"One of main reasons Strom left Democratic Party is because they supported Civil Rights and he opposed period. You can insult me all day long but does not change that fact."
When you say "they (Democrats) supported Civil Rights" it is only partially true. Nearly all Southern Democrats opposed Civil Rights legislation. Why not look it up, the facts are part of the Congressional record. Without support from northern and western REPUBLICANS, the sothern members of Congress would have gotten their way.
Will you acknowledge that many, many Republicans supported the very Civil Rights legislation that NEARLY ALL southern DEMOCRATS opposed??
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
When you say "they (Democrats) supported Civil Rights" it is only partially true. Nearly all Southern Democrats opposed Civil Rights legislation. Why not look it up, the facts are part of the Congressional record. Without support from northern and western REPUBLICANS, the sothern members of Congress would have gotten their way.
Will you acknowledge that many, many Republicans supported the very Civil Rights legislation that NEARLY ALL southern DEMOCRATS opposed??
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
xpanda,
The vast majority of Americans don't give 2 sh!ts about politics. Someone approached me where I work and wondered if I knew all the majors players vying for the Democratic nomination. Kind of like a test. I replied with 9 names and he was amazed because NO one else got it right.
I read maybe 30 minutes a day in order to keep abreast of the various political engagements. My co-workers are, for the most part, naive about everything outside of their lives. I suspect that that is true for the rest of the United States.
The vast majority of Americans don't give 2 sh!ts about politics. Someone approached me where I work and wondered if I knew all the majors players vying for the Democratic nomination. Kind of like a test. I replied with 9 names and he was amazed because NO one else got it right.
I read maybe 30 minutes a day in order to keep abreast of the various political engagements. My co-workers are, for the most part, naive about everything outside of their lives. I suspect that that is true for the rest of the United States.
Well my telephone was ringing
And they told me it was Chairman Mao
Well my telephone was ringing
And they told me it was Chairman Mao
I don't care who it is
I just don't wanna talk to him now
I've got the a - I got the apolitical blues
Apolitical blues -- the meanest blues of all
I don't care if it's the unholy four, John Wayne and Dorothy Lamour
I just don't wanna talk to him now
Telephone was ringing
They told me, told me it was Chairman Mao
My telephone was ringing...
Do you hear it ringing? Do you hear it ringing?
Do you hear it ringing? All right!
I don't care who it is
I just don't wanna talk
I said I just don't wanna talk
I just don't wanna
I just don't wanna talk to him now
And they told me it was Chairman Mao
Well my telephone was ringing
And they told me it was Chairman Mao
I don't care who it is
I just don't wanna talk to him now
I've got the a - I got the apolitical blues
Apolitical blues -- the meanest blues of all
I don't care if it's the unholy four, John Wayne and Dorothy Lamour
I just don't wanna talk to him now
Telephone was ringing
They told me, told me it was Chairman Mao
My telephone was ringing...
Do you hear it ringing? Do you hear it ringing?
Do you hear it ringing? All right!
I don't care who it is
I just don't wanna talk
I said I just don't wanna talk
I just don't wanna
I just don't wanna talk to him now
In case any of the poorly educated left wingers out there continue to claim that it was the Republicans who were against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, here is the actual FACTUAL numbers according to the actual Congressional Quarterly which records Congressional votes.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NVDavisBradley1299.html
Bill Bradley Fouls the Civil Rights Act
by R.D. Davis
A New Visions Commentary paper published December 1999 by The National Center
for Public Policy Research, 777 N. Capitol St. NE, Suite 803, Washington, D.C. 20002,
202/371-1400, Fax 202/408-7773, E-Mail Project21@nationalcenter.org, Web
http://www.nationalcenter.org. Reprints permitted provided source
is credited.
"Former basketball star and current Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradley hasn't fouled an opponent on the basketball court in years, but lately he's fouling the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Bradley claims the congressional vote on the Act led to which political party he would join. Oh, really?
On October 9, 1999 at an Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner, Bradley exclaimed: "I remember the exact moment that I became a Democrat. It was the summer of 1964; I was an intern in Washington between my junior and senior year in college. And I was in the Senate chamber the night the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed that desegregated public accommodations in America... And I became a Democrat because it was the party of justice. It was Democrats that stepped forward that evening in the Senate and cast their vote that washed away the stain of segregation in this country."
I believe that Democrats have lied about who supported the Civil Rights Act for so long that they actually believe their lies. But anytime this lie is retold, I feel compelled to debunk it. So here we go again...
The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley's Democratic opponent). Surely young Bradley must have flunked his internship because ostensibly he did not learn that the Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster. In addition, he did not know that 21 is over three times as much as six, otherwise he would have become - according to the logic of his statement - a Republican.
In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.
Since Bradley was interning in the Senate, why doesn't he remember the major role the Republicans played in fighting for civil rights? During the Eisenhower Administration, the Republican Party made more progress in civil rights than in the preceding 80 years. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Although the Democratic-controlled Congress watered them down, the Administration's recommendations resulted in significant and effective civil rights legislation in both 1957 and 1960 - the first civil rights statutes to be passed in more than 80 years" ("The Republican Party 1960 Civil Rights Platform," May 1964). It reported on April 5, 1963 that, " A group of eight Republican senators in March joined in introducing a series of 12 civil rights bills that would implement many of the recommendations made in the Civil Rights Commission report of 1961."
The principal measures introduced by these Republicans broadened the Civil Rights Act of 1964, making it "designed to pass unlike Democratic 'public relations' attempts" (CQ, February 15, 1963, p. 191). Republican senators overwhelmingly "chided" President John Kennedy about his "failure to act in this field (civil rights)." Republican senators criticized the Kennedy Administration's February 28, 1963 civil rights message as "falling far short" of the Civil Rights Commission's recommendations and both party platforms. "If the President will not assume the leadership in getting through Congress urgently needed civil rights measures," the Republican senators said, " then Congress must take the initiative" (CQ, April 5, 1963, p. 527).
At the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson praised the Republicans for their "overwhelming" support. Roy Wilkins, then-NAACP chairman, awarded Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award for his "remarkable civil rights leadership." Moreover, civil rights activist Andrew Young wrote in his book An Easy Burden that "The southern segregationists were all Democrats, and it was black Republicans... who could effectively influence the appointment of federal judges in the South" (p. 96). Young added that the best civil rights judges were Republicans appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower and that "these judges are among the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement."
The historical facts and numbers show the Republican Party was more for civil rights than the Democrats from "the party of justice," as Bill Bradley called it. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, in reality, could not have been passed without Republican votes. It is an "injustice" for contemporary Democratic politicians and the liberal news media to continue to not give the Republicans credit for their civil rights triumphs. Now is the time for Republicans to start informing black Americans of those historical triumphs to lead them back to their "home party."
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NVDavisBradley1299.html
Bill Bradley Fouls the Civil Rights Act
by R.D. Davis
A New Visions Commentary paper published December 1999 by The National Center
for Public Policy Research, 777 N. Capitol St. NE, Suite 803, Washington, D.C. 20002,
202/371-1400, Fax 202/408-7773, E-Mail Project21@nationalcenter.org, Web
http://www.nationalcenter.org. Reprints permitted provided source
is credited.
"Former basketball star and current Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradley hasn't fouled an opponent on the basketball court in years, but lately he's fouling the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Bradley claims the congressional vote on the Act led to which political party he would join. Oh, really?
On October 9, 1999 at an Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner, Bradley exclaimed: "I remember the exact moment that I became a Democrat. It was the summer of 1964; I was an intern in Washington between my junior and senior year in college. And I was in the Senate chamber the night the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed that desegregated public accommodations in America... And I became a Democrat because it was the party of justice. It was Democrats that stepped forward that evening in the Senate and cast their vote that washed away the stain of segregation in this country."
I believe that Democrats have lied about who supported the Civil Rights Act for so long that they actually believe their lies. But anytime this lie is retold, I feel compelled to debunk it. So here we go again...
The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley's Democratic opponent). Surely young Bradley must have flunked his internship because ostensibly he did not learn that the Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster. In addition, he did not know that 21 is over three times as much as six, otherwise he would have become - according to the logic of his statement - a Republican.
In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.
Since Bradley was interning in the Senate, why doesn't he remember the major role the Republicans played in fighting for civil rights? During the Eisenhower Administration, the Republican Party made more progress in civil rights than in the preceding 80 years. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Although the Democratic-controlled Congress watered them down, the Administration's recommendations resulted in significant and effective civil rights legislation in both 1957 and 1960 - the first civil rights statutes to be passed in more than 80 years" ("The Republican Party 1960 Civil Rights Platform," May 1964). It reported on April 5, 1963 that, " A group of eight Republican senators in March joined in introducing a series of 12 civil rights bills that would implement many of the recommendations made in the Civil Rights Commission report of 1961."
The principal measures introduced by these Republicans broadened the Civil Rights Act of 1964, making it "designed to pass unlike Democratic 'public relations' attempts" (CQ, February 15, 1963, p. 191). Republican senators overwhelmingly "chided" President John Kennedy about his "failure to act in this field (civil rights)." Republican senators criticized the Kennedy Administration's February 28, 1963 civil rights message as "falling far short" of the Civil Rights Commission's recommendations and both party platforms. "If the President will not assume the leadership in getting through Congress urgently needed civil rights measures," the Republican senators said, " then Congress must take the initiative" (CQ, April 5, 1963, p. 527).
At the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson praised the Republicans for their "overwhelming" support. Roy Wilkins, then-NAACP chairman, awarded Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award for his "remarkable civil rights leadership." Moreover, civil rights activist Andrew Young wrote in his book An Easy Burden that "The southern segregationists were all Democrats, and it was black Republicans... who could effectively influence the appointment of federal judges in the South" (p. 96). Young added that the best civil rights judges were Republicans appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower and that "these judges are among the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement."
The historical facts and numbers show the Republican Party was more for civil rights than the Democrats from "the party of justice," as Bill Bradley called it. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, in reality, could not have been passed without Republican votes. It is an "injustice" for contemporary Democratic politicians and the liberal news media to continue to not give the Republicans credit for their civil rights triumphs. Now is the time for Republicans to start informing black Americans of those historical triumphs to lead them back to their "home party."
SanJose, thank you for the dose of reality.
Let's break that down into simple figures so even the most ignorant around here can understand it.
Reagrding the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
Of the 315 Democrat Members of Congress (House + Senate combined), 198 voted YES and 117 voted NO = 62.9 voting YES
Of the 205 Republican Members of Congress (House + Senate combined), 165 voted YES and 40 voted NO = 80.5 voting YES
So in the Congress of 1964, 80.5% of Republicans supported Civil Rights as compared to only 62.9% of Democrats.
There endeth the lesson.
Mudbone, thoughts????
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
Let's break that down into simple figures so even the most ignorant around here can understand it.
Reagrding the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
Of the 315 Democrat Members of Congress (House + Senate combined), 198 voted YES and 117 voted NO = 62.9 voting YES
Of the 205 Republican Members of Congress (House + Senate combined), 165 voted YES and 40 voted NO = 80.5 voting YES
So in the Congress of 1964, 80.5% of Republicans supported Civil Rights as compared to only 62.9% of Democrats.
There endeth the lesson.
Mudbone, thoughts????
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
D2bets,
I have a couple questions. How old are you? Do you ever check your facts before you speak? You posted this idiotic statement earlier in this thread, where you claim the SOUTH WAS OVERWHELMINGLY REPUBLICAN when the Civil Rights Act was voted on in 1964. Underneath your INACCURATE post is a link to the official records of the United States Senate where it lists, STATE BY STATE, the U.S. Senators over the years. You will see that nearly the entire Southern contingent was DEMOCRATIC, so if the South was overwhelmingly Republican, why were all of the elected Reps Democrats???
D2bets
Certifiably Crazy
posted December 17, 2003 12:28 PM
When did I say I was from Mississippi? I'm not.
Anyway, Thurmond was a southerner whether he was a Democrat or a Republican. Didn't matter. You can all it South vs. everyone else, but the South was overwhlmingly Republican and thus on balance most Republicans nationally were against it and most Dems were for it.
And JFK and Truman would be Democrats today. No question about it.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/f_two_sections_with_teasers/states.htm
For your convenience, here's the breakdown of Southern U.S. Senators in 1964 along with their party affiliations:
Alabama
John Sparkman (Democrat)
Lister Hill (Democrat)
Arkansas
John McClellan (Democrat)
William Fulbright (Democrat)
Florida
Spec Holland (Democrat)
George Smathers (Democrat)
Georgia
Richard Russell (Democrat)
Herman Talmadge (Democrat)
Kentucky
John Cooper (Republican)
Thurston Morton (Republican)
Louisiana
Allen Ellender (Democrat)
Russell Long (Democrat)
Mississippi
John Stennis (Democrat)
James Eastland (Democrat)
North Carolina
Everett Jordan (Democrat)
Sam Ervin (Democrat)
South Carolina
Strom Thurmond (Democrat, then Republican)
Olin Johnston (Democrat)
Tennessee
Albert Gore Sr. (Democrat)
Ross Bass (Democrat)
Texas
Ralph Yarborough (Democrat)
John Tower (Republican)
Virginia
Harry Byrd (Democrat)
Willis Robertson (Democrat)
West Virginia
Robert Byrd (Democrat)
Jennings Randolph (Democrat)
NOW, SIMPLE MATH WILL TELL YOU THAT 23 OF THE 26 SENATORS FROM SOUTHERN STATES WERE DEMOCRATS.
I have a couple questions. How old are you? Do you ever check your facts before you speak? You posted this idiotic statement earlier in this thread, where you claim the SOUTH WAS OVERWHELMINGLY REPUBLICAN when the Civil Rights Act was voted on in 1964. Underneath your INACCURATE post is a link to the official records of the United States Senate where it lists, STATE BY STATE, the U.S. Senators over the years. You will see that nearly the entire Southern contingent was DEMOCRATIC, so if the South was overwhelmingly Republican, why were all of the elected Reps Democrats???
D2bets
Certifiably Crazy
posted December 17, 2003 12:28 PM
When did I say I was from Mississippi? I'm not.
Anyway, Thurmond was a southerner whether he was a Democrat or a Republican. Didn't matter. You can all it South vs. everyone else, but the South was overwhlmingly Republican and thus on balance most Republicans nationally were against it and most Dems were for it.
And JFK and Truman would be Democrats today. No question about it.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/f_two_sections_with_teasers/states.htm
For your convenience, here's the breakdown of Southern U.S. Senators in 1964 along with their party affiliations:
Alabama
John Sparkman (Democrat)
Lister Hill (Democrat)
Arkansas
John McClellan (Democrat)
William Fulbright (Democrat)
Florida
Spec Holland (Democrat)
George Smathers (Democrat)
Georgia
Richard Russell (Democrat)
Herman Talmadge (Democrat)
Kentucky
John Cooper (Republican)
Thurston Morton (Republican)
Louisiana
Allen Ellender (Democrat)
Russell Long (Democrat)
Mississippi
John Stennis (Democrat)
James Eastland (Democrat)
North Carolina
Everett Jordan (Democrat)
Sam Ervin (Democrat)
South Carolina
Strom Thurmond (Democrat, then Republican)
Olin Johnston (Democrat)
Tennessee
Albert Gore Sr. (Democrat)
Ross Bass (Democrat)
Texas
Ralph Yarborough (Democrat)
John Tower (Republican)
Virginia
Harry Byrd (Democrat)
Willis Robertson (Democrat)
West Virginia
Robert Byrd (Democrat)
Jennings Randolph (Democrat)
NOW, SIMPLE MATH WILL TELL YOU THAT 23 OF THE 26 SENATORS FROM SOUTHERN STATES WERE DEMOCRATS.
SanJose,
How can these people be so ignorant of simple US history. It's not like we are talking about 1774, these guys are utterly cluesless about history from merely 40 years ago. Amazing.
Perception has become reality and it is pitiful.
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
How can these people be so ignorant of simple US history. It's not like we are talking about 1774, these guys are utterly cluesless about history from merely 40 years ago. Amazing.
Perception has become reality and it is pitiful.
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
Floyd,
It's because FACTS are not facts when it comes to the modern political left. On a philosophical level, they believe that all objective truth has a subjective basis. Hence, this gives them the power to ignore and subvert objective FACTS and dismiss them as only tangentially significant to their larger message. Thus, ideology trumps truth in the modern political left.
A few months ago, I had an argument about French political theory with the poster Jack Dee on this site. He had the audacity, and the lack of intellectual honesty, to claim that the only reason the U.S. Revolution took place was because the American Colonists were inspired by the example set in the French Revolution. The only problem with his sub-moronic theory was that the U.S. Revolution came a FULL DECADE BEFORE the French Revolution. When I pointed this out, he explained that time frame/context has only a marginal relationship to causation!!!
Now if that doesn't sum up what's wrong with the modern Left Wing...
Here's the actual quote from Jack Dee:
JackDee
red commie soviet mutineer!
posted October 10, 2003 12:21 AM
Fist of all time sequence only incidentaly has anything to do with causality, or partial causality, so spare me the historical lecture.
It's because FACTS are not facts when it comes to the modern political left. On a philosophical level, they believe that all objective truth has a subjective basis. Hence, this gives them the power to ignore and subvert objective FACTS and dismiss them as only tangentially significant to their larger message. Thus, ideology trumps truth in the modern political left.
A few months ago, I had an argument about French political theory with the poster Jack Dee on this site. He had the audacity, and the lack of intellectual honesty, to claim that the only reason the U.S. Revolution took place was because the American Colonists were inspired by the example set in the French Revolution. The only problem with his sub-moronic theory was that the U.S. Revolution came a FULL DECADE BEFORE the French Revolution. When I pointed this out, he explained that time frame/context has only a marginal relationship to causation!!!
Now if that doesn't sum up what's wrong with the modern Left Wing...
Here's the actual quote from Jack Dee:
JackDee
red commie soviet mutineer!
posted October 10, 2003 12:21 AM
Fist of all time sequence only incidentaly has anything to do with causality, or partial causality, so spare me the historical lecture.
And the liberals wonder why in the USA we have:
A Republican President
A Republican majority in the Senate
A Republican majority in the House
A majority of Republican State Governors.
A majority of Republican-controlled State Houses.
The party of JFK and Truman has morphed into a UN-loving, socialist, blame-America-first group of extremists who have no clue what the average American feels or wants.
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
A Republican President
A Republican majority in the Senate
A Republican majority in the House
A majority of Republican State Governors.
A majority of Republican-controlled State Houses.
The party of JFK and Truman has morphed into a UN-loving, socialist, blame-America-first group of extremists who have no clue what the average American feels or wants.
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
Sanjose and Floyd: if a couple of posters here, who are left-leaning, screw up their facts in an argument, that should hardly be reason enough to dismiss the entire 'modern political left.' I'm sure many right-leaning posters on this board have screwed up a fact or two, which would also not be reason enough to dismiss the entirety of the right's ideology, either.
It's interesting, though, that the majority of discussions in this forum ultimately come down to right vs. left rather than a simple discussion of the issue at hand. I would think that one could call themselves a Democrat yet still have criticisms of their party (same goes for Republican.) Maybe it's because we have a third party, or maybe it's because we don't take outselves too seriously, but in Canada, we make fun of every leader, whether we voted for him/her or not.
It's interesting, though, that the majority of discussions in this forum ultimately come down to right vs. left rather than a simple discussion of the issue at hand. I would think that one could call themselves a Democrat yet still have criticisms of their party (same goes for Republican.) Maybe it's because we have a third party, or maybe it's because we don't take outselves too seriously, but in Canada, we make fun of every leader, whether we voted for him/her or not.
xpanda,
Saying that Republican = racist and supporting that by saying the South (where most of racists were in 1964) was "overwhlmingly Republican" when the EXACT OPPOSITE was actually true is not just screwing up facts. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the history of the topic at hand and displays a level of ignorance (and arrogance) that calls into question any of the points the person is advocating.
As for Political parties in Canada, any comparison is meaningless. The Liberal Party easily has more commons seats than all of the other parties COMBINED while the US is far closer to 50-50 (though Republicans have shown steady gains for the past 9 years or so).
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
Saying that Republican = racist and supporting that by saying the South (where most of racists were in 1964) was "overwhlmingly Republican" when the EXACT OPPOSITE was actually true is not just screwing up facts. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the history of the topic at hand and displays a level of ignorance (and arrogance) that calls into question any of the points the person is advocating.
As for Political parties in Canada, any comparison is meaningless. The Liberal Party easily has more commons seats than all of the other parties COMBINED while the US is far closer to 50-50 (though Republicans have shown steady gains for the past 9 years or so).
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
I do give the Canadian House of Commons high marks for entertainment value. I watched some of ther debates surrounding the Iraq war build-up and it was something out of Saturday Night Live. I kept waitng for Will Ferrell to stand up and make a speech. The "Bloc Québécois" need serious psychological help.
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
If you get it on satellite, you've got to tune into 'This Hour Has 22 Minutes.' OMG is it funny. I don't think a leader has existed since the show's inception that has been free from ridicule.
At any rate, my point wasn't that the poster's thoughts should be immune from skepticism when their facts are wrong, but it doesn't warrant saying that ALL leftist or rightist individuals are equally cracked. As for the comparison of our political parties, what I meant by that is simply when a third party exists, it often takes away much of the black-and-whiteness of politics. Of course, it also divides votes up, but that's another issue ...
At any rate, my point wasn't that the poster's thoughts should be immune from skepticism when their facts are wrong, but it doesn't warrant saying that ALL leftist or rightist individuals are equally cracked. As for the comparison of our political parties, what I meant by that is simply when a third party exists, it often takes away much of the black-and-whiteness of politics. Of course, it also divides votes up, but that's another issue ...
Xpanda,
You make a good point. It is somewhat unfair to paint all leftists with the same brush. You for example, seem to be a person of integrity who merely has a slightly different political leaning than I have. We can respect each other's opinions and discuss matters in a respectful manner. However, if you look at the majority of the left wing posters here, they are very much guilty of the accusations I made above. I have caught several of them in half truths and outright lies, and mainly just stating inaccurate facts that can be easily refuted. And even when they are caught red handed, they do not have the integrity to stand up and say, "hey, I'm sorry, I made a mistake."
As for your point about things being a left/right issue only, you'll find that I am very quick to point out mistakes by the right wing. For example, in another thread I stated that the trial of Saddam Hussein should include frank discussion of the role the United States and other Western nations played in providing money and weapons. Also, you'll find that I am disgusted by the right wing's view on certain social issues like abortion, pornography and gambling. I'm not a "Jim Jones Kool-Aid drinker" like so many are in the modern political left. And when I get facts wrong, I'll admit it. But the key difference between me and the Jack Dee/Mudbone.D2bets crowd is that I will NOT open my mouth without first having some significant knowledge of a subject. I wouldn't go into a discussion about football and not know what a forward pass or field goal was, but many of the posters here feel free to debate political topics of which they are PAINFULLY ignorant.
You make a good point. It is somewhat unfair to paint all leftists with the same brush. You for example, seem to be a person of integrity who merely has a slightly different political leaning than I have. We can respect each other's opinions and discuss matters in a respectful manner. However, if you look at the majority of the left wing posters here, they are very much guilty of the accusations I made above. I have caught several of them in half truths and outright lies, and mainly just stating inaccurate facts that can be easily refuted. And even when they are caught red handed, they do not have the integrity to stand up and say, "hey, I'm sorry, I made a mistake."
As for your point about things being a left/right issue only, you'll find that I am very quick to point out mistakes by the right wing. For example, in another thread I stated that the trial of Saddam Hussein should include frank discussion of the role the United States and other Western nations played in providing money and weapons. Also, you'll find that I am disgusted by the right wing's view on certain social issues like abortion, pornography and gambling. I'm not a "Jim Jones Kool-Aid drinker" like so many are in the modern political left. And when I get facts wrong, I'll admit it. But the key difference between me and the Jack Dee/Mudbone.D2bets crowd is that I will NOT open my mouth without first having some significant knowledge of a subject. I wouldn't go into a discussion about football and not know what a forward pass or field goal was, but many of the posters here feel free to debate political topics of which they are PAINFULLY ignorant.
SanJose: I have seen your posts criticizing the right, and never have I thought you weren't a competent poster. Oh, and thanks for the kudos.
I think you (and others here) have me pegged as a leftie, as well. Interestingly, I have voted Progressive Conservative my entire life, although I'm torn at the moment. But then again, our PCs are nothing like your Republicans. I am anti-racist, anti-war, pro-choice, feminist, and all those other left-wing thingamabobs, but also believe firmly in treating economics with right-wing kid gloves. I don't believe in special interest groups getting public funding, but I also don't believe in corporate lobbying, either.
You mentioned something about football in your post ... geez, I almost forgot why I came to this board in the first place! Go Colts!
I think you (and others here) have me pegged as a leftie, as well. Interestingly, I have voted Progressive Conservative my entire life, although I'm torn at the moment. But then again, our PCs are nothing like your Republicans. I am anti-racist, anti-war, pro-choice, feminist, and all those other left-wing thingamabobs, but also believe firmly in treating economics with right-wing kid gloves. I don't believe in special interest groups getting public funding, but I also don't believe in corporate lobbying, either.
You mentioned something about football in your post ... geez, I almost forgot why I came to this board in the first place! Go Colts!
