|
jpn of Seattle
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: September 25, 2007, 08:46:48 PM » |
|
Your response brings to mind the late great Dr. Samuel Francis' quip that the GOP was the stupid party and the Democrats were the evil party. "Loon" is too soft a word for Jackson and Sharpton as "thug" better fits supporters of the Jena 6 criminals. The Democrats' rabid embrace of Frankfurt School cultural marxism has only made the detestable GOP look good in comparison. Most people if offered a choice between a bumbling fool and a sinister schweinhund would opt for the former.
OswaldTheOsprey
I'm not sure why you quote me above your remarks. Unless you thought that I was defending Jackson and Sharpton or unless you thought I was supporting the Jena 6 criminals. If that's what you thought, perhaps you should re-read what I actually wrote. Since my posts simply documented the deliberate and calculated use of racism by the Republican Party for political gain, I'm not sure how that translates into the GOP being "stupid" and the Democrats being "evil". I think it shows the GOP as being "smart" in an "evil" sort of way. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 25, 2007, 08:50:43 PM by jpn of Seattle »
|
Logged
|
What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
|
|
|
OswaldTheOsprey
High Society
Hero Member
Karma: +100/-123
Posts: 9,152
|
|
« Reply #31 on: September 26, 2007, 02:08:49 AM » |
|
Your response brings to mind the late great Dr. Samuel Francis' quip that the GOP was the stupid party and the Democrats were the evil party. "Loon" is too soft a word for Jackson and Sharpton as "thug" better fits supporters of the Jena 6 criminals. The Democrats' rabid embrace of Frankfurt School cultural marxism has only made the detestable GOP look good in comparison. Most people if offered a choice between a bumbling fool and a sinister schweinhund would opt for the former.
OswaldTheOsprey
I'm not sure why you quote me above your remarks. Unless you thought that I was defending Jackson and Sharpton or unless you thought I was supporting the Jena 6 criminals. If that's what you thought, perhaps you should re-read what I actually wrote. Since my posts simply documented the deliberate and calculated use of racism by the Republican Party for political gain, I'm not sure how that translates into the GOP being "stupid" and the Democrats being "evil". I think it shows the GOP as being "smart" in an "evil" sort of way. Some of us may consider such policies as forced busing, affirmative action, hate crimes (read thought control) laws and pandering to the likes of Jackson and Sharpton as being "smart" in an "evil" sort of way. OswaldTheOsprey |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Urbi et Orbi
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +112/-146
Posts: 1,941
|
|
« Reply #32 on: September 26, 2007, 08:47:37 AM » |
|
Anyone who decides to alienate or ignore a portion, ANY portion, of the population does so at their own peril, especially with how close the last 2 Presidential elections have been.
I think it sends a bad message, even if there may hve been a good reason to miss the debate.
If I were running, I'd reach out to as many as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood
-George S. Patton
|
|
|
-And Justice For All-
Jr. Member
Karma: +7/-6
Posts: 65
|
|
« Reply #33 on: September 26, 2007, 09:52:26 AM » |
|
It's all about battleground states anymore. You really shouldn't feel bad, over here on the west coast we get skipped all the time by both parties. They simply think of us as solid blue states that can't be won over or a waste of time. The fact is we are very diverse over here and while there might be a democratic majority there is a huge population of independents and republicans as well. This is another reason why the electoral college has it's flaws. It groups states into certain categories.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Opmod
|
|
« Reply #34 on: September 26, 2007, 10:32:21 AM » |
|
No, Totino... Democrats did not do the same thing to African Americans! And the organization was the Western Majority Project which consists of a bunch of mostly white democratic politicians from western states. The debate was to be hosted by Fox News Channel and Fox News Radio, the Nevada State Democratic Party and the Western Majority Project. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3069.htmlThe only reason the Democrats refused this debate was because of Fox. SO is that any more or less appropriate than the Repubes refusing the PNS deabte becuase it wasn't worth the bother? I mean I can see refusing to debate a Repubes on Fox but they are beating each other up right now,,,why refuse? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\"Something witty\\\" Some self impotant blowhard
|
|
|
|
Perrin
|
|
« Reply #35 on: September 26, 2007, 10:54:17 AM » |
|
Personally I don't see the big deal. If the Repubs don't want to debate in Baltimore, then fine, they will just have to deal with the comments made about them about it, just like the Dems had to do when they refused to debate on Fox. Turn-a-bout is fair play. I am disappointed in both groups because they are avoiding debates that will ask them tough questions and give us (the voters) a better understanding of what they stand for.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.
In America, anyone can be president. That\\\'s one of the risks you take.
|
|
|
OswaldTheOsprey
High Society
Hero Member
Karma: +100/-123
Posts: 9,152
|
|
« Reply #36 on: September 26, 2007, 11:33:02 AM » |
|
Personally I don't see the big deal. If the Repubs don't want to debate in Baltimore, then fine, they will just have to deal with the comments made about them about it, just like the Dems had to do when they refused to debate on Fox. Turn-a-bout is fair play. I am disappointed in both groups because they are avoiding debates that will ask them tough questions and give us (the voters) a better understanding of what they stand for.
Excellent post. Many Republicans have also tried to exclude Ron Paul and Clinton and Edwards were caught discussing limiting who would be in Democratic debates. A sorry spectacle all around. OswaldTheOsprey |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Urbi et Orbi
|
|
|
|
micfranklin
|
|
« Reply #37 on: September 26, 2007, 11:54:08 AM » |
|
Well how about that, I checked on another site and it looks like Tancredo and Thompson are also not showing up  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Opmod
|
|
« Reply #38 on: September 26, 2007, 12:24:22 PM » |
|
Well how about that, I checked on another site and it looks like Tancredo and Thompson are also not showing up So its a debate without candidates? That will probably be the most informational debate this cycle. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\"Something witty\\\" Some self impotant blowhard
|
|
|
|
micfranklin
|
|
« Reply #39 on: September 26, 2007, 02:25:18 PM » |
|
Well how about that, I checked on another site and it looks like Tancredo and Thompson are also not showing up So its a debate without candidates? That will probably be the most informational debate this cycle. Well we still have five other people showing up, so it'll be a debate with less candidates, but more attention to the lesser known candidates. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
bringbackwigs
Professional Post-Whore
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +157/-183
Posts: 3,113
Please refrain from taking my posts seriously
|
|
« Reply #40 on: September 26, 2007, 02:30:12 PM » |
|
Well how about that, I checked on another site and it looks like Tancredo and Thompson are also not showing up So its a debate without candidates? That will probably be the most informational debate this cycle. Well we still have five other people showing up, so it'll be a debate with less candidates, but more attention to the lesser known candidates. It'll get lower ratings than Fox's Daily Show ripoff. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
In religion and politics, people\\\\\\\\\'s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination. - Mark Twain  |
|
|
|
micfranklin
|
|
« Reply #41 on: September 26, 2007, 02:46:34 PM » |
|
Oh that reminds me I gotta go get my ticket tomorrow, my notepad, and be prepared to sit for 2 hours.
You think they have a dress code?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Buzz
Full Member
Karma: +30/-35
Posts: 157
|
|
« Reply #42 on: September 26, 2007, 04:28:32 PM » |
|
I think there is a big difference between the GOP and Dems reasons for not participating in certain debates.
First let me say that I don't think that all or even most of the republican candidates are really full blown racists. Some may be but I couldn't say who that would be. I just think that to stand a chance of winning over their base and getting the republican nomination that they have to pander to the racist element of the republican party. Basically the same thing JPN was saying. And there are a lot more racists in the republican party than most will admit. I have seen it here on IAP where some will claim they are not racist them soon afterward make a completely racist comment. Many people don't even realize that they are, in fact, racist.
The GOP have, as we all know, taken positions on certain subjects that pander to the racist part of their constituency and piss off minorities. Their stance on immigration and how they killed the bill is the most obvious example. So if they attend a debate sponsored by Hispanics they will surely get questions that if answered in a way that will please Hispanics will also piss off their base. So...like some here say it just isn't worth the effort. I can understand this but that doesn't make it any less racist.
Now the reasons for Democrats not wanting to attend FOX sponsored debates is much different. We all know FOX news is biased toward republicans. Murdock has even admitted as much. That means that as far as most Democrats are concerned FOX is just another wing of the republican party. And we all know from past experience that FOX is notorious for asking unfair questions. The time Bill Clinton got pissed at Chris Wallace comes to mind. So why should Democrats participate in a debate that would essentially be controlled by the RNC?
Tough questions are one thing but unfair and biased questions are something that Democrats would be stupid to not avoid.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Opmod
|
|
« Reply #43 on: September 27, 2007, 06:09:40 AM » |
|
I think there is a big difference between the GOP and Dems reasons for not participating in certain debates.
First let me say that I don't think that all or even most of the republican candidates are really full blown racists. Some may be but I couldn't say who that would be. I just think that to stand a chance of winning over their base and getting the republican nomination that they have to pander to the racist element of the republican party. Basically the same thing JPN was saying. And there are a lot more racists in the republican party than most will admit. I have seen it here on IAP where some will claim they are not racist them soon afterward make a completely racist comment. Many people don't even realize that they are, in fact, racist.
The GOP have, as we all know, taken positions on certain subjects that pander to the racist part of their constituency and piss off minorities. Their stance on immigration and how they killed the bill is the most obvious example. So if they attend a debate sponsored by Hispanics they will surely get questions that if answered in a way that will please Hispanics will also piss off their base. So...like some here say it just isn't worth the effort. I can understand this but that doesn't make it any less racist.
Now the reasons for Democrats not wanting to attend FOX sponsored debates is much different. We all know FOX news is biased toward republicans. Murdock has even admitted as much. That means that as far as most Democrats are concerned FOX is just another wing of the republican party. And we all know from past experience that FOX is notorious for asking unfair questions. The time Bill Clinton got pissed at Chris Wallace comes to mind. So why should Democrats participate in a debate that would essentially be controlled by the RNC?
Tough questions are one thing but unfair and biased questions are something that Democrats would be stupid to not avoid.
And I see it in just the opposite terms. Or rather I think BOTH parties in these cases have passed up prime chances to get thier "messages" out to people who traditionally would not have heard those messages. Odds are that the group who would have seen the Fox deabtes would have been mostly conservatives, there for hearing things they are not liekely to have heard before. The same could be said of the PBS debate in a historically Democrat area they would be given the chance to get the word out to people who wouldnormally not have bothered listening. Futher more, if a person wants to be PRESIDENT, they should be ready, noy they should EMBRACE the kind of challenge going into the lions den represents. Just my  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\"Something witty\\\" Some self impotant blowhard
|
|
|
|
