neoufo51 Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Yeah I know...generalization, but its a funny one. Here's the video. In S.F., Dean calls GOP 'a white Christian party'In this 4 min. 48 sec. excerpt from Howard Dean's remarks Tuesday in San Francisco, Dean responds to a question from reporter Portia Li with the World Journal about a poll showing a slide in support for Republicans among Asian and women voters. ... Later in the roundtable interview, Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci asks a follow-up question about Dean's recent aggressive tone toward the GOP. (Listen with QuickTime software for Windows or MacOS) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/artic...Ndean07.TMP&o=1 Oh well...he would have been better than Kerry, but he's a publicists nightmare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotix Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 "The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people," Dean said Monday, responding to a question about diversity during a forum with minority leaders and journalists. "We're more welcoming to different folks, because that's the type of people we are. But that's not enough. We do have to deliver on things: jobs and housing and business opportunities." He should have said pretty much a party of angry white Christian males. Theocrats and plutocrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 I love it when stupid liberals open their mouth and makes themselves look even more stupid then what they already do :laugh: But that's not enough. We do have to deliver on things How about giving Bush's nominees an up or down vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbleph1$h Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 I love it when stupid liberals open their mouth and makes themselves look even more stupid then what they already do :laugh:How about giving Bush's nominees an up or down vote? 586032516[/snapback] ...... or making their minds up on anything besides hating Bush for that matter. :rofl: At least the 'smart' Dem's like Bill Clinton are starting to understand they need to bring some alternative solutions to the table rather than just criticize everything the Republicans think of. Unfortunately, Howard Dean isn't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 I don't know how strictly relevant to the topic this is, but one of the things that bothers me about Democrats since... hm, maybe the first George Bush (give or take a president or two) is that they don't ever have any ideas anymore. All they do is sit around with their thumbs up their asses until the Republicans decide to do something (anything) and then they jump up on the table and scream about how whatever the Republicans wanted to do sucks. They very rarely come up with their own ideas, and even when they do it seems like they only do so to have a better position from which to gripe about <insert anything>. Not that Republicans are any better; they suck in different ways. But at least they try to solve what they think are the problems with the country instead of just endlessly bitching about the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted June 8, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 8, 2005 I don't know how strictly relevant to the topic this is, but one of the things that bothers me about Democrats since... hm, maybe the first George Bush (give or take a president or two) is that they don't ever have any ideas anymore. All they do is sit around with their thumbs up their asses until the Republicans decide to do something (anything) and then they jump up on the table and scream about how whatever the Republicans wanted to do sucks. They very rarely come up with their own ideas, and even when they do it seems like they only do so to have a better position from which to gripe about <insert anything>.Not that Republicans are any better; they suck in different ways. But at least they try to solve what they think are the problems with the country instead of just endlessly bitching about the other side. 586032571[/snapback] Not controlling a majority in congress would probably have something to do with that. Or so I'd expect. When was the last time the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axon Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 I love it when stupid liberals open their mouth and makes themselves look even more stupid then what they already do :laugh:How about giving Bush's nominees an up or down vote? 586032516[/snapback] Again with the liberals talk. Stop buying into to every word the Rep. spinsters throw out there, it truely only makes you look like an uninformed person. They're democrats. Liberals or liberatarians are a far different group than Democrats. -Ax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotix Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 House of Representatives - 1994 Senate - 2002-2003, when Republican James Jeffords became an independent and swung the balance of power over to the Democratic Party temporarily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbleph1$h Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 When was the last time the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate? 586032675[/snapback] 1994. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbleph1$h Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Again with the liberals talk. Stop buying into to every word the Rep. spinsters throw out there, it truely only makes you look like an uninformed person. They're democrats. Liberals or liberatarians are a far different group than Democrats.-Ax 586032704[/snapback] LOL, talk about making yourself 'look like an uninformed person'. Grouping 'liberals' and 'libertarians' together is flawed in a big way. :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Again with the liberals talk. Stop buying into to every word the Rep. spinsters throw out there, it truely only makes you look like an uninformed person. They're democrats. Liberals or liberatarians are a far different group than Democrats.-Ax 586032704[/snapback] In general, Americans have a kinda short-sighted view of what 'liberal' means. There are only two sides of the spectrum in America -- liberal (which basically means anybody who tends to side with the Democrats) and conservative (which basically means anybody who tends to side with the Republicans). Most Americans seem to be unaware of the other definitions of the word 'liberal', and even if they were aware of them they wouldn't care, because the Democrats and Republicans are, obviously, the only parties that really matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axon Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 I just find it disgusting how Liberal has become the new Commie. Why the hell wouldn't you just call them Democrats? Why use a degrading term that makes you look like nothing other than someone that has to resort to name calling. It's truely pathetic. -Ax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 LOL, talk about making yourself 'look like an uninformed person'. Grouping 'liberals' and 'libertarians' together is flawed in a big way. :whistle: 586032720[/snapback] No, not for someone who isn't American. 'Liberalism' (some political-science-type people call it 'classical liberalism' now) originally was pretty close to the same thing as what Americans call libertarianism today. It didn't get the all the socialist connotations in America until well into the 20th Century, and it didn't get them at all in some parts of the rest of the world (particularly in Europe). I just find it disgusting how Liberal has become the new Commie. Why the hell wouldn't you just call them Democrats? Why use a degrading term that makes you look like nothing other than someone that has to resort to name calling. It's truely pathetic.-Ax 586032752[/snapback] The funny thing is that the Democrats kinda let their own fancy term for themselves become derogatory. Originally they LOVED to be called liberal. Then the Republicans (and others) started to use it in a bad way, and it got that 'new Commie' feel that you're talking about. A lot of Democrats (and people who tend to side with them) are going all anti-disestablishmentarian and trying to 'take back' the word, though. Anyway, it's not a big deal. Republicans like to call Democrats 'liberal', and Democrats like to call Republicans 'neo-cons'. They all have their little stupid names for each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSoul Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 well its true. The only black people i saw in the GOP were Powell (who left) and Conda Lisa Rice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSoul Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 I just find it disgusting how Liberal has become the new Commie. Why the hell wouldn't you just call them Democrats? Why use a degrading term that makes you look like nothing other than someone that has to resort to name calling. It's truely pathetic.-Ax 586032752[/snapback] I find it disgusting that the party that freed the slaves (republican party) has its roles completely reversed and the democratic party which promoted slavery in 1830 has more black supporting it in terms of values towards attitude and behavior towards them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smaulz Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 well its true. The only black people i saw in the GOP were Powell (who left) and Conda Lisa Rice 586032793[/snapback] Which is completely ridiculous. The Democratic Party has been the one with the racist track record, (i.e. segregationism, slavery, etc.) [edit] oops, got in there before me... oh well, it still stands.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSoul Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 well the democratic party was reformed under FDR or whoever the president was who reformed them to fight against racism, unlike republicans which have the early 20th century mentality in terms of race issues. Look who controls the southern belt now, the republicans , just like democrats did in time of the slavery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Not all Republicans (in fact, i would guess very very few of them) have an 'early 20th century mentality in terms of race issues'. Initially (as in, after the '30s) Republicans were hostile to civil-rights issues, but they warmed up pretty quickly after the '60s and '70s. The problem now is that Republicans refuse to give people preferential treatment based on their race, which i guess is incredibly upsetting to a lot of Blacks (and other minorities). Anyway, i can think of more prominent Black Republicans than i can think of Black Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSoul Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 name 2 prominent black republican who arent more prominent than Barak Obama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 ... Who aren't more prominent than Barack Obama? Is there like a formula so i can tell when someone is more prominent than Barack Obama? Alan Keyes is a Republican senator. JC Watts is a (former, i think) member of Congress who heads some dumb Republican committee for Black voters or something. He used to be like fourth 'in command' in the Republican Party, though. One of the guys they're considering for the next governor of New York is a Black Republican, but i can't remember his name. The deputy secretaries of a bunch of the departments of the Cabinet are Black, although i can't remember the names or departments off the top of my head. Maybe some of those are cheating. Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson and that one justice (i know his name, but i forget right now and i'm too lazy to look it up) are the only Black Democrats i can think of off the top of my head though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSoul Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 isnt Alan keyes the senator who called Homosexuals a poison of this society, Who ridiculed Dick Cheneys daughter for being Gay and lost by 57!!!! points in the Illinois race, and he isnt a senator he lost so badly everyone was staying away from him. JC Watts is a name i have never heard of and ive heard plenty of names in politics. Edit: Name Party Votes Percentage Barack Obama Democratic 3,524,702 70 Alan Keyes Republican 1,371,882 27 Albert J. Franzen Independent 79,481 2 Jerry Kohn Libertarian 67,914 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 isnt Alan keyes the senator who called Homosexuals a poison of this society, Who ridiculed Dick Cheneys daughter for being Gay and lost by 57!!!! points in the Illinois race, and he isnt a senator he lost so badly everyone was staying away from him.586032941[/snapback] Yeah. I never said i liked him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbleph1$h Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 No, not for someone who isn't American. 'Liberalism' (some political-science-type people call it 'classical liberalism' now) originally was pretty close to the same thing as what Americans call libertarianism today. It didn't get the all the socialist connotations in America until well into the 20th Century, and it didn't get them at all in some parts of the rest of the world (particularly in Europe). 586032786[/snapback] Remind me of that when we aren't discussing American politics. Until then they're apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
method Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Which is completely ridiculous. The Democratic Party has been the one with the racist track record, (i.e. segregationism, slavery, etc.)[edit] oops, got in there before me... oh well, it still stands.. 586032808[/snapback] One of the reasons is the 1948 election. A few democratic governors and senators formed their own spinter group called the States' Rights Democratic Party. Their main plank was to perserve the Jim Crowe laws. After the election the party dissolved and a few of members switched to the Republican Party, notably Strom Thurman. Oddly enough one of the members stayed with the Democratic party, Robert Byrd from W. Virginia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotix Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 House of Representatives - 1994Senate - 2002-2003, when Republican James Jeffords became an independent and swung the balance of power over to the Democratic Party temporarily. 586032701[/snapback] Whoop. Turns out it was 2001 when he left the GOP, not 2002, so it should be 2001-2003 (January). For shame! :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts