Celebrate Diversity

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

04-09-2006
White_Male_Canada

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

From your reference

Quote:

The specific source of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the President of the United States. John Kennedy

In addition to picking your words more carefully, you should take more care in picking your heros

Quote:

Fortified with a good rest, a steam bath and a sirloin steak, Sen. Strom Thurmond (search) talked against a 1957 civil rights bill for 24 hours and 18 minutes — longer than anyone has ever talked about anything in Congress.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90552,00.html

I'm sure you have no problem with THAT source LOL

It's not just a wild coincidence that the white voters of the South - once staunchly, unanimously Democrats - became Republicans

The 64 CVA was was an update of Republican Senator Charles Sumners 1875 Civil Rights Act.Rewritten to conform with the interstate commerce clause.

Fox ? Only when you employ the lie by omission. Like Paul Harvey says," here`s the rest of the story",

"... The South Carolina (search) senator, then a Democrat…Republican leader Sen. William Knowland (search) of California retorted that Thurmond's endless speech was cruel and unusual punishment to his colleagues….Thurmond succeeded in shattering the previous record set by Sen. Wayne Morse, D-Ore..."http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90552,00.html

So it`s only the south that is racist.Well,let`s take a look see at the county map on who voted for whom.You`ll notice the red counties are the Republican ones.

Why so many? Because the leftists,socialists,neo-marxists employ the Lie by Omission,the Big Lie and of course,Dan Rather`s favorite,the Noble Lie.This plus the fact that most americans prefer less government,not more.Certainly not what the socialist/neo-marxist democrat party wish on every citizen.

Now,wonder why socialists/neo-marxists such as yourself are now the permanent minority?
04-09-2006
Felicia Katt

Thank you for helping to prove my point. Strom was a Democrat. He was a racist/seggregationist. Those views were not acceptable to the Democrats, so he took them and all of his racist supporters over to the Republicans, who welcomed them all with open arms. You are the one holding up Strom here as someone heroic. I think he was a disgrace.

I'm not a marxist or a socialist. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am not even a Democrat. I'm a registered independent, but if I was pressed to claim a party affiliation, I would say Libertarian. But its a two party system, and I'm not wasting my vote on a candidate with no chance to win an election. The Democrats are far from perfect. But I agree with them way more on most issues, especially those that involve my rights and freedoms. Republicans don't really think I should have any.

As far as being in the "permanent minority", Bush won by the smallest margin ever for a sitting president, and Kerry got the second most votes for any candidate ever. The latest polls show Bush's approval ratiing is just 36 percent, and just 30 percent of the public approves of the GOP-led Congress' job performance. By a 49-33 margin, the public favors Democrats over Republicans when asked which party should control Congress

since you seem to like maps, I thought I'd post this one LOL

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/...nd_liberty.gif

FK
04-09-2006
Ecstatic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicia Katt

As far as being in the "permanent minority", Bush won by the smallest margin ever for a sitting president, and Kerry got the second most votes for any candidate ever.
FK

I'm glad you mentioned that oft-overlooked fact, Felicia. Both Kerry and Bush passed Reagan's previous record for the most popular votes ever cast for a Presidential candidate. Unfortunately, the Dems don't like to send up "a loser" twice in a row; the last time they did so was in the 1950s with Adlai Stevenson (who, incidentally, in his 1956 second bid for the Presidency against incumbent Eisenhower won the most popular votes ever cast for a losing Presidential candidate - until Kerry), so it seems unlikely that the Dems will re-nominate him this time around.
04-09-2006
White_Male_Canada

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicia Katt

I'm a registered independent, but if I was pressed to claim a party affiliation, I would say Libertarian.

As far as being in the "permanent minority", Bush won by the smallest margin ever for a sitting president, and Kerry got the second most votes for any candidate ever. The latest polls show Bush's approval ratiing is just 36 percent, and just 30 percent of the public approves of the GOP-led Congress' job performance. By a 49-33 margin, the public favors Democrats over Republicans when asked which party should control Congress

since you seem to like maps, I thought I'd post this one LOL

FK

Better update your map.Canada is Conservative now. The gun registry is being disbanded,concealed carry permits not far behind,mandatory sentencing for criminals not ' it`s societies fault ' probation.Taxes are being cut,terrorists are being fought on the battlefield side by side with US forces,Hamas and Tamil tigers have been branded as terrorist organizations and made illegal,etc. You`re way out of date with your information.

Bush is at 36% !? How deadfull,that means he won`t be able to run for re-election now does it ! :wink:
Polls show unfavorably for Congress in terms of approval rates? Big deal,only one poll counts,that`s in November.And we all know who wins those.

You`re libertarian? LOL Come on. Never met one who`s in favor of bigger government and conferring rights based on the type of sex one has in the bedroom.True libertarians do not acknowledge patriachal constructs or confer special rights there upon.We are individuals,dog eat dog best man win ideology.You`re no liberatrian.

Bush has the record for most votes ever,topping 62 million. To you it may mean something,to the Constitution,totally meaningless. He won the Electoral College.Read about it in the Constitution. If you`re a libertarian then the Constitution means exactly what is written.Or does the law say whatever falls from your mouth,ala the King of England.

Your parrotting of the dominant media`s and DNC`s talking points "party of corruption" ,which falls on deaf ears to the majority,this inside the beltway 'gotcha` game'. No one cares about the disgraced Dan Rather or the new parrott,Katie Couric.Only the facts matter.Over the last 30 years about 70 different members of the House have been investigated for serious offenses. Of those only 15 involved Republicans, with the remaining 55 involving Democrats.

Why should you believe the media and DNC IF you call yourself a libertarian.Go to the source,always. Try the records at the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,read their own historical documents.

That map of yours, I just can`t stop laughing at it.It`s an antiquity,Hilarious.
04-09-2006
White_Male_Canada

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ecstatic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicia Katt

As far as being in the "permanent minority", Bush won by the smallest margin ever for a sitting president, and Kerry got the second most votes for any candidate ever.
FK

I'm glad you mentioned that oft-overlooked fact, Felicia. Both Kerry and Bush passed Reagan's previous record for the most popular votes ever cast for a Presidential candidate. Unfortunately, the Dems don't like to send up "a loser" twice in a row; the last time they did so was in the 1950s with Adlai Stevenson (who, incidentally, in his 1956 second bid for the Presidency against incumbent Eisenhower won the most popular votes ever cast for a losing Presidential candidate - until Kerry), so it seems unlikely that the Dems will re-nominate him this time around.

No one cares about the popular vote,certainly not the US Constitution itself.

You are aware of that pesky thing called the Electoral College aren`t you?

Specifically designed to deny large city centers to dominate.

Yeah,that damn Constitution.Let`s ignore it and pretend it means whatever we say it means/sarcasm off.

Amend it,don`t ignore it.
04-09-2006
trish

White_Male_Canada wrote:

Quote:

You`re libertarian? LOL Come on. Never met one who`s in favor of bigger government and conferring rights based on the type of sex one has in the bedroom.

Devout republicans favor denying rights on exactly those basis, which is tantamount to conferring rights to others on the same basis.
04-09-2006
White_Male_Canada

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

White_Male_Canada wrote:

Quote:

You`re libertarian? LOL Come on. Never met one who`s in favor of bigger government and conferring rights based on the type of sex one has in the bedroom.

Devout republicans favor denying rights on exactly those basis, which is tantamount to conferring rights to others on the same basis.

Democrats favor conferring rights based on specific types of sexual intercourse. Republicans chose the patriarchal standard. Libertarians,neither,none.

I choose to make my own decisions and not allow big brother to choose for me. You`re obviously biased, in your support of democrats to choose for the individual what is best for him.
04-09-2006
Ecstatic

Quote:

Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada

No one cares about the popular vote,certainly not the US Constitution itself.

You are aware of that pesky thing called the Electoral College aren`t you?

Specifically designed to deny large city centers to dominate.

Yeah,that damn Constitution.Let`s ignore it and pretend it means whatever we say it means/sarcasm off.

Amend it,don`t ignore it.

No one cares about the popular vote? Ah, except maybe those who voted?!

I made no reference to the Constitution or the Electoral College. I merely made two observations: one, that Kerry received more popular votes than any other candidate in history except Bush (implying that very nearly half the electorate favored him), and two, that the Democrats would likely not nominate him again simply because he lost last time (regardless of whether he's the best candidate for the job or not). You're reading into my comment intentions that were not there.

For the record, I think the Electoral College is outmoded and has been so for at least the last half century. But that is not the point I was making.
04-09-2006
trish

White_Canadian_Male says:

Quote:

Republicans chose the patriarchal standard ... I choose to make my own decisions and not allow big brother to choose for me.

It seems that by so vorciforously supporting the Republican view, you're allowing big pappa to decide what goes or doesn't go in your bedroom. At the same time you seem to support the suppression of other private intimate practices. As far a bedroom philosophies go, liberal principles allow individuals to chose their own course.
04-09-2006
Ecstatic

Quote:

Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada

Democrats favor conferring rights based on specific types of sexual intercourse.

Not in any Democratic platform I've seen. That's patently absurd. There is a strong, though hardly universal, tendency amongst Democrats not to confer, but to recognize as already valid rights for all minorities, including gender-based rights. I doubt we'll see same sex marriage recognized on a national level in this country any time soon (unlike many other countries), as even here in Massachusetts there is a strong (though minority) stance oppsing it. But the Massachusetts Superior Court did not "legalize" same sex marriage so much as declare that such marriages were already and had always been legal according to the laws of the Commonwealth and should be recognized as such. And that's just one example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada

Republicans chose the patriarchal standard.

News flash: that is by definition "conferring rights based on specific types of sexual intercourse" and I'll have none of it, thank you very much. Nor is it simply patriarchal, but mainstream Christian. The US, unlike most countries, was founded in part on the principle of the separation of church and state. While a significant majority of Americans may be Christian, they have no right to legistate their morality on other citizens. Among those religious groups who in whole or in part reject the definition of marriage as between "one man and one woman" you can count Unitarians, Friends, UCC, Reform Jews, Buddhists, Wiccans, and Taoists.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page