GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Can someone please explain the GOP / TEA PARTY / to me? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1060069)

2MuchMark 03-05-2012 03:31 PM

Can someone please explain the GOP / TEA PARTY / to me?
 
First, I'm a Canadian who just happens to have discovered his inner political-nerd. I watch and read alot of news and find the US politics really interesting.

I have a question that I can't seem to get an answer from and I was hoping to get some feedback here.

From everything I have seen and read, it APPEARS that there are many republicans that seem to be ... well... evil!

Please tell me where I am wrong and / or correct me on the following:

- Republicans seem to favour big oil over anything.
- Republicans care nothing for the environment.
- Republicans favour the Bible and blind faith over science and base all of their decisions on it.
- Republicans SEEM to be homophobic, as they SEEM to want to deny civil liberties to homosexuals and use the Bible as some kind of justification for their decisions despite the whole "separation of church and state" thing.

- Republicans SEEM to hate higher education.

- Republicans SEEM to hate contraception in all forms, despite the threat of overpopulation, disease, family planning etc.

- Republicans SEEM to be racist. They are making it harder for black people to vote, deny illegal immigrants to naturalization services, and seem to hate President Obama. It seems that no matter what Obama wants to do, they will oppose it.

The last point really has been curious. John Bohner and the rest seemed to want to block every single thing that Obama wanted.

I say the word SEEMS because something does not make sense to me. From my (A Canadian's perspective), how can a political party in the US of A seem to be so... evil? Republican nominees like Santorum spew hate. Romney and Gingrich seem to throw up lies. Is what I am seeing, hearing and reading, real?

I watch alot of MSNBC, but to get some perspective I also watch Fox News and even listen to Rush Limbaugh. It is easy to find the lies that Rush Fox News pours out of their channel, and I totally understand that Fox may not even be real news, and is owned by Murdoch, and I get the fact that the Koch Brothers have interests, etc.

But is it all this clear? Is everything that easy to polarize? From my point of view, the democrats look like the good guys, and the republicans look like the evil doers.

Is this really true?

xNetworx 03-05-2012 03:32 PM

http://pockettacoradio.com/wp-conten...ull-Retard.jpg

porno jew 03-05-2012 03:32 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27...with_Kansas%3F

Helix 03-05-2012 03:38 PM

You should follow Canadian politics instead.

bronco67 03-05-2012 03:39 PM

They appear to be major assholes, and they really are.

Vendzilla 03-05-2012 03:41 PM

The GOP is no worse than the Democrats, or better.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude 03-05-2012 03:42 PM

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k1...crat-Party.gif

http://www.ksvoboda.com/wp-content/u...s-good-one.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kFl_cDt5mC...blicrats+5.jpg

ADG

Rochard 03-05-2012 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18804804)
The GOP is no worse than the Democrats, or better.

They both suck donkey balls and are more interested in beating each other instead of what is right. They play fucking games, hide shit in bills, and work their own agendas.

Sly 03-05-2012 03:46 PM

This thread is going to be awesome.

raymor 03-05-2012 04:25 PM

You've pretty well listed off the democrat's playbook of accusations.
I don't have al day to write a book, so let's pick one charge
Quote:

- Republicans SEEM to be racist. They are making it harder for black people to vote
Martin Luther King was a republican. The republicans granted blacks the right to vote and made discrimination illegal, while the DEMOCRATS filibustered these things. The Democrat's longest serving leader, Robert Byrd, personally filibustered the civil rights bill for fourteen hours and thirteen minutes. The democrat's second longest serving senator, Strom Thurmond, also filibustered the bill, but the republicans wouldn't relent and eventually passed it. Before being elected as a democrat senator non-stop from 1959 to 2010, Byrd's first elected office was as an elected leader of the KKK.

As soon as the republicans overcame these democrat filibusters so that blacks would have the right to vote, the democrats shit their pants. Millions of new voters hated them bitterly. The democrat's strategy was brilliant - start calling the REPUBLICANS racist, all day, every day. Before long, the "illiterate n------s" would be confused about who actually supported their right to vote and who opposed it. It's fucking brilliant. An elected official of the KKK and calling the OTHER GUYS racist!

Is this out of character for the republicans? It was almost an exact repeat of 98 earlier, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Republicans passed that act making blacks citizens, over democrat opposition. THe emancipation proclamation - republican.

So the fact is, republicans make huge advances in civil rights while democrats who are elected leaders of the KKK call them racist and try to stop civil rights.

Is this ancient history, the civil rights movement? A leading democrat senator used the N word on TV just recently:

These are the guys calling the republicans racist.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18804810)
They both suck donkey balls and are more interested in beating each other instead of what is right. They play fucking games, hide shit in bills, and work their own agendas.

Would you agree that "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem"?

That quote is from Reagan's inaugural address and I think it's one of the most succint statements of the biggest difference between the parties -
Republican government and democrat government both suck; the republicans know they suck and seek to have less. Compare Obama's promise to "remake America" - the implication being his government should force radical changes on the whole nation.

2012 03-05-2012 04:33 PM

what do you mean SEEM, you're right on the money :1orglaugh

2012 03-05-2012 04:47 PM

If everyone goes to college ? Where would we be ? Nobody would run the machines and take out the trash , or run the tube sites?

Quote:

Originally Posted by George H . Dubya the grand poppy
You don't have to go to college to be a success ... We need the people who run the offices, the people who do the hard physical work of our society.

:1orglaugh

Brujah 03-05-2012 04:49 PM

Please don't be confused by narrow revisionist histories.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was called on by a Democratic President, JFK. Sent to House of Representatives where it was strengthened by the House of Judiciary Committee leader, a Democrat from New York. After JFK's assassination, Johnson was the Democratic president urging its passing. Passed the house by 290 to 130 and sent to the Senate. There was a "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern democratic and 1 republican senators attempting to block the passing, but it eventually passed anyway. This was a southern issue, not a Democrat vs Republican issue where the Republicans were unanimously in favor and the U.S. Democrats were all trying to prevent it, anymore than the "Blue Dogs" represent the Democratic party in matter on the stance of Defense and War.

100% of Southern House Republicans voted against it. 100% of Southern Senate Republicans voted against it.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude 03-05-2012 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor (Post 18804899)

So the fact is, republicans make huge advances in civil rights while democrats who are elected leaders of the KKK call them racist and try to stop civil rights.

Using your logic, most Black voters support the KKK and do not want civil rights, however:

http://factcheck.org/Images/image/20..._Vote_Pres.jpg

Go figure... :upsidedow

ADG

Mutt 03-05-2012 05:25 PM

it's sad what's happened to the Republicans - they are burdened with the embarassment of the religious right. the core ideals of the Republican party are great, a better plan for a country than that of the Democrats but those ideals can't be sold to the modern American public through the homophobic, moronic, fundamentalist noise provided by the religious right.

then like everybody seems to agree on these days - both parties are two sides of the same coin. all politicians bought and paid for, puppets of those much more powerful and millions of times wealthier.

big government sucks - technology and big government is a very scary tandem.

nothing will change the course now, no third party, no outsider like Ron Paul -the die is cast, the American empire is in its death throes. which isn't a good thing for the rest of the world.

Brujah 03-05-2012 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ********** (Post 18804772)
But is it all this clear? Is everything that easy to polarize? From my point of view, the democrats look like the good guys, and the republicans look like the evil doers.

Is this really true?

I think this makes perfect sense coming from your perspective and understanding, you having been brought up in a country that usually has the interests of its people at heart over the interests of big corporations. However, this is changing somewhat even in your country isn't it? Big corporate interests are starting to be more of a factor in politics back home?

uno 03-05-2012 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude (Post 18804806)

To be fair, it really does look much much worse with the elephant on top.

raymor 03-05-2012 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude (Post 18804958)
Using your logic, most Black voters support the KKK and do not want civil rights, however:

http://factcheck.org/Images/image/20..._Vote_Pres.jpg

Go figure... :upsidedow

ADG

As I said, the democrat's strategy was brilliant. You tell me, which party's senator and elected KKK leader died in 2010 after being elected non-stop from 1959 until he died fifty-one years later? The democrat president pro tem used the N word on the senate floor. Then proceeded to call the other guys racist, and people who aren't paying attention believe it! Really? The KKK members who love to call people "n-----r" are tbe good guys, while the party that passed the Civil Rights Act are the racists? Are you really so ignorant of the facts that you fall for that BS?

Bill8 03-05-2012 05:44 PM

The republicans have gotten trapped in the moral and logical outcomes of their own rhetorical success.

Read some Jonathan Haidt, regarding manichean thinking.

The polarization is destroying both parties from the inside out, each with their own variation of the same moral and logical problem.

Here's some, its got the Moyers spin but Haidts ideas are pretty well presented.

http://billmoyers.com/episode/how-do...see-the-world/

http://billmoyers.com/wp-content/the....php?post=3100
BILL MOYERS: And that's because of the Baby Boomers, and-

JONATHAN HAIDT: Well, the Baby Boomers, I think, are more prone to Manichaean thinking.

BILL MOYERS: Manichaean thinking. Good and evil.

JONATHAN HAIDT: That's right. Manichaeus was a, I think, third century Persian prophet, who preached that the world is a battleground between the forces of light, and the forces of darkness. And everybody has to take a side. And some people have sided with good, and of course, we all believe that we've sided with good. But that means that the other people have sided with evil.

And when it gets so that your opponents are not just people you disagree with, but when it gets to the mental state in which I am fighting for good, and you are fighting for evil, it's very difficult to compromise. Compromise becomes a dirty word.

BILL MOYERS: Let me play you an exchange between House Speaker John Boehner and Lesley Stahl on ?60 Minutes.? Take a look at this.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: We have to govern, that?s what we were elected to do.

LESLEY STAHL: But governing means compromising.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: It means working together.

LESLEY STAHL: It also means compromising.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: It means finding common ground.

LESLEY STAHL: Ok, is that compromising?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: Let me be clear I am not going to compromise on my principles, nor am I going to compromise the will of the American people.

LESLEY STAHL: You?re saying ?I want common ground but I?m not going to compromise.? I don?t understand that, I really don?t.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: When you say the word compromise, a lot of Americans look up and go, ?oh, oh, they?re going to sell me out.? And so finding common ground, I think, makes more sense.

LESLEY STAHL: I reminded him that his goal had been to get all the Bush tax cuts made permanent. So you did compromise.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: We found common ground.

LESLEY STAHL: Why won?t you say-- you?re afraid of the word!

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: I reject the word.
BILL MOYERS: He could barely say the word compromise.

JONATHAN HAIDT: That's right, that?s right. Because once you've crossed over from normal political disagreement into Manichaean good versus evil, to compromise, I mean, we say, you know, his ethics were compromised, you don't compromise with evil. Now, I think it's especially an issue for Republicans because they are better at doing, sort of, tribal team based loyalties. The data we have at yourmorals.org shows that conservatives score much higher on this foundation of loyalty, groupishness. And the Republican, I mean, which job would you rather have in Congress? The Republican whip or the Democratic whip? You know?

BILL MOYERS: Right.

JONATHAN HAIDT: The Republicans can hang together better. And part of it is, they're better at drawing bright lines and saying, ?I will not go over this line.?

Bill8 03-05-2012 05:46 PM

Lol, and from that same video...
JONATHAN HAIDT: Politics has always been about coalitions and teams fighting each other. But those teams, those teams were never evenly divided on morality. Now, well, basically it all started, as you well know, on the day Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. You tell me what he said on that day. I think I heard you say this once.

BILL MOYERS: He actually said to me that evening, "I think we've just turned the South over to the Republican Party for the rest of my life, and yours."

JONATHAN HAIDT: Yeah. And he was prescient, that's exactly what happened. So there was this anomaly for the 20th Century that both parties were coalitions of different regions, and interest groups. But there were liberal Republicans, there were conservative Democrats. So the two teams, they had, they were people whose moralities could meet up. Even though they were playing on different teams.

And once Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, and the South, which had been Democrat, because Lincoln had been a Republican, so once they all moved over to the Republican party, and then the moderate Republicans began to lose office in the '80s, and '90s, and the last ones going just recently, for the first time we have an ideologically pure division of the parties.

And now, this groupish tribalism, which is usually not so destructive, we can usually, you know, when you leave the playing field, you can still meet up, and be friends. But now that it truly is a moral division, now the other side is evil. And there's nobody, there aren't really pairs of people who can match up, and say, well, come on. We all agree on this, let's work together.

BILL MOYERS You remind me that when we set out to try to pass the Civil Rights Act of '64, and the Voting Rights Act of '65, LBJ commissioned us to go spend much of our time with the moderate Republicans in the House, and in the Senate. Because he said, "When push comes to shove, and when the roll is called, we're going to need them to pass this bill." And at one point, in the signing of one of those bills, he turned and handed the pen to Everett Dirksen, the senior Republican from Illinois and the leader of the Republican minority in the Senate and he was the one who, in the critical moments, brought a number of moderate Republicans to vote for the Civil Rights bill. You?re saying that was a deciding moment, a defining moment?

JONATHAN HAIDT: So there are three major historical facts, or changes, that have gotten us into the mess that we're in. So the first is the realignment of the South into the Republican column, which allowed both parties now to be pure. So that now there are basically no liberal Republicans matching up with conservative Democrats. So, the parties are totally separated. The second thing that happened was the replacement of the Greatest Generation by the Baby Boomers.

Brujah 03-05-2012 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor (Post 18805051)
while the party that passed the Civil Rights Act are the racists? Are you really so ignorant of the facts that you fall for that BS?

See? I already showed the facts involved in this 1964 issue, and we still get comments like this. Unlike others, I didn't call anyone racist. I don't need to. I can simply point out the facts that are left out, obscuring the context.

The United States is filled with men in its history who made tragic mistakes. Byrd and Thurmond are two such men but they alone do not represent an entire party. At best, they may represent their constituents who continue to vote for them.

Byrd changed his mind, regretted his filibuster and voted for the civil rights act of 1968. I don't know when Thurmond came to his senses. Both of them were wrong obviously, but so were the others, including the 100% of Southern Republicans in the House, and 100% of Southern Republicans in the Senate who also opposed the act. It was a different time in our history and we've worked to change things since then. They'd both be about 100 years old by now if they were still living, but they're not and they're not running for office either. Look at it for what it really is. A fraction of the big picture.

Republicans are the party that passed the Civil Rights Act? Are you kidding? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

shinmusashi44 03-05-2012 06:02 PM

You should watch The Young Turks The are the biggest online news outlet. They also come on current TV.

And yeah the GOP is all those things you said, But the GOP now is very different than they were 50 years ago. Now they are just a bunch of crazies.

Brujah 03-05-2012 06:05 PM

At this point, I feel I should offer this point for consideration... if a defender of any party or position needs to omit the large detail of the facts, and take a small subset of the issue out of the greater context, you are probably safe in the knowledge that there's something wrong in their position. It should be very telling all by itself.

Just Alex 03-05-2012 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor (Post 18805051)
As I said, the democrat's strategy was brilliant. You tell me, which party's senator and elected KKK leader died in 2010 after being elected non-stop from 1959 until he died fifty-one years later? The democrat president pro tem used the N word on the senate floor. Then proceeded to call the other guys racist, and people who aren't paying attention believe it! Really? The KKK members who love to call people "n-----r" are tbe good guys, while the party that passed the Civil Rights Act are the racists? Are you really so ignorant of the facts that you fall for that BS?

Which republican governor had "n**gerhead" stone at his camp?

raymor 03-05-2012 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 18805066)
The United States is filled with men in its history who made tragic mistakes. Byrd and Thurmond are two such men but they alone do not represent an entire party. At best, they may represent their constituents who continue to vote for them.

His party repeatedly elected him to represent the entire party, for decades. President pro tem, Senate Majority Whip, President pro tempore emeritus, secretary of the Senate Democratic Caucus - he was in fact elected by the democrats to represent their entire party, over and over for decades, while he was using racial slurs in his speeches and opposing voting rights even in 2009, a year before he died.

Quote:

Byrd changed his mind, regretted his filibuster and voted for the civil rights act of 1968. I don't know when Thurmond came to his senses.
Byrd used the N word to describe black people until the day he died. He was using that language ON THE SENATE FLOOR two years ago. At the time he was third in line to become president, if the president and vice president died. As the #1 democrat in congress, this bigot did represent the party.

Brujah 03-05-2012 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor (Post 18805122)
His party repeatedly elected him to represent the entire party, for decades.

If you were right, then for 8 years and all of his policies including the bailouts, George W. Bush represented the same things that all Republicans believed and that Mitt Romney currently as the leading delegate is now in that position.

If you say so.

SuckOnThis 03-05-2012 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18804804)
The GOP is no worse than the Democrats, or better.


Name just ONE good thing republicans have done for this country in the past 20 years.

lazycash 03-05-2012 07:28 PM

"From everything I have seen and read.."

"I watch alot of MSNBC"


There's your problem right there.

Brujah 03-05-2012 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor (Post 18805122)
Byrd used the N word to describe black people until the day he died. He was using that language ON THE SENATE FLOOR two years ago.


Byrd died in 2010. His use of the word in 2001 in an interview:

Quote:

Byrd's use of the term "white hahahahahaha" created immediate controversy. When asked about it, Byrd responded,

" I apologize for the characterization I used on this program ... The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society ... In my attempt to articulate strongly held feelings, I may have offended people."
Could you please link me to his use of the word without the 'white' OR please link me to his use of the word on the Senate Floor in 2010? That'd be great, thanks!

Brujah 03-05-2012 07:33 PM

Could you also please tell us more about that Republican party that passed the civil rights act, with those 100% Southern Republicans (House AND Senate) in opposition?

2MuchMark 03-05-2012 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazycash (Post 18805147)
"From everything I have seen and read.."

"I watch alot of MSNBC"


There's your problem right there.


...but I also said that, to be fair, I watch Fox News and even have been listening to Rush Limbaugh lately. And of course being Canadian I watch alot of CTV and CBC. I should watch BBC and perhaps some Al Jazeria (sp?) but I don't think it would matter much.

When it comes to MSNBC. I never miss Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O'Donnel. Rachel is pretty cool, but I have come to notice that ED asked very careful questions to his audience. For example, today he asked "Will people still continue to listen to the Rush Limbaugh Show".

This is a sneaky question to ask. Of course all of the MSNBC viewers will say No, and Ed will flaunt this at the end of his show. The question is designed to put pressure on his rival, Rush. I still think Rush is an idiot, but ED's very slight manipulation here seemed a little obvious.

Anyway, all very very interesting..

kane 03-05-2012 07:38 PM

It is pretty simple.

Old school republicans actually want smaller government, less taxes and more personal freedom.

Then Reagan sold the republican party out to the religious right. With that the republicans took control of the south which had been a long time democratic stronghold. With that sea change the republican party changed. They suddenly became the party of morality. They still wanted you to have your personal freedoms, so long as they agreed with those freedoms. They also raised taxes and increased the size of government. They basically became just like the democrats only the democrats are tax and spend while the republicans are debt and spend.

So long as they placate the religious right they have a built in base that is easy to control and that can be counted on to turn out for elections. We saw how that worked against them in 2008. The religious right didn't like McCain and weren't too happy with hour Bush had treated them so they didn't turn out.

The old school republicans basically are what the new libertarians are.

raymor 03-05-2012 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 18805138)
If you were right, then for 8 years and all of his policies including the bailouts, George W. Bush represented the same things that all Republicans believed and that Mitt Romney currently as the leading delegate is now in that position.

If you say so.

Good point. Of course I never said all Dems believe the way Byrd and the other leaders do, but he did in fact _represent_ the party, as he was elected to do so. That fact that republicans voted for W a second time kind of makes your argument I think. Dems kept electing Byrd for sixty years. If Bush had only been elected once, hey mistakes happen. He was elected twice though.

Both parties elect bad representatives. Hopefully the next one won't be as bad as the last few, if only by not doing much, ala Clinton. Clinton didn't fuck things up much because he was too busy cheating on his wife, denying that he cheated on wife getting people to lie about him cheating on wife, etc. That worked out okay because as long as he was busy fucking women he wasn't fucking us.

It's hard to tell before an election if someone will be good. Governor Bush was widely regarded as a very good governor, so 51% of us thought he'd be a good president. We were wrong. Another 51% thought Obama would pull us out of the slump. Boy were we wrong. On the other hand, two young kids named Roosevelt and Kennedy were great, as was a Hollywood actor named Reagan. There's really no telling how these candidates would do.

epitome 03-05-2012 07:45 PM

Republicans are huge on civil rights. They've overturned DADT against Obama's wishes, Republican states are voting in gay marriage and they believe every woman should make the choice on whether they should have an abortion.

Stop trying to skew things.

raymor 03-05-2012 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 18805077)
At this point, I feel I should offer this point for consideration... if a defender of any party or position needs to omit the large detail of the facts, and take a small subset of the issue out of the greater context, you are probably safe in the knowledge that there's something wrong in their position. It should be very telling all by itself.

Politifact rated as completely true the statement that the republicans "fought very hard to get the civil rights bill passed, as well as the voting rights bill".

Politifact also notes that some democrats were strong supporters, while mentioning that 3/4 of the opposition was democrats.

Brujah 03-05-2012 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor (Post 18805178)
Politifact rated as completely true the statement that the republicans "fought very hard to get the civil rights bill passed, as well as the voting rights bill".

Politifact also notes that some democrats were strong supporters, while mentioning that 3/4 of the opposition was democrats.

You're pretty knowledgable about math. You already know where that is skewed too.

Let's say that out of 100, there are 20 members who oppose something. They only represent 20% of the whole. If 100% of those 20 members are democrats, it doesn't mean they represent 100% of democrats.

I've already shown it was a Southern political issue, not a Democratic political issue. You should have already realized this too since it was a Democratic president, a Democratic Judicial leader, a subsequent Democratic president, and a higher percentage of Northern Democrats than Northern Republicans in both House and Senate, pushing for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I also showed you that 100% of Southern Republicans opposed the act.

If you can't acknowledge that it was a Northern vs Southern issue, then you're just refusing to accept the truths and instead prefer to take a subset of the data and use that data to form your inaccurate opinion based on partial evidence because it's what you want to believe and not what is accurate.

raymor 03-05-2012 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 18805172)
Republicans are huge on civil rights. They've overturned DADT against Obama's wishes


Indeed. Don't ask don't tell was Clinton's policy. Bush appointee Robert Gates sought to do away with it while Obama fought to delay it's end even after the court ruled it unconstitutional. After a court battle trying to drag his feet on eliminating
it, when he could delay Obama saw the polls and announced he had ended DADT. Liar. The court ended DADT while he appealed.

epitome 03-05-2012 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor (Post 18805197)
Indeed. Don't ask don't tell was Clinton's policy. Bush appointee Robert Gates sought to do away with it while Obama fought to delay it's end even after the court ruled it unconstitutional. After a court battle trying to drag his feet on eliminating
it, when he could delay Obama saw the polls and announced he had ended DADT. Liar. The court ended DADT while he appealed.

A congressional bill to repeal DADT was enacted in December 2010, specifying that the policy would remain in place until the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified that repeal would not harm military readiness, followed by a 60-day waiting period.[4] A July 6, 2011 ruling from a federal appeals court barred further enforcement of the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members.[5] President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, sent that certification to Congress on July 22, 2011, which set the end of DADT for September 20, 2011.[6]

Also, you say it's "Clinton's policy" without clarifying that it was a compromise as Clinton wanted anybody to be able to serve as gays were prohibited from serving. His opposition (including those that flooded Congressional phone lines) put up a fight (and was winning), so they came up with the good intention-ed DADT, compromise, which in hindsight, wasn't all that great. If Clinton could have had his way, everybody would be serving openly like today. If nobody opposed him, DADT would have never had to happen.

Before you say "it's Wikipedia, get a real source," follow the sources if you do not want to believe wiki... it's just a good congregation of links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

raymor 03-05-2012 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 18805196)

If you can't acknowledge that it was a Northern vs Southern issue, then you're just refusing to accept the truths.

It was both. It wasn't just northern for, southern opposed. More NORTHERN democrats opposed it than SOUTHERN republicans. You want to talk about the south? Twenty southern democrats opposed. One southern republican opposed.

In total, 37% of democrats opposed, 20% of republicans - democrats were twice as likely to oppose civil rights than republicans were. It's convenient, if you're a democrat, to call it a southern thing and ignore the reason the south, built on slaves, elected democrats. Because they south was (and still is) racist, they do three things:
burn crosses
lynch blacks
elect democrats

Brujah 03-05-2012 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor (Post 18805212)
It was both. It wasn't just northern for, southern opposed. More NORTHERN democrats opposed it than SOUTHERN republicans. You want to talk about the south? Twenty southern democrats opposed. One southern republican opposed.

No, the "Southern Bloc" consisted of 1 Republican. 100% of Southern Republicans, which there were only about 10 or 11, opposed the civil rights act. So it wasn't just 1 Republican.

You're still just playing math games. It doesn't matter, I no longer care to keep highlighting it because you aren't really interested in what really happened. Your comments in this topic emphasize that you want to believe the Republican party is the party responsible for passing the civil rights act. You're completely oblivious of the role Democrats played in passing Civil Rights, and with that especially I'm just not bothering anymore. :2 cents:

AllAboutCams 03-05-2012 08:21 PM

http://ofcabbagesandkings.co.uk/prod...s/teaparty.jpg

Lucy - CSC 03-05-2012 08:27 PM

https://youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI

This is a real Republican and a real Democrat. You may notice now the people claiming to be these are nothing more than corporate whores.

ilnjscb 03-05-2012 08:31 PM

You watch too much MSNBC. Republicans and Democrats are both worthless.

Bush, idiot child of a president, is elected because of his family. He:

Increases debt to absurd amount
Gets us in ridiculous wars with no plan for dumb reasons
Erodes human rights in the name of "security"
Presides over a recession that he can do nothing about

Obama, unwanted child of a muslim, is elected because of his race. He:

Increases debt to absurd amount
Gets us in ridiculous wars with no plan for dumb reasons
Erodes human rights in the name of "security"
Presides over a recession that he can do nothing about

Vendzilla 03-05-2012 09:44 PM

Vote the bums out! All of them

raymor 03-05-2012 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 18805221)
No, the "Southern Bloc" consisted of 1 Republican. 100% of Southern Republicans, which there were only about 10 or 11, opposed the civil rights act.

So it wasn't just 1 Republican.

Brujah you're losing your edge. It wasn't ten or eleven southern republicans opposed, it was one - because there was only one southern republican senator. I thought you'd call me on that. :D

I say this chick is hot:
http://www.livecamnetwork.com/bbs-pi...schoolgirl.jpg

Argue with that, my friend.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude 03-05-2012 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor (Post 18805336)

I say this chick is hot:
http://www.livecamnetwork.com/bbs-pi...schoolgirl.jpg

Argue with that, my friend.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c3...harp-knees.jpg

:winkwink:

ADG

Barry-xlovecam 03-06-2012 01:32 AM


Pinko Commies < Liberals | Conservatives > Wing Nuts


OWS < Democrats | Republicans > Tea Party

Bring your own boots and shovel to the party ...

adendreams 03-06-2012 06:16 AM

Republicans stand for 2 things:

1. Large Corporations getting larger.

2. Fooling stupid people into thinking they stand for other things.

http://i.imgur.com/VZtIn.gif

MK Ultra 03-06-2012 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18805322)
Vote the bums out! All of them

sanest reply in this thread :thumbsup

The fact that this argument about which party is more evil is even going on should tell us all how badly they have both failed, the parties have done nothing but so polarize our nation that our government can't function, the leaders of both parties should be taken out and shot.

And at the very least no candidate with "incumbent" after their names will ever get my vote again

:2 cents:

TampaToker 03-06-2012 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor (Post 18804899)
You've pretty well listed off the democrat's playbook of accusations.
I don't have al day to write a book, so let's pick one charge


Martin Luther King was a republican. The republicans granted blacks the right to vote and made discrimination illegal, while the DEMOCRATS filibustered these things. The Democrat's longest serving leader, Robert Byrd, personally filibustered the civil rights bill for fourteen hours and thirteen minutes. The democrat's second longest serving senator, Strom Thurmond, also filibustered the bill, but the republicans wouldn't relent and eventually passed it. Before being elected as a democrat senator non-stop from 1959 to 2010, Byrd's first elected office was as an elected leader of the KKK.

As soon as the republicans overcame these democrat filibusters so that blacks would have the right to vote, the democrats shit their pants. Millions of new voters hated them bitterly. The democrat's strategy was brilliant - start calling the REPUBLICANS racist, all day, every day. Before long, the "illiterate n------s" would be confused about who actually supported their right to vote and who opposed it. It's fucking brilliant. An elected official of the KKK and calling the OTHER GUYS racist!

Is this out of character for the republicans? It was almost an exact repeat of 98 earlier, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Republicans passed that act making blacks citizens, over democrat opposition. THe emancipation proclamation - republican.

So the fact is, republicans make huge advances in civil rights while democrats who are elected leaders of the KKK call them racist and try to stop civil rights.

Is this ancient history, the civil rights movement? A leading democrat senator used the N word on TV just recently:

These are the guys calling the republicans racist.




Would you agree that "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem"?

That quote is from Reagan's inaugural address and I think it's one of the most succint statements of the biggest difference between the parties -
Republican government and democrat government both suck; the republicans know they suck and seek to have less. Compare Obama's promise to "remake America" - the implication being his government should force radical changes on the whole nation.

Martin Luther King Jr was not a republican. Were did you come up with that at?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123