Tink1717 2 #26 February 16, 2005 QuoteThe demographics say otherwise. And consider the past two elections - Gore and Kerry are the Dukakises and Mondales of the current decade and instead of getting trounced, they lost by the narrowest of margins. It's not just Gore/Kerry. It's the house, senate, White House and SCOTUS. All in just 8 years. Also, the DNC is losing on the state and local level as well. My state, Maryland is as blue as they come and the GOP is now sitting firmly in control. Also the GOP on the local level is poised to dominate the state house in the next round. The DNC candidate even lost for school board in Baltimore county. Face it, the DNC is composed entirerly of professional loosers. The sooner they go, the better. QuoteIt's pretty damn early to be writing their funeral. What happens to the GOP when its runs out of Bush sons to run? Both parties seem a bit short on leaders these days. It's never too early to write the eulogy of a party that has betrayed its base and is no longer able to meet the challenges before it. The DNC can't sucessfully counter anything the GOP throws at it. It's like they have no stomach to fight. The sooner they go the better. Bye, bye, see ya later, have a nice life. Loosers.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #27 February 16, 2005 QuoteIt's not just Gore/Kerry. It's the house, senate, White House and SCOTUS. All in just 8 years. I hope you're not viewing the Supreme Court as a partisan body. It's not, and history has shown that once a person is on the team, all bets are off. It was 10 years ago that Newt's GOP stormed Congress. Note that he's not around any more, and there's a decent shot for the Democrats to reclaim the Senate on the next go around. The House seems further out due to the increasing incumbency advantage as both parties gerrymander. The White House is an open game in 2008 with no incumbent running. From a demographic standpoint, the Democrats are gaining with time, not losing. Minority populations continue to grow. While Texas Republicans like the two Bush men poll a decent minority of Latino voters, most do not. In California it's not close at all. If the GOP doesn't convince them that their immigration policies aren't racism in disguise, it is their party that will slowly die out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #28 February 16, 2005 Quotethere's a decent shot for the Democrats to reclaim the Senate on the next go around bwahahahahaha! There are 17 (D) senators up for reelection in '06, and 1 (I)... only 14 (R) senantors... 5 of the (D) 17 are from states that Bush won... only 3 of (R) 14 are from states Kerry won... That doesn't look like a decent shot to me... looks more like 61 is possible for the (R)'s QuoteI hope you're not viewing the Supreme Court as a partisan body. It's not Perhaps not partisan, but ideological and activist... thats why the Dems are so concerned about the "balance" of the court not being upset. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #29 February 16, 2005 QuoteIs that the best you can do? Come on, I'm sure you can slam better and still keep it within the bounds of no personal attacks. Keep trying. Or you could do something about attacking the substance, rather than the messenger. Attack the message, and all the messengers become less effective. Attack the messenger, and you've done something (maybe) about one measly little messenger. Not a good bang for the buck, is it? Wendy W. Cry me a river, it wasn't a personal attack. I pointed out that your loyalty is not the issue it's your ability to convince other people who look at the party with a critical mind that's the problem. You calling it a personal attack doesn't make it one, but it does tell me I struck a nerve. You tried to shoot the messenger and missed, aim higher. Dean as chairman is a problem for Democrats, not because he pleases the faithfull but because he will scare away marginal voters. As I observed, you just can't see that, Your interpretation of my description of plain facts as a personal attack is just another symptom. P.S. the accusation of personal attack is in itself a personal attack, and one peculiar to this forum due to the style of moderation. It's a really low tactic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #30 February 17, 2005 QuoteQuotethere's a decent shot for the Democrats to reclaim the Senate on the next go around bwahahahahaha! There are 17 (D) senators up for reelection in '06, and 1 (I)... only 14 (R) senantors... 5 of the (D) 17 are from states that Bush won... only 3 of (R) 14 are from states Kerry won... That doesn't look like a decent shot to me... looks more like 61 is possible for the (R)'s Quote I see 15 R listed, plus the 1 independent. That's not a big difference - and given the number of senators in their 70s, natural deaths over the next 1.5 years may play a bigger factor. 61 is a much greater laugh inducer. The Democrats thought that way in 1992, and 2 years later we know what happened in the dreaded midterm election. Just keeping your count is hard. The guys running for reelection now are the ones that came in with the GOP takeover in 1994. They're not senior, they do have the incumbency gains from 2 terms. Grabbing 5 would be hard, but going from the upper 50s to lower 50s really dillutes one party's ability to get it done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tink1717 2 #31 February 17, 2005 QuoteI hope you're not viewing the Supreme Court as a partisan body. It's not, and history has shown that once a person is on the team, all bets are off. Those who get on the court are in many ways reflective of the ideology of the administration who appoints them. Thomas and Scalia (sp) are examples of that. Sometimes they turn out to dissapoint their champions (O'Connor is an example), but more often than not they are an extension of the POTUS who appointed them. Quoteit was 10 years ago that Newt's GOP stormed Congress. Note that he's not around any more, and there's a decent shot for the Democrats to reclaim the Senate on the next go around. The House seems further out due to the increasing incumbency advantage as both parties gerrymander. The White House is an open game in 2008 with no incumbent running. Nope, Newt is not around anymore (that's a good thing) but the GOP has much more power now than they did in the 90's (that's a bad thing). The DNC can't field any viable candidate in 2008. They won't even fight for whomever they nominate, so how can they win? It doesn't matter who the GOP puts up as a candidate, the DNC candidate will loose. QuoteFrom a demographic standpoint, the Democrats are gaining with time, not losing. Minority populations continue to grow. While Texas Republicans like the two Bush men poll a decent minority of Latino voters, most do not. In California it's not close at all. If the GOP doesn't convince them that their immigration policies aren't racism in disguise, it is their party that will slowly die out. What source are you getting this from? The DNC is losing voter in all categories, minorites in particular. Newly registered black and latino voters are going with the GOP more than the DNC. They only have a thin majority now, but that grows with time and time is on the side of the GOP. I still say let the DNC die a fast rather than a slow death. (They really deserve it. Any party that won't fight for their candidate is not worthy of the office or the trust of the people) I for one will be only too happy to read the obit for the DNC. Good riddance.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,588 #32 February 17, 2005 I believe the point of my reply to you was the fact that you didn't attack the content of the post at all. I don't think Dean as chairman of the Democrats will scare nearly as many people as Dean as a candidate did. Because, frankly, mostly the loyal of both parties are aware of who the chairman is, if he's doing a good job. Dean has been a pretty good governor of Vermont, based on what I hear from the Vermonters in my family. He wasn't particularly in the public eye until he ran for President. Therefore, it's possible that he'll do what's best for the party, rather than what's best for himself. See -- that was a reply to the message. And I wasn't accusing you of personal attack -- it was pretty clear that you could go much farther than you did before getting even close to the border. I was accusing you of an ad hominem argument. It's a different thing. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #33 February 17, 2005 QuoteFrom a demographic standpoint, the Democrats are gaining with time, not losing. Minority populations continue to grow. That the DNC just typically assumes that Minorities are on their side implies they can't think for the themselves. As issues grow and change over time, I hope the stereotypes break down and eventually any particular minority group's voting behavior will be indistiguisable from any other group. Because INDIVIDUAL's are voting based on issues and not unfair stereotypes about themselves or each of the parties. It's a horrible assumption and huge disservice that the DNC makes about people in general and likely the biggest fault in the DNC today. You can't just group an individual into a certain pattern of thinking just by looking at their skin color. Hopefully we are evolving away from that. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #34 February 17, 2005 Quote See -- that was a reply to the message. And I wasn't accusing you of personal attack -- it was pretty clear that you could go much farther than you did before getting even close to the border. I was accusing you of an ad hominem argument. It's a different thing. Wendy is correct here. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #35 February 17, 2005 QuoteQuoteFrom a demographic standpoint, the Democrats are gaining with time, not losing. Minority populations continue to grow. That the DNC just typically assumes that Minorities are on their side implies they can't think for the themselves. As issues grow and change over time, I hope the stereotypes break down and eventually any particular minority group's voting behavior will be indistiguisable from any other group. Because INDIVIDUAL's are voting based on issues and not unfair stereotypes about themselves or each of the parties. Issues like abortion, homosexuality, immigration, etc? It's hard to differentiate some minority groups from these issues. So I doubt you'll see gays voting in a manner similar to the nation as a whole - not so long as one party is waging war on their private life. The Log Cabin fellows agree with the GOP platform as a whole, but the one glaring exception is a pretty big one. Same applies to women who won't negotiate on the abortion issue, gun rightists on the Democrat side, etc. Single issue voters make predictions difficult if the parties stay true to their fundamentalist element. The GOP can only win in California as pro choice. The Latino vote is the tipping point. And like I said, if they find the motivation behind some of the GOP policies to be more racist then egalitarian, they will continue to vote for the other side. When a Republican like Dornan loses and says it could only have happened with illegal aliens voting, that doesn't exactly endear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #36 February 17, 2005 From what you wrote you should get my point. It's about the issues at the time the votes happen. issues like abortion, homosexuality and immigration has a range of political responses for each - politics has to lay out a plan on dealing with each. People of all demographics span with their level of agreement to each of these issues. Again, assuming that just because someone is of a certain color then they must "think" that color is a disservice to that person. I can't even begin to go into how you can thing that if someone is gay then they must also feel a certain way about immigration or abortion. That's nuts. issues - the real issues and how each side intends to deal with them (not the extrapolated nonsense each sides puts forth as the other side's position - listen to the political types here, the dems have no real clue what the rep positions are except for extrapolated emotional nonsense - and vice versa frankly they don't want to know, it's too hard) is what's important. Not just the name of the party. Once each of the demographics studies the issues and positions, those demographics will start to split to the party most closely matching their individual preferences - rather than be unfairly just assumed to be in a single 'camp'. And positions on issues changes political sides daily, so it's nonsense to think the DNC has a lock on all the minorities - it's rather patronizing even. I don't know about "dornan" (both sides have pols that are less than savory so a single example is a nonsense argument because you can get examples both ways - it's an emotional tactic not worth going further on) but a case of non-citizens voting and changing an election has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with breaking the law. See the difference? Or is unjustified moral outrage just more fun? Edit: and 'single issue voters' should really get a life. Frankly, if any 'group' should be banned from voting, here's a good choice. This is what gives us the real nutjobs in congress more than anything. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #37 February 17, 2005 QuoteI believe the point of my reply to you was the fact that you didn't attack the content of the post at all. Well that is infact wrong, the substance of my post for the third time is that you don't see the problem with Dean and that he's a poisoned pill for many Americans who view the Democratic party with a critical eye. Go back and read the first post instead of repeatedly mischaracterizing it as an attack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,588 #38 February 17, 2005 I think I addressed that in my last post. I disagree that the person, in the role of party chair, is the killing difference. Unless he puts himself in the limelight, which the party chair should absolutely not do. Or does a crappy job. I have no idea who the party chairs are for the Democrats (well, before Dean), Republicans, or Libertarians. That's as it should be -- the party's platform and its candidates should be at front and center. The chair's job is to keep them there, and to make sure that the story is one that is both consistent internally, and with the various candidates and parts of the country. There are people who disagree on whether the Democrats, Republicans, Independent or Libertarians have the best long-term plan for the country. But that's not the discussion here, is it? There are a shitload of threads about that. It appears that you consider Democrats to be incapable of critical thought because they disagree with you. Or at least because they disagree with what you consider to be right (i.e. not that you are the source of all that is right, but since you're a pretty smart guy, well, whatever you think must be right). I disagree with the assessment that Democrats are, by their nature, incapable of critical thought. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #39 February 18, 2005 QuoteI don't know about "dornan" (both sides have pols that are less than savory so a single example is a nonsense argument because you can get examples both ways - it's an emotional tactic not worth going further on) but a case of non-citizens voting and changing an election has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with breaking the law. See the difference? Or is unjustified moral outrage just more fun? Dornan is "B-1 Bob" Dornan of Orange County. Still a Republican stronghold, but one that now has significant Vietnamese and Latino populations. Illegals had nothing to do with him losing - it was the change in demographics. As I said, California Latinos do not generally view the GOP favorable, esp not nutjobs like Dornan. Bush has guaranteed that the GOP won't win the state for the White House in the next decade, so I guess it's really more important what the latino population in states like Texas feel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #40 February 18, 2005 QuoteI think I addressed that in my last post. I disagree that the person, in the role of party chair, is the killing difference. Unless he puts himself in the limelight, which the party chair should absolutely not do. Or does a crappy job. I have no idea who the party chairs are for the Democrats (well, before Dean), Republicans, or Libertarians. That's as it should be -- the party's platform and its candidates should be at front and center. The chair's job is to keep them there, and to make sure that the story is one that is both consistent internally, and with the various candidates and parts of the country. There are people who disagree on whether the Democrats, Republicans, Independent or Libertarians have the best long-term plan for the country. But that's not the discussion here, is it? There are a shitload of threads about that. It appears that you consider Democrats to be incapable of critical thought because they disagree with you. Or at least because they disagree with what you consider to be right (i.e. not that you are the source of all that is right, but since you're a pretty smart guy, well, whatever you think must be right). I disagree with the assessment that Democrats are, by their nature, incapable of critical thought. Wendy W. No I just think the majority of them will vote Democrat no matter how deeply flawed their candidate is or how far off the rails their party runs. But again the real issue is the other people who won't be persuaded not the people who can't see this because they'll vote Dem anyway. Take heart thought, Hillary and Kerry are trying to recruit felons into the fold now so Democrats may get back in the game through a rule change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #41 February 18, 2005 QuoteIf the GOP doesn't convince them that their immigration policies aren't racism in disguise, it is their party that will slowly die out. First, making a statement that assumes that the hotel staff is all minorities can be regarded as rather racist. Second, considering C. Rice and C. Powell, and A. Gonzales... isn't his statement about minorities rather inaccurate. Making a racist remark and a remark that is so obviously contradicts general public knowledge. That is kind of the grand-slam of politics, isn't it? I haven't seen stuff of this caliber since Dan Quayle. Is he a speach writer now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #42 February 18, 2005 Uh, what statement are you quoting, and who made it? I missing some unquoted text, apparently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Tink1717 2 #31 February 17, 2005 QuoteI hope you're not viewing the Supreme Court as a partisan body. It's not, and history has shown that once a person is on the team, all bets are off. Those who get on the court are in many ways reflective of the ideology of the administration who appoints them. Thomas and Scalia (sp) are examples of that. Sometimes they turn out to dissapoint their champions (O'Connor is an example), but more often than not they are an extension of the POTUS who appointed them. Quoteit was 10 years ago that Newt's GOP stormed Congress. Note that he's not around any more, and there's a decent shot for the Democrats to reclaim the Senate on the next go around. The House seems further out due to the increasing incumbency advantage as both parties gerrymander. The White House is an open game in 2008 with no incumbent running. Nope, Newt is not around anymore (that's a good thing) but the GOP has much more power now than they did in the 90's (that's a bad thing). The DNC can't field any viable candidate in 2008. They won't even fight for whomever they nominate, so how can they win? It doesn't matter who the GOP puts up as a candidate, the DNC candidate will loose. QuoteFrom a demographic standpoint, the Democrats are gaining with time, not losing. Minority populations continue to grow. While Texas Republicans like the two Bush men poll a decent minority of Latino voters, most do not. In California it's not close at all. If the GOP doesn't convince them that their immigration policies aren't racism in disguise, it is their party that will slowly die out. What source are you getting this from? The DNC is losing voter in all categories, minorites in particular. Newly registered black and latino voters are going with the GOP more than the DNC. They only have a thin majority now, but that grows with time and time is on the side of the GOP. I still say let the DNC die a fast rather than a slow death. (They really deserve it. Any party that won't fight for their candidate is not worthy of the office or the trust of the people) I for one will be only too happy to read the obit for the DNC. Good riddance.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,588 #32 February 17, 2005 I believe the point of my reply to you was the fact that you didn't attack the content of the post at all. I don't think Dean as chairman of the Democrats will scare nearly as many people as Dean as a candidate did. Because, frankly, mostly the loyal of both parties are aware of who the chairman is, if he's doing a good job. Dean has been a pretty good governor of Vermont, based on what I hear from the Vermonters in my family. He wasn't particularly in the public eye until he ran for President. Therefore, it's possible that he'll do what's best for the party, rather than what's best for himself. See -- that was a reply to the message. And I wasn't accusing you of personal attack -- it was pretty clear that you could go much farther than you did before getting even close to the border. I was accusing you of an ad hominem argument. It's a different thing. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #33 February 17, 2005 QuoteFrom a demographic standpoint, the Democrats are gaining with time, not losing. Minority populations continue to grow. That the DNC just typically assumes that Minorities are on their side implies they can't think for the themselves. As issues grow and change over time, I hope the stereotypes break down and eventually any particular minority group's voting behavior will be indistiguisable from any other group. Because INDIVIDUAL's are voting based on issues and not unfair stereotypes about themselves or each of the parties. It's a horrible assumption and huge disservice that the DNC makes about people in general and likely the biggest fault in the DNC today. You can't just group an individual into a certain pattern of thinking just by looking at their skin color. Hopefully we are evolving away from that. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #34 February 17, 2005 Quote See -- that was a reply to the message. And I wasn't accusing you of personal attack -- it was pretty clear that you could go much farther than you did before getting even close to the border. I was accusing you of an ad hominem argument. It's a different thing. Wendy is correct here. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #35 February 17, 2005 QuoteQuoteFrom a demographic standpoint, the Democrats are gaining with time, not losing. Minority populations continue to grow. That the DNC just typically assumes that Minorities are on their side implies they can't think for the themselves. As issues grow and change over time, I hope the stereotypes break down and eventually any particular minority group's voting behavior will be indistiguisable from any other group. Because INDIVIDUAL's are voting based on issues and not unfair stereotypes about themselves or each of the parties. Issues like abortion, homosexuality, immigration, etc? It's hard to differentiate some minority groups from these issues. So I doubt you'll see gays voting in a manner similar to the nation as a whole - not so long as one party is waging war on their private life. The Log Cabin fellows agree with the GOP platform as a whole, but the one glaring exception is a pretty big one. Same applies to women who won't negotiate on the abortion issue, gun rightists on the Democrat side, etc. Single issue voters make predictions difficult if the parties stay true to their fundamentalist element. The GOP can only win in California as pro choice. The Latino vote is the tipping point. And like I said, if they find the motivation behind some of the GOP policies to be more racist then egalitarian, they will continue to vote for the other side. When a Republican like Dornan loses and says it could only have happened with illegal aliens voting, that doesn't exactly endear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #36 February 17, 2005 From what you wrote you should get my point. It's about the issues at the time the votes happen. issues like abortion, homosexuality and immigration has a range of political responses for each - politics has to lay out a plan on dealing with each. People of all demographics span with their level of agreement to each of these issues. Again, assuming that just because someone is of a certain color then they must "think" that color is a disservice to that person. I can't even begin to go into how you can thing that if someone is gay then they must also feel a certain way about immigration or abortion. That's nuts. issues - the real issues and how each side intends to deal with them (not the extrapolated nonsense each sides puts forth as the other side's position - listen to the political types here, the dems have no real clue what the rep positions are except for extrapolated emotional nonsense - and vice versa frankly they don't want to know, it's too hard) is what's important. Not just the name of the party. Once each of the demographics studies the issues and positions, those demographics will start to split to the party most closely matching their individual preferences - rather than be unfairly just assumed to be in a single 'camp'. And positions on issues changes political sides daily, so it's nonsense to think the DNC has a lock on all the minorities - it's rather patronizing even. I don't know about "dornan" (both sides have pols that are less than savory so a single example is a nonsense argument because you can get examples both ways - it's an emotional tactic not worth going further on) but a case of non-citizens voting and changing an election has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with breaking the law. See the difference? Or is unjustified moral outrage just more fun? Edit: and 'single issue voters' should really get a life. Frankly, if any 'group' should be banned from voting, here's a good choice. This is what gives us the real nutjobs in congress more than anything. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #37 February 17, 2005 QuoteI believe the point of my reply to you was the fact that you didn't attack the content of the post at all. Well that is infact wrong, the substance of my post for the third time is that you don't see the problem with Dean and that he's a poisoned pill for many Americans who view the Democratic party with a critical eye. Go back and read the first post instead of repeatedly mischaracterizing it as an attack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,588 #38 February 17, 2005 I think I addressed that in my last post. I disagree that the person, in the role of party chair, is the killing difference. Unless he puts himself in the limelight, which the party chair should absolutely not do. Or does a crappy job. I have no idea who the party chairs are for the Democrats (well, before Dean), Republicans, or Libertarians. That's as it should be -- the party's platform and its candidates should be at front and center. The chair's job is to keep them there, and to make sure that the story is one that is both consistent internally, and with the various candidates and parts of the country. There are people who disagree on whether the Democrats, Republicans, Independent or Libertarians have the best long-term plan for the country. But that's not the discussion here, is it? There are a shitload of threads about that. It appears that you consider Democrats to be incapable of critical thought because they disagree with you. Or at least because they disagree with what you consider to be right (i.e. not that you are the source of all that is right, but since you're a pretty smart guy, well, whatever you think must be right). I disagree with the assessment that Democrats are, by their nature, incapable of critical thought. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 February 18, 2005 QuoteI don't know about "dornan" (both sides have pols that are less than savory so a single example is a nonsense argument because you can get examples both ways - it's an emotional tactic not worth going further on) but a case of non-citizens voting and changing an election has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with breaking the law. See the difference? Or is unjustified moral outrage just more fun? Dornan is "B-1 Bob" Dornan of Orange County. Still a Republican stronghold, but one that now has significant Vietnamese and Latino populations. Illegals had nothing to do with him losing - it was the change in demographics. As I said, California Latinos do not generally view the GOP favorable, esp not nutjobs like Dornan. Bush has guaranteed that the GOP won't win the state for the White House in the next decade, so I guess it's really more important what the latino population in states like Texas feel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #40 February 18, 2005 QuoteI think I addressed that in my last post. I disagree that the person, in the role of party chair, is the killing difference. Unless he puts himself in the limelight, which the party chair should absolutely not do. Or does a crappy job. I have no idea who the party chairs are for the Democrats (well, before Dean), Republicans, or Libertarians. That's as it should be -- the party's platform and its candidates should be at front and center. The chair's job is to keep them there, and to make sure that the story is one that is both consistent internally, and with the various candidates and parts of the country. There are people who disagree on whether the Democrats, Republicans, Independent or Libertarians have the best long-term plan for the country. But that's not the discussion here, is it? There are a shitload of threads about that. It appears that you consider Democrats to be incapable of critical thought because they disagree with you. Or at least because they disagree with what you consider to be right (i.e. not that you are the source of all that is right, but since you're a pretty smart guy, well, whatever you think must be right). I disagree with the assessment that Democrats are, by their nature, incapable of critical thought. Wendy W. No I just think the majority of them will vote Democrat no matter how deeply flawed their candidate is or how far off the rails their party runs. But again the real issue is the other people who won't be persuaded not the people who can't see this because they'll vote Dem anyway. Take heart thought, Hillary and Kerry are trying to recruit felons into the fold now so Democrats may get back in the game through a rule change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #41 February 18, 2005 QuoteIf the GOP doesn't convince them that their immigration policies aren't racism in disguise, it is their party that will slowly die out. First, making a statement that assumes that the hotel staff is all minorities can be regarded as rather racist. Second, considering C. Rice and C. Powell, and A. Gonzales... isn't his statement about minorities rather inaccurate. Making a racist remark and a remark that is so obviously contradicts general public knowledge. That is kind of the grand-slam of politics, isn't it? I haven't seen stuff of this caliber since Dan Quayle. Is he a speach writer now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 February 18, 2005 Uh, what statement are you quoting, and who made it? I missing some unquoted text, apparently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
