| Author |
Message |
|
Anonymous
|
 makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: dolcevita wrote: Gah! All that poll shows is where voters perogatives lie. Almost all of the information on it has to do with foreign and global policy. That is something Democrats choose to make an issue.
If you put a poll up there right now about Gay Marriage, it would look something like this.
Legally Recognized Gay *Marriage*
Bush = Strongly Opposed Bush Constituency that Knows that = 100%
Kerry = Something about Marriage being between a man and a woman, something else about civil unions which can be legally recognized.
Kerry Constituency that Knows that = 75%
So it depends. Yes I'm shocked only 20% of his constituency knows Bush isn't opposed to land mines...but then again, its only an indication that they don't care, and aren't choosing to focus on that as one of the topics that informs their vote this November. That's what it says.
-Dolce This is true, but what does it say about the Republicans that they don't care enough to find out all of their candidates beliefs before dedicating themselves 100% to him? It says that the poll is idiotic and was designed to make Republicans look stupid. Of course if the results were opposite, this would be your favoritests poll evar. Nope. Have you ever seen me bring up such obviously partisan polls?
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:01 am |
|
|
|
makeshift
Teenage Dream
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:20 am
Posts: 9247
|
Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: Oh yes, and the 90% support for the Democrats from black people is only attributed to African-Americans being educated on the issues. Plez, spare your self-righteousness for some other place. What? The reason 90% of black people support the Democrats is because the Democrats were (are) the one's fighting for them to have equal rights. It doesn't have anything to do with being "educated on the issues". It's quite easy to tell who's helping you and who isin't. Oh really? Then how do you explain the fact that it was a Republican who ended slavery and Republicans in Congress who saw the Civil Rights Act pass? Of course it's easy to pretend that Democrats are the only ones caring about black people. Of course it's noble to support government giveaways to the poor. The only problem with thta is that the surest way to get rid of poverty is not to sponsor it. But that would politically-incorrect.  I knew you were going to bring that up. Yes, let's compare the Republican party of the 1800's to the Republican party now. This makes loads of sense, and is completely relevant to today's issues! Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, which, as far as I can tell, was 65 years after the end of 1800's. But I might be wrong. And exactly what Republicans played as big a role as Kennedy (Dem), Truman (Dem), and Lyndon B. Johnson (Dem) in passing the act?
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:05 am |
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: Oh yes, and the 90% support for the Democrats from black people is only attributed to African-Americans being educated on the issues. Plez, spare your self-righteousness for some other place. What? The reason 90% of black people support the Democrats is because the Democrats were (are) the one's fighting for them to have equal rights. It doesn't have anything to do with being "educated on the issues". It's quite easy to tell who's helping you and who isin't. Oh really? Then how do you explain the fact that it was a Republican who ended slavery and Republicans in Congress who saw the Civil Rights Act pass? Of course it's easy to pretend that Democrats are the only ones caring about black people. Of course it's noble to support government giveaways to the poor. The only problem with thta is that the surest way to get rid of poverty is not to sponsor it. But that would politically-incorrect. I knew you were going to bring that up. Yes, let's compare the Republican party of the 1800's to the Republican party now. This makes loads of sense, and is completely relevant to today's issues! Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, which, as far as I can tell, was 65 years after the end of 1800's. But I might be wrong. And exactly what Republicans played as big a role as Kennedy (Dem), Truman (Dem), and Lyndon B. Johnson (Dem) in passing the act? Senate minority leader Everett Dirkson.
Lyndon Johnson was reluctant in supporting the bill, FYI.
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:10 am |
|
|
|
makeshift
Teenage Dream
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:20 am
Posts: 9247
|
Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: Oh yes, and the 90% support for the Democrats from black people is only attributed to African-Americans being educated on the issues. Plez, spare your self-righteousness for some other place. What? The reason 90% of black people support the Democrats is because the Democrats were (are) the one's fighting for them to have equal rights. It doesn't have anything to do with being "educated on the issues". It's quite easy to tell who's helping you and who isin't. Oh really? Then how do you explain the fact that it was a Republican who ended slavery and Republicans in Congress who saw the Civil Rights Act pass? Of course it's easy to pretend that Democrats are the only ones caring about black people. Of course it's noble to support government giveaways to the poor. The only problem with thta is that the surest way to get rid of poverty is not to sponsor it. But that would politically-incorrect. I knew you were going to bring that up. Yes, let's compare the Republican party of the 1800's to the Republican party now. This makes loads of sense, and is completely relevant to today's issues! Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, which, as far as I can tell, was 65 years after the end of 1800's. But I might be wrong. And exactly what Republicans played as big a role as Kennedy (Dem), Truman (Dem), and Lyndon B. Johnson (Dem) in passing the act? Senate minority leader Everett Dirkson. Lyndon Johnson was reluctant in supporting the bill, FYI. Awesome. One guy. Granted, he did a lot, but he had to drag most of the Republicans kicking and screaming.
And for a guy reluctant to support it, he did a good job signing it into law.
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:14 am |
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: Oh yes, and the 90% support for the Democrats from black people is only attributed to African-Americans being educated on the issues. Plez, spare your self-righteousness for some other place. What? The reason 90% of black people support the Democrats is because the Democrats were (are) the one's fighting for them to have equal rights. It doesn't have anything to do with being "educated on the issues". It's quite easy to tell who's helping you and who isin't. Oh really? Then how do you explain the fact that it was a Republican who ended slavery and Republicans in Congress who saw the Civil Rights Act pass? Of course it's easy to pretend that Democrats are the only ones caring about black people. Of course it's noble to support government giveaways to the poor. The only problem with thta is that the surest way to get rid of poverty is not to sponsor it. But that would politically-incorrect. I knew you were going to bring that up. Yes, let's compare the Republican party of the 1800's to the Republican party now. This makes loads of sense, and is completely relevant to today's issues! Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, which, as far as I can tell, was 65 years after the end of 1800's. But I might be wrong. And exactly what Republicans played as big a role as Kennedy (Dem), Truman (Dem), and Lyndon B. Johnson (Dem) in passing the act? Senate minority leader Everett Dirkson. Lyndon Johnson was reluctant in supporting the bill, FYI. Awesome. One guy. Granted, he did a lot, but he had to drag most of the Republicans kicking and screaming. How do you figure that? It was actully the other way around. The Republicans were pretty much for it, while Democrats had to be talked into it.
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:16 am |
|
|
|
makeshift
Teenage Dream
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:20 am
Posts: 9247
|
Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: Oh yes, and the 90% support for the Democrats from black people is only attributed to African-Americans being educated on the issues. Plez, spare your self-righteousness for some other place. What? The reason 90% of black people support the Democrats is because the Democrats were (are) the one's fighting for them to have equal rights. It doesn't have anything to do with being "educated on the issues". It's quite easy to tell who's helping you and who isin't. Oh really? Then how do you explain the fact that it was a Republican who ended slavery and Republicans in Congress who saw the Civil Rights Act pass? Of course it's easy to pretend that Democrats are the only ones caring about black people. Of course it's noble to support government giveaways to the poor. The only problem with thta is that the surest way to get rid of poverty is not to sponsor it. But that would politically-incorrect. I knew you were going to bring that up. Yes, let's compare the Republican party of the 1800's to the Republican party now. This makes loads of sense, and is completely relevant to today's issues! Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, which, as far as I can tell, was 65 years after the end of 1800's. But I might be wrong. And exactly what Republicans played as big a role as Kennedy (Dem), Truman (Dem), and Lyndon B. Johnson (Dem) in passing the act? Senate minority leader Everett Dirkson. Lyndon Johnson was reluctant in supporting the bill, FYI. Awesome. One guy. Granted, he did a lot, but he had to drag most of the Republicans kicking and screaming. How do you figure that? It was actully the other way around. The Republicans were pretty much for it, while Democrats had to be talked into it. Well, in all honesty, both parties were dragging their feat on the issue. The southern Democrats did indeed support segregation, but so did a large majority of the Republicans.
All of this history is fine and dandy, Krem, but it doesn't have anything to do with the Republican party's attitude towards black people now.
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:21 am |
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
makeshift_wings wrote:
Well, in all honesty, both parties were dragging their feat on the issue. The southern Democrats did indeed support segregation, but so did a large majority of the Republicans.
All of this history is fine and dandy, Krem, but it doesn't have anything to do with the Republican party's attitude towards black people now.
These numbers are pretty telling, when talking about which party supported the bill and in which percentages:
By Party: The Original House Version:
* Democratic Party: 153-96
* Republican Party: 138-34
The Senate Version:
* Democratic Party: 46-21
* Republican Party: 27-6
The Senate Version, voted on by the House:
* Democratic Party: 153-91
* Republican Party: 136-35
As for today, what is it that the Democrats are doing for the black people?
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:27 am |
|
|
|
yearsago
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:20 pm
Posts: 491
Location: seattle
|
We need to increase our commitment in Iraq for the short term. Increasing it now..will decrease it for down the road.
So even though Bush is not doing a good job..he is on the right track..
I am upset with both canidates right now.. Dont even know if I am going to vote for the president.
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:30 am |
|
|
|
makeshift
Teenage Dream
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:20 am
Posts: 9247
|
Krem wrote:
As for today, what is it that the Democrats are doing for the black people?
Well, for starters, they don't want to abolish AA.
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:33 am |
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote:
As for today, what is it that the Democrats are doing for the black people?
Well, for starters, they don't want to abolish AA. I want to abolish AA too. I think it's a policy that on top of being unfair and unconstitutional also deepens the problem instead of resolving it.
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:36 am |
|
|
|
makeshift
Teenage Dream
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:20 am
Posts: 9247
|
The sad truth is that neither parties are doing a whole lot for black people right now. The Republicans flat out ignore them because they assume they'll vote Democrat, and the Democrats largly ignore them because they know their vote is already in the pocket.
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:36 am |
|
|
|
makeshift
Teenage Dream
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:20 am
Posts: 9247
|
Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote:
As for today, what is it that the Democrats are doing for the black people?
Well, for starters, they don't want to abolish AA. I want to abolish AA too. I think it's a policy that on top of being unfair and unconstitutional also deepens the problem instead of resolving it. That's fine and dandy, but the majority of blacks support it.
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:38 am |
|
|
|
lovemerox
Forum General
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:16 pm
Posts: 6499
Location: Down along the dixie line
|
Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote:
As for today, what is it that the Democrats are doing for the black people?
Well, for starters, they don't want to abolish AA. I want to abolish AA too. I think it's a policy that on top of being unfair and unconstitutional also deepens the problem instead of resolving it. Can you explain further as to why AA is so bad? And its funny you bring up something being unconstitutional when you support someone amending the constitution to prohibit certain civilians from basic human rights  _________________
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:39 am |
|
|
|
Caius
A very honest-hearted fellow
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Posts: 4767
|
What exactly is the Republicans Partys attitudes towards black people now?
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:39 am |
|
|
|
yearsago
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:20 pm
Posts: 491
Location: seattle
|
makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote:
As for today, what is it that the Democrats are doing for the black people?
Well, for starters, they don't want to abolish AA. Alcholics Anoymous?
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:39 am |
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote:
As for today, what is it that the Democrats are doing for the black people?
Well, for starters, they don't want to abolish AA. I want to abolish AA too. I think it's a policy that on top of being unfair and unconstitutional also deepens the problem instead of resolving it. That's fine and dandy, but the majority of blacks support it. The majority of Mormons support polygamy. Does that mean that a hypothetical party who supports legalization of polygamy is somehow better than any other party?
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:41 am |
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
lovemerox wrote: Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote:
As for today, what is it that the Democrats are doing for the black people?
Well, for starters, they don't want to abolish AA. I want to abolish AA too. I think it's a policy that on top of being unfair and unconstitutional also deepens the problem instead of resolving it. Can you explain further as to why AA is so bad? And its funny you bring up something being unconstitutional when you support someone amending the constitution to prohibit certain civilians from basic human rights AA is a policy based on promoting racial preference. Need I go into that further?
Your secnd statement is a non sequitur; I don't support Bush for his marruage amendment. TMA actually weakens my support for him.
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:43 am |
|
|
|
makeshift
Teenage Dream
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:20 am
Posts: 9247
|
Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote:
As for today, what is it that the Democrats are doing for the black people?
Well, for starters, they don't want to abolish AA. I want to abolish AA too. I think it's a policy that on top of being unfair and unconstitutional also deepens the problem instead of resolving it. That's fine and dandy, but the majority of blacks support it. The majority of Mormons support polygamy. Does that mean that a hypothetical party who supports legalization of polygamy is somehow better than any other party? Wait, what?! You're just being silly and random now, Krem. I never once said that the Dems are "better than any party" because they support AA.
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:43 am |
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
yearsago wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote:
As for today, what is it that the Democrats are doing for the black people?
Well, for starters, they don't want to abolish AA. Alcholics Anoymous? Worse than that. Annoying ACLU members.
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:44 am |
|
|
|
Caius
A very honest-hearted fellow
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Posts: 4767
|
lovemerox wrote: Can you explain further as to why AA is so bad? And its funny you bring up something being unconstitutional when you support someone amending the constitution to prohibit certain civilians from basic human rights Because the U.S. has traditionally been a meritocracy. When making hiring decesions the empoloyer should look at the qualifictations of the job canidate and not the race or sex of the canidate. Also, the goverment has no right under the constitution to force empolyers to hire certain people.
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:45 am |
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote:
As for today, what is it that the Democrats are doing for the black people?
Well, for starters, they don't want to abolish AA. I want to abolish AA too. I think it's a policy that on top of being unfair and unconstitutional also deepens the problem instead of resolving it. That's fine and dandy, but the majority of blacks support it. The majority of Mormons support polygamy. Does that mean that a hypothetical party who supports legalization of polygamy is somehow better than any other party? Wait, what?! You're just being silly and random now, Krem. I never once said that the Dems are "better than any party" because they support AA. I digress then.
In any case, I think the Republican Party's attitude towards blakc people is healthier than that of the Democrats', because it does not want to treat African Americans any different from whites, which is the right way to go, IMO.
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:48 am |
|
|
|
makeshift
Teenage Dream
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:20 am
Posts: 9247
|
Krem wrote: I digress then.
In any case, I think the Republican Party's attitude towards blakc people is healthier than that of the Democrats', because it does not want to treat African Americans any different from whites, which is the right way to go, IMO. I'm not sure if I agree with you or not, Kremmy. Either way, black people feel as if they are still owed something from this country, and they feel like AA is a good start to that. Obviously, they are gonna go with whatever party supports that.
Last edited by makeshift on Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:52 am |
|
|
|
lovemerox
Forum General
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:16 pm
Posts: 6499
Location: Down along the dixie line
|
Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote:
As for today, what is it that the Democrats are doing for the black people?
Well, for starters, they don't want to abolish AA. I want to abolish AA too. I think it's a policy that on top of being unfair and unconstitutional also deepens the problem instead of resolving it. That's fine and dandy, but the majority of blacks support it. The majority of Mormons support polygamy. Does that mean that a hypothetical party who supports legalization of polygamy is somehow better than any other party? Wait, what?! You're just being silly and random now, Krem. I never once said that the Dems are "better than any party" because they support AA. I digress then. In any case, I think the Republican Party's attitude towards blakc people is healthier than that of the Democrats', because it does not want to treat African Americans any different from whites, which is the right way to go, IMO. Good one. _________________
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:52 am |
|
|
|
lovemerox
Forum General
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:16 pm
Posts: 6499
Location: Down along the dixie line
|
makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: I digress then.
In any case, I think the Republican Party's attitude towards blakc people is healthier than that of the Democrats', because it does not want to treat African Americans any different from whites, which is the right way to go, IMO. I'm not sure if I agree with you or not, Kremmy. Either way, black people feel as if they are still owed something from this country, and they feel like AA is a good start to that. Obviously, they are gonna go with whatever party supports that. Not all black people feel as if they are "owed" something _________________
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:54 am |
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
makeshift_wings wrote: Krem wrote: I digress then.
In any case, I think the Republican Party's attitude towards blakc people is healthier than that of the Democrats', because it does not want to treat African Americans any different from whites, which is the right way to go, IMO. I'm not sure if I agree with you or not, Kremmy. Either way, black people feel as if they are still owed something from this country, and they feel like AA is a good start to that. Obviously, they are gonna go with whatever party supports that. Well, I am sorry for black people, but the majority of this country has nothing to do with the plight of their ancestors. They're going to have to make it on their own, like the rest fo the country does.
|
| Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:55 am |
|
|
