Apparently the bank is giving me 30 days to leaves!!!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!!

Mon Jul 18, 03:52:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

I meant "who"...

Mon Jul 18, 03:53:00 PM 2005  
Blogger soundboyz said...

> How's your financial planner??

She's just FINE IMARA!!!As a matter of fact, she's also my Anchor Banker, cause she understands!!!!

Mon Jul 18, 03:56:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

>I'm in debt up to my EYEBALLS!!!Somebody please help me!!!I'm about to forclose on my tree house Imara!!!Apparently the bank is giving me 30 days to leaves!!!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!!


ROFL!!!!!!!! You got me with that one!!

Mon Jul 18, 03:57:00 PM 2005  
Blogger soundboyz said...

Forget this!!!!I'm voting Republican!!!

Imara, this Democrat stuff doesn't seem to work!!Why can't I also swindle millions, billions even!!!

Mon Jul 18, 04:26:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Patches said...

Black, White, yellow, Blue, Purple or any shade in between, if your income is below $100,000, lip service is about the most one could expect from the Republican Party. Any benefits from the Republicans that helps lower income people, comes only from the law of unintentional circumstances.

Tue Jul 19, 06:06:00 AM 2005  
Blogger Patches said...

Meant to say "law of unintentional consequences."

Tue Jul 19, 06:08:00 AM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

Patches, I agree with your point. The Democratic Party often gets the label of "elite". In actuality, the Republicans are the ones who tend to be "Elitists". They want to keep the pot of wealth to a small select few. With wealth comes power. They understand that very well and are willing to do anything to manipulate that fact.

Tue Jul 19, 10:48:00 AM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

Soundboyz, Democrats swindles millions, too! The difference between Dems and Repubs is fairly simple. The Dems swindle you behind your back and make you think that they're for your best interest. The Repubs swindle you in your face and openly take pleasure in it.

Most younger new Republicans that I know are very condescending. They don't really understand the history of the Republican Party. They're Republican because they were "outraged" by what Clinton did (both politically and personally), all while doing things in their own personal lives that might be considered MUCH worse!

Tue Jul 19, 10:55:00 AM 2005  
Blogger soundboyz said...

True!!!True!!!

Tue Jul 19, 09:44:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

The rhetoric from both sides has already started with the nomination of Roberts- with the Far Right sounding the loudest. It's going to be interesting to see if they're going to be able to one: use this to detrack attention from Rove and two (if confirmed): over turn Roe v. Wade and Affirmative Action.

Wed Jul 20, 11:24:00 AM 2005  
Blogger Two Dogs said...

Good Lord.

Wed Jul 20, 02:12:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

Good Lord, what? Two Dogs, you know it's true. Why else would the "Retardicans" (I saw that today and just fell in deep like with it) want so badly to shift the court?

Wed Jul 20, 02:41:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Two Dogs said...

Imara, there is a shift back to basic morality that this country was founded upon. I happen to believe that the Constitution is the way to freedom for everyone. It points out that our rights are not given by a Congress, court or President. They could from G_D. I also firmly believe that your party has declined into the state that it has because it has become G_dless.

Wed Jul 20, 03:31:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

Like I've said before, I am not a registered Democrat. The "basic morality" that this country was founded on stated that blacks were property and woman didn't have the right to vote. Those "basic morals" ?

What is "given" by God should be left up to the individual. Seperation of Church and State. I believe that's in the Consititution as well.

Wed Jul 20, 04:21:00 PM 2005  
Blogger soundboyz said...

>What is "given" by God should be left up to the individual.

Imara,God is a Republican. Be careful!!!

Wed Jul 20, 04:44:00 PM 2005  
Blogger soundboyz said...

>The "basic morality" that this country was founded on stated that blacks were property and woman didn't have the right to vote. Those "basic morals" ?

Why ...Yes!!!!Imara, it is not my fault that blacks were once slaves and treated not much differently than anyone else!!Imara, blacks and women ARE property silly!!!This is what this fight is all about!!!I know better than you!!!

Wed Jul 20, 04:49:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Two Dogs said...

No, Imara, the Separation is NOT in the Constitution. There is only Freedom of Religion. The separation crap was found by the Liberal Warren Court that also legislated from the bench on Roe. Leftists on the bench have always tried to tell the States what to do.

And I can only find the one clause in the Constitution of 3/5th's in one place that is irrelevent now because of the Emanicipation Proclamation.

Wed Jul 20, 05:22:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

Amendment One of the Constitution reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Clearly, this is seperation of Church and State.

The Constitution is open for interpretation by the Supreme Court. Hence, the fight over nominations. All it takes is for a swift Lawyer to argue that Dred Scott or Roe v. Wade was improperly ruled on and petition to reopen the case. With an ultra-conservative court it's possible for the ruling to be overturned. I'll admit overturning Scott would be difficult but they have come extemely close on Affirmative Action and Abortion. It's just a matter of time...

Thu Jul 21, 10:50:00 AM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

SB said: "Imara, blacks and women ARE property silly!!!This is what this fight is all about!!!I know better than you!!!"

No Soundboyz! Don't tell me they've gotten to you! You can't jump the fence now!! The "movement" needs you.

*Imara slaps Soundboyz in the back of the head trying to knock some good sense back into him* BROTHA ARE YOU OUTTA YO MIND?!

Thu Jul 21, 10:55:00 AM 2005  
Blogger Two Dogs said...

Imara, I do not see the word "separation" or "state" in what you quoted. It says that Congress will not start its own religion. Period, that is what it says. But clearly we are at a point in time where they are trying to do just that and it is called secularism.

Thu Jul 21, 01:24:00 PM 2005  
Blogger soundboyz said...

Imara, I think I am going to vote for a Bush in the next election!!!

Thu Jul 21, 01:44:00 PM 2005  
Blogger soundboyz said...

Karl Rove for president!!!!Hell, he's president NOW!!!I think Karl Rove is really the great grandson of Benjamin Franklin, one of our dearest founding fathers!!

Thu Jul 21, 02:00:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

Soundboyz, *LOL* Now that you say that, Rove does look like Franklin! I'm sure you'll vote for a Bush in the next election!! LOL!!

Thu Jul 21, 03:41:00 PM 2005  
Blogger soundboyz said...

>Soundboyz, *LOL* Now that you say that, Rove does look like Franklin! I'm sure you'll vote for a Bush in the next election!! LOL!!


Don't laugh at me!!!!See, that's why the Dems have NO real support !!!You guys want to yell ,scream and mock me!!!Fine, I will just take my vote elsewhere!!!

Thu Jul 21, 03:46:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

Two Dogs, you're arguing semantics. C'mon, you're smarter than that. You know darn well what that Amendment addresses.

What your Party is trying to move toward clearly goes against this Amendment! This country isn't a Theocracy. The Religious Conservatives would love to see that! This country was founded on freedom of religion and the Founding Fathers took great care to make sure that those freedoms are protected.

As a matter of fact, I'm going to make the argument that abortion goes against this Amendment. Here's why. Whether or not life begins at conception is a moral/religious question. Medically, life can not be sustained outside of the womb, without some kind of assistance, until about 30 weeks (and even that's rare). "Murder" is defined by law as "taking of a life", technically, a fetus at this stage is not a "life", therefore, it becomes a "moral" issue, which is religious in nature. The First Amendment states that Congress shall not make any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or lack thereof for that matter.

Thu Jul 21, 04:07:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

soundboyz, what are the Republicans going to do for you? Do they really deserve your vote?

Thu Jul 21, 04:10:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Two Dogs said...

Imara, I do believe that I am reading the words and you are looking for something that it simply does not say. Congress cannot establish a religion. Every state in the Union can do so if they so desire. That is what it says.

Congress cannot, according to the Constitution, pass any law that is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Do they do it? of course they do, and a Supreme Court that interprets the Law should spank them down every time. That is why we should have a strictly Constitutional court.

Thu Jul 21, 04:53:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Patches said...

The founding fathers knew exactly what a state religion was “Church of England”, and they also knew to be free of this state religion was the reason their ancestors came to the New World.” They knew that Church and government was a bad mix. I doubt they would see any difference in the government establishing a religion or a religion taking over the government.

: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

This is clearly a separation, and what the religious right wants today is to control the government, they want a government of believes not a government of laws.

Thu Jul 21, 07:25:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Two Dogs said...

Patches, for the Supreme Court to tell Kentucky that they could not have the Ten Commandments in THEIR courthouse is exactly against what the Constitution says. It is Kentucky's free excercise that the Supremes has banned. It is unconstitutional. It was not a federal courthouse.

Thu Jul 21, 08:58:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

What exactly do you mean by this?: "That is why we should have a strictly Constitutional court." Hasn't the High Court been interpreting the Constitution for the past 200+ years?

The Supreme Court should be balanced. It's best if the Court is Moderate with a fair balance of Republicans and Democrats. Without balance, tyranny is inevitable.

Fri Jul 22, 11:54:00 AM 2005  
Blogger Two Dogs said...

Imara, political ideology has nothing to do with reading the Law. You have interpreted the First Amendment above to include something that is NOT specifically enumerated, hence you are not competent to sit on the Supreme Court in my opinion.

Same thing with the KKKarl Rove attack, it is clear to everyone that can read that he did not break the law that he is accused of breaking. It is on my blog if you are remotely curious about the truth.

Fri Jul 22, 12:40:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Two Dogs said...

Oh, Imara, I did not mean the competent remark to be a personal attack, I was simply saying that my opinion is that the Constitution is NOT a living, breathing document like your side says.

Fri Jul 22, 12:44:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

No harm. I didn't take your comment as a "personal attack". You're hardly qualified to judge who should sit on the bench. ;)

I quickly read your post but wasn't sure if I could stomach the link. I will take two "Rolaids" and take a look.

Seems to me that interjection of political ideology is coming from you.

Fri Jul 22, 01:31:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

Patches, I'm glad that we see eye to eye on this issue.

Fri Jul 22, 01:32:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Patches said...

The justices ruled 5 to 4 that public officials were not motivated by a necessary secular purpose in ordering the courthouse display. Instead the majority ruled that government officials in the Kentucky case had acted in a way that sought to advance religion in violation of the separation of church and state.

Sandra Day O'Connor, said she worries the federal government is encroaching too much on states' rights and stressed the importance of religious freedom. But she said the courts must "protect citizens from religious incursions by the state as well as the federal government."

Writing for the majority in the Kentucky case, Justice David Souter said that government officials had acted with an improper purpose in posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses. "When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates the central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," Souter writes.

Appears to me that this ruling was on the 1st amendment not on state rights. States do not have the right to over ride the Constitution.

Fri Jul 22, 02:06:00 PM 2005  
Blogger soundboyz said...

>States do not have the right to over ride the Constitution.States do not have the right to over ride the Constitution.States do not have the right to over ride the Constitution.States do not have the right to over ride the Constitution.States do not have the right to over ride the Constitution.States do not have the right to over ride the Constitution.States do not have the right to over ride the Constitution.States do not have the right to over ride the Constitution.

Fri Jul 22, 02:22:00 PM 2005  
Blogger soundboyz said...

> Patches, I'm glad that we see eye to eye on this issue.


Imara, this is simply because you and Patches are the same height!!!

Fri Jul 22, 02:23:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

Two Dogs, I read your post. Sounds to me like you're doing nothing more than regurgitating Karl Rove's daily talking points. If you read your party's position when the story broke two years ago and compare it to now, you would have to be blind, deaf and dumb to not recognize the contradictions. It's another flip-flop by Retardicans to confuse and dillute the issue. By his own admission, Rove was the source (according to Cooper, one of a few within the administration) for the story. Bush vowed to fired any "leakers" in his administration. Bush should do his part and keep his word. Whether or not any laws were broken remains to be seen.

Fri Jul 22, 02:41:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

>Imara, this is simply because you and Patches are the same height!!!

LOL!!!LOL!!!LOL!!!

Fri Jul 22, 02:44:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

>States do not have the right to over ride the Constitution.

Funny. They say they want a "Strict Constitutionalist" on the High Court, yet it seems that they really have a distain for the Constitution. I'm starting to think that the 'Retairdicans' are very simple minded and incapable of making a rational decision.

Fri Jul 22, 02:49:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Two Dogs said...

Imara, my take on this KKKarl issue has come from the Left's barking on the topic. I have not heard nor read anything that the Bush administration has said on the topic. Much less what Rove has said. I just debunked the Left's new talking points. It's not hard to do. Just read the Law. Most adults can read and comprehend what they have read. There is no way that Rove broke this Law and I have proven it.

Sat Jul 23, 01:45:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

I like the "KKKarl" thing. I'll give you two points for that one!

Of course you haven't read anything that the Administration has said because they can't really say much right now. They're all part of an ongoing investigation. *giggle* However, Bush did say that he would reserve any comments until after the investigation was complete and if the investigation found there to be a law breaker in his administration he would fire that person. Well, well, well. That's different from what he said two years ago. Even his own father said that this was the worst act of treason! I think "W" should be a man of his word. Rove admited to being the source of the story that outted Plame. Bush said he would fire any "leakers" (now that's funny!) in his administration. Well, folks we have a "leaker". Fire his ass already! Although, I must admit, the longer Rove stays on the more the American people become leary and fed-up with Bush. Can't mean good things instore in '06 for "Retardicans". They have changed their position on this issue more times than Kerry did on the War. First she wasn't outted by someone in the WH. Then it was, okay she was discussed by Rove but he didn't "out" her because he didn't actually use her name. Then it changed to, he didn't knowingly out her. Then it switched to attacks on Wilson. Now their going with, she couldn't have been outted because she wasn't covert. Good Lord.

Mon Jul 25, 09:40:00 AM 2005  
Blogger soundboyz said...

Imara, you forgot the most recent ones, Rove was actually told by Novak , or someone else in Novak's office ,if Novak gets pissed!! Then, Rove was told by some low level intern in Cheney's office!!!Oh, wait, then there's the one that says that Tim Russert of all people was the one to first tell everybody else!!!Next, it will be Tim's father Big Russ that is the source of the leak!!!

I like Tim Russert and Big Russ , so they need to work on another one!!!

Mon Jul 25, 11:23:00 AM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

^LOL!! Russert testified before the grand jury that he under no circumstances disclosed the name. I really think that when this whole investigation is done we will learn that there were many more people involved in this leak than we originally thought. Karen Huges... Arie Fleisher (maybe why he resigned?? among other reasons)... George Tenet... even Cheney.

What gets me is clearly there was something "wrong" done here, yet Retardicans don't seem to care. If this happened under Democratic leadership, the Retardicans would be up in arms but, since they're in charge they not only don't see the wrong. They're towing the party line just lovely! It's enough to drive one mad.

Mon Jul 25, 01:19:00 PM 2005  
Blogger soundboyz said...

>It's enough to drive one mad.

LOL!!!LOL!!LOL!!!LOL!!!You sound mad Imara!!!And I don't mean upset mad!!!

Tue Jul 26, 03:33:00 PM 2005  
Blogger soundboyz said...

Imara, I am officially a Retardican!!!Sorry Imara, I was tired of having 29's on my Scion!!!Yes Imara, you were right, I have a Scion!!

Now, I drive a Ford!!!A model U!!!The Model U's came out just after the Model T's!!!I look like Jack Johnson zipping around, wearing goggles, with a white woman in the little buggy part!!And NO!!!She is NOT a prostitute!!She's just my lady friend from Chicago!!:(

Tue Jul 26, 03:43:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

Good Lord. Not Jack Johnson. He was the most "uppity" negro ever.

Wed Jul 27, 02:17:00 PM 2005  
Blogger soundboyz said...

> He was the most "uppity" negro ever.

Imara, I think you are just reacting to the fact that this man chose to have relations with white women!!Shame on YOU!!!!:(Imara, why do black women get so nasty towards black men who find love in the "other white meat"?LOVE is LOVE my sistren!!!Don't EVER forget that!!!

Fri Jul 29, 10:11:00 AM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

Good Lord! He can "love" any woman he chooses. Just remember, these woman only "loved" him because they were sexually curious and he had money! Ish ain't changed!

Fri Jul 29, 02:55:00 PM 2005  
Blogger soundboyz said...

>Just remember, these woman only "loved" him because they were sexually curious and he had money! Ish ain't changed!


Curious?

Fri Jul 29, 04:53:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Imara said...

LOL!! Curious about what?!

Wed Aug 03, 02:51:00 PM 2005  
Blogger soundboyz said...

I'm asking the questions!!!Curious?!?!?!

Thu Aug 04, 04:52:00 PM 2005  
Blogger gladys99 said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a speaker bureau site. It pretty much covers financial speaker related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

Tue Nov 22, 09:19:00 AM 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home