08-05-2004, 08:56 AM #1
GOP wants a black candidate in the worst way?
In the Illinois senate race Democratic "hot shot" Barack Obama looks like he has a clear route to victory however the republican war machine fires back by asking Alan Keyes?? Now you can call me a liberal which i never thought i was till i read some stuff on this site but dont you think this is a silly attempt by the republicans to get "their black guy" in the senate?
08-05-2004, 09:12 AM #2
08-05-2004, 10:31 AM #3
Yah, and Alan Keyes never lived in Illinois; he lives in Maryland right now.
Republicans threw a hissy-fit when Hillary ran for NY senator because of the residency issue, but now they're OK with doing the same thing with Alan Keyes. Sounds like hypocrisy to me . . .
08-05-2004, 03:05 PM #4
Lets look at history shall we........
Abraham Loncoln-- republican
Why black people vote for democrats is beyond me.
08-05-2004, 03:13 PM #5
I would vote for keys for president..
if you ever hear him speak.. you would know why.........The answer to your every question
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially
one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
If you get scammed by an UGL listed on this board or by another member here, it's all part of the game and learning experience for you,
we do not approve nor support any sources that may be listed on this site.
I will not do source checks for you, the peer review from other members should be enough to help you make a decision on your quest. Buyer beware.
Why the Police will Kick your ass
08-05-2004, 03:31 PM #6Originally Posted by kdawg21
buddy yesterdays democrats are todays republicans....u should research the history. those parties are not the same ones we have today. they are the same in name only
and keyes is a good speaker but so is al sharpton, i wouldnt vote for him...
08-05-2004, 07:26 PM #7
lets see here Louie........ the Senate records show that it was the democrats who filabustered the 1964 civil rights act...... filabuster... thats right genious they didnt want it to pass....
CHECK YOUR FACTS BEFORE YOU POST!!!!!!!!!
08-05-2004, 09:06 PM #8Originally Posted by kdawg21
Um, that would be the southern Democrats. A lot of southern democrats converted to the Republican party as a result of Lyndon Johnson's push for equal rights for blacks in the 1960's.
The Republicans nowadays are the party of conservative causes and Democrats are the party of progressives and liberals. Conservatives like things as they are, progressives and liberals like to improve things. Ya, I know that's an overgeneralization, but that's the general gist of things . . .
Something else you might like to chew on . . . since 1900, the US economy has performed better under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.
08-06-2004, 12:39 AM #9
they were still democrats..........
08-06-2004, 01:30 AM #10Originally Posted by kdawg21
But it was the Conservative Republicans AND Conservative Democrats who fought against social progress. It took Lyndon Johnson twisting a lot of arms amongst the Liberals and Progressives from both parties, and using the recent Kennedy assasination ("This is what Kennedy would want") to get equal rights legislation passed.
So nevermind what label the politicians had at the time, it was the Liberals and Progressives who made life easier for blacks. And again, it's the Liberals and Progressives who support things like equal rights for gays, collective bargaining rights for employees, clean air, working WITH and not to SPITE foreign nations, universal health care, and other cool stuff. Conservatives hate queers, want to do away with unions, be free to booger up the air (the conservative congressman just south of my home takes big campaign contributions from the biggest polluter in his district, and then their smog blows up into Dallas, and then the Health Department issues warnings NOT to breathe the air), and you know about the rest.
The upshot of all this is, that if you want civil rights and more $$ spent on social stuff (education & health care) you vote Liberal. If you want to keep the status quo (more power to corporations, more $$ to the military, less $$ to health care, and fewer civil rights) you vote Conservative.
Nowadays, Democrats are the liberals, and Republicans are the conservatives. Greens and Libertarians are other interesting possibilities, too, and deserve consideration.
08-06-2004, 02:19 AM #11
Allow me to re-iterate the fact that......
THEY WERE STILL DEMOCRATS...........
08-06-2004, 08:10 AM #12
some people jus cant admit when they are wrong
08-06-2004, 08:17 AM #13Originally Posted by kdawg21
actually no they didnt. if they filabustered it, it would have never passed. but we know the 1964 civil rights acts as well as the 65 act were passed because of a democratic president pushing for equal rights. Kennedy tried to do the same but hard ass repubs thought he was a brat and were not cooperative.
08-06-2004, 06:38 PM #14Originally Posted by kdawg21
Check out South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond --
James Strom Thurmond (December 5, 1902 - June 26, 2003), known as Strom Thurmond, was the oldest and longest serving United States Senator, who represented South Carolina from 1954 to April 1956 and November 1956 to 1964 as a Democrat and from 1964 to 2003 as a Republican. He served as Senator through his 90's, and left office at age 100, dying shortly after.
After attending Clemson College (now Clemson University) and graduating in 1923, Thurmond joined the United States Army Reserve in 1924; on D-Day, 1944 he landed in Normandy with the 82nd Airborne Division. For his military service, he earned 18 decorations, medals and awards, including the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, Bronze Star for Valor, Purple Heart, Belgian Order of the Crown, and French Croix de Guerre.
Thurmond's political career extended from the days of Jim Crow, when he was a strong supporter of racial segregation as a southern Democrat. He was elected Governor of South Carolina in 1947 and worked hard to preserve the state's existing segregation laws.
In the 1948 election he was a candidate for President of the United States on an independent ticket of the States Rights Democratic Party, also known as the Dixiecrat Party, which had split from the Democrats over the issue of segregation. Thurmond carried four states and received 39 electoral votes. His primary campaign platform was the perpetuation of segregation. One 1948 speech, met with cheers by supporters, included the following:
"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."
This old fossil wasn't much like other Democrats. He was just a hateful old bigot, voted into office by other hateful bigots from Soutn Carolina. He got fed up with the Democratic party in 1964 when LBJ and the rest of 'em pushed for the Civil Rights bill of 1964, left, and became a Republican.
He's dead and gone now, and though he may have been a nice gentleman to know personally, the country is better off without his racist and homophobic crap.
08-06-2004, 06:58 PM #15
Tock, I like you
08-06-2004, 07:09 PM #16
I bet Tock likes you too. J/K
08-06-2004, 08:23 PM #17Originally Posted by sigrabbit
Everybody likes me . . . and I like everybody, including you, sigrabbit. You're special . . .
08-07-2004, 08:41 PM #18
agreedOriginally Posted by spywizard
08-07-2004, 10:48 PM #19
What party was filabustering?
08-08-2004, 03:12 AM #20Originally Posted by Tock
08-08-2004, 05:23 PM #21Originally Posted by kdawg21
Oh for pete's sake . . .
The DEMOCRATS were pushing FOR the legislation, and ONE idiot Southern Democrat (who had previously run for president against both Democrats AND Republicans, and who was a Conservative champion of segregation) filabustered. There's an idiot in every crowd.
But once the Civil Rights Act got passed, this idiot pro-segregationist was WELCOMED into the ranks of the REPUBLICAN party. It's been mired in bigotry ever since.
08-08-2004, 05:33 PM #22Originally Posted by biglouie250
Ya, hypocrisy, sheer hypocrisy.
When Democrats do it, it's wrong. When Republicans do it, it's ok.
Goes to show what sort of "principles" the Republican party operates with . . .
Incidentally, I agree that a political candidate ought to have lived in its geographical boundries for a good time before running for office. Republicans flip-flop on this issue, depending on who's running where . . .
Republicans push anti-Hillary Clinton residency bill
4.21 p.m. ET (2122 GMT) March 8, 1999 By Marc Humbert,
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Republicans in the state Legislature have introduced a bill that could block Hillary Rodham Clinton from running for Senate in New York. But its chief sponsor conceded Monday it has virtually no chance of becoming law.
Nonetheless, the measure has provided Republicans with an opportunity to vent their frustration over the possibility the first lady might run for, and even win, the seat being vacated next year by Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Polls have shown Mrs. Clinton, who has never lived in New York, running well against the strongest potential GOP nominee, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
"You ought to live here so you know what the state's all about, especially if you're going to be a United States senator,'' state Assemblyman David Townsend said of his bill to impose a five-year state residency requirement on candidates for U.S. Senate or House seats. Currently, there are no residency requirements.
Townsend said he is realistic about the legislation's chances given that Democrats control the Assembly and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is a big booster of the Mrs. Clinton-for-Senate movement.
State Democratic chairwoman Judith Hope said she welcomes the GOP legislation.
"They think people elected them to get the Clintons. If they keep it up, they're going to guarantee, No. 1, that she runs and, No. 2, that she'll win,'' she said.
08-08-2004, 06:14 PM #23
I guess the Democrats set the bar on this one. No reason to complain now. But, I do agree that someone should have to at least live in a state for a year to run. Besides, the Republicans tried to get other people, and they wouldn't run...Ditka for example. No other candidate has enough money to get the name recognition to win.
08-08-2004, 08:15 PM #24
My point still stands........ he was a DEMOCRAT
08-09-2004, 02:49 AM #25Originally Posted by kdawg21
And my point still stands . . . Republican Hypocrisy!
08-09-2004, 03:24 AM #26
You'll probably see this quote in coming days; just remember you saw it here first!
"I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented
by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she
doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there.
So I certainly wouldn't imitate it."
-- Alan Keyes, FOX News, 3/17/2000
08-09-2004, 04:06 AM #27
08-09-2004, 11:33 AM #28AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
Originally Posted by Tock
- Join Date
- Aug 2001
- Wherever necessary
and frankly, I really dont have an issue with importing someone on a senate level - its done all the time - and lets face it Obama is NOT a black american in the normal sense - he is a foreigner made good who happens to be part african - have you noticed that we cant seem to get intelligent black candidates as products of inner cities? I wonder why that is?
Anyway, it should be a good race - both are very intelligent, well spoken, qualified candidates
08-09-2004, 03:48 PM #29Originally Posted by CYCLEON
Check out Robert Byrd's anti-war speech given right before the ****ed thing started, or at least the last paragraph:
Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003
To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.
Ya, the guy was right on the money . . .
Originally Posted by CYCLEON
[QUOTE=CYCLEON]and lets face it Obama is NOT a black american in the normal sense - he is a foreigner made good who happens to be part african -
He's black enough. Would you want your daughter to marry someone as black as him (I'm assuming you're caucasian)? He's black enough that had he married a white woman in most southern states before 1965, he'd have been sent to jail, assuming he didn't get lynched.
Originally Posted by CYCLEON
At least, that's what I've seen done to them. Ya, done to them by bosses I've worked for, comments from supervisors about racial minorities. I don't remember where you said you live, but here in Dallas, it gets ugly. In East Texas, it gets nasty.
Originally Posted by CYCLEON
One thing about Alan Keyes' campaign . . . he's over half a million in debt from his previous presidential campaigns; I wonder who's gonna give him credit to run a third failed senatorial campaign? I'll betcha the Republicans made a deal with him to compromise his scruples in return for them paying off his debt. Yah, for him, it's all about the money. In return, they get an Uncle Tom to say nice things about the Republicans who want to do away with the legislation that got them as far as they have . . .
JMHO . . .
08-11-2004, 01:23 AM #30
but when its all said and done....it was a democaratic filabuster..... thus rendering me correct
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)