Comments on: Democratic Underground

By: pascal

pascal — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:04:20 +0000

Nothing wimpy about good ideas, of which Wilson has none. If you want to cry about being only 60% of a man, I suppose that is your right. The Founders dealt with their problems the best they knew how and better than anyone else had to that point. As to the ideas that Indiana should adopt. They aren't wimpy….you pussy.

By: pascal

pascal — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:04:20 +0000

By: IndyErnie

IndyErnie — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:20:53 +0000

Wilson anytime you want to debate actual history I'm in. However please keep in mind that the twists and turns that you attempt to interject won't fly.
Speaking of trees… wasn't there a photo on the internet of you sitting under a bridge discussing life with a tree or two? Wasn't that you? or…was that a troll?

By: wilson46201

wilson46201 — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:53:59 +0000

Ernies ignorance is so profound that arguing history with him is like talking to a tree stump.

By: IndyErnie

IndyErnie — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:37:21 +0000

Poor Wilson, out there all by himself twisting history again…changing your name doesn't make one anew.
Just because the party was organized in 1792 doesn’t negate the fact that it was active for decades prior to.

By: wilson46201

wilson46201 — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:58:08 +0000

If todays GOP is sooo good for African-Americans, how come there are NO Black Republicans elected to either the Legislature or to Congress? How come Republicans are lucky to get even 10% of the African-American vote?
P.S. The Democratic Party didn't even exist 300 years ago but a little learning was never high on your agenda, was it now?

By: IndyErnie

IndyErnie — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:50:32 +0000

We don't need to go back that far Wilson. In fact we can go back to 1860 when the southern democrats argued to count slaves as 7/10 of a person when considering congressional seats.
You must be proud of your party. The party that kept AA's enslaved for three hundred years pre civil war and 90 more years post CW.
Its a shame that even today the democrats are still try to control AA's with the social programs they are pursuing.

By: Sugar Honey

Sugar Honey — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 03:02:05 +0000

Ed was not scheduled to attend the meeting. He was sent a letter asking him to attend. He replied that he would not attend – you should ask your source why he would no attend and for a copy of his response. I'm sure your source did not give you any of their baggage into why they are on the outside looking in. What is happening with the organization is hurt feelings and revenage by two people. They hate Ed and would do anything to make him look bad, even make the IDAAC look bad. It is not about Andre Carson, although that is what they've said. They are not trying to help black people get elected. They are Greg Bowes supporters and by the way, I really like Greg, but these two people are bringing him down. I've spoken with several people who attended the meeting and they said Bill Crawford was not outraged at the meeting and he attended a meeting earlier this year when the slating process was discussed. Sounds like there needs to be new leadership within the IDAAC because the two people running the IDAAC need to get over the fact they don't have any power in the party and they never will. I mean who wants someone in power that sends out physcially threatening letters. I'm sure your source didn't share that letter with you. Just like cowards, they throw the stone and hide their hands. Ask your source for all the details or find someone who can objectively give you accurate information. The lies just don't work. By the way I've spoken with alot of Black precinct people and elected officials, they are not happy with the IDAAC leadership. It might be a racial thing, but it is only for the two Black people who is supporting the White candidate. Abdul, before you believe what people tell you, do a background check. You might uncover a lot of good stuff in the process of getting truthful information.

By: Sugar Honey

Sugar Honey — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 03:01:21 +0000

Ed was not scheduled to attend the meeting. He was sent a letter asking him to attend. He replied that he would not attend - you should ask your source why he would no attend and for a copy of his response. I'm sure your source did not give you any of their baggage into why they are on the outside looking in.

What is happening with the organization is hurt feelings and revenage by two people. They hate Ed and would do anything to make him look bad, even make the IDAAC look bad. It is not about Andre Carson, although that is what they've said. They are not trying to help black people get elected. They are Greg Bowes supporters and by the way, I really like Greg, but these two people are bringing him down.

I've spoken with several people who attended the meeting and they said Bill Crawford was not outraged at the meeting and he attended a meeting earlier this year when the slating process was discussed.

Sounds like there needs to be new leadership within the IDAAC because the two people running the IDAAC need to get over the fact they don't have any power in the party and they never will. I mean who wants someone in power that sends out physcially threatening letters. I'm sure your source didn't share that letter with you.

Just like cowards, they throw the stone and hide their hands. Ask your source for all the details or find someone who can objectively give you accurate information. The lies just don't work.

By the way I've spoken with alot of Black precinct people and elected officials, they are not happy with the IDAAC leadership. It might be a racial thing, but it is only for the two Black people who is supporting the White candidate.

Abdul, before you believe what people tell you, do a background check. You might uncover a lot of good stuff in the process of getting truthful information.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:30:54 +0000

Aren't we expected to be literate, to drive a car? It could be argued that literacy (coupled with critical thought) can be a shield against misinformation (manipulation, etc.). Steinbeck?

If “ignorance of the law is no excuse” (yes we're overwhelmed with flaws posed as laws), how is ignorance of our most fundamental law, the Constitution, “excusable?”