I think Kerry’s campaign is disgusting. I think that by deliberately mirepresenting Bush’s policy, Kerry has dishonored himself. If Bush is as much an idiot as the Democrats claim, and if his policies are as poorly conceived and implemented as the Dems and Kerry claim, why don’t the Dems and Kerry attack Bush’s actual policies?
Do you believe that Bush portrays Kerry’s policies accurately? I’m not saying that makes it right, but… you are supporting Bush right?
Also, read carefully… op-ed stands for opinion. Op-ed writers often don’t provide solid evidence for their claims. Like this one:
Sounds nasty I’d agree. But the next paragraph says:
[quote]The flyer reproduces a Civil Rights era photograph of a black man pinned against the wall of a building by water shooting out of a fire hose. “This is what they used to do to keep us from voting,” it reads.
And “This is how Republicans keep African-Americans from voting now,” it adds, listing several recent incidents in which blacks supposedly were discouraged from casting ballots. [/quote]
In what way does this amount to a suggestion that anyone is planning to physically attack a black voter in 2004? If blacks were “supposedly” (nice touch that) discouraged from casting ballots because they vote democrat, are people not supposed to write pamphlets about it? The Republican party’s current practice of whittling voter rolls and aggressively challenging voter eligibility on technicalities in order to drive down turnout in democratic-leaning groups is, imho, nearing a point where people inside the party are going to have to say something before it gets them into some ugly trouble.
Oh, and
[quote=“Joseph Perkins”]Finally, there’s the Kerry claim that, “After nearly four years under George Bush, the middle class is paying a bigger share of America’s tax burden, and the wealthiest are paying less.”
That’s another big lie. The fact is that Bush lowered taxes across the board.
[/quote]
Is the last sentence of your post your opinion or Joseph Perkins’?
[quote=“Tigerman”]I think Kerry’s campaign is disgusting. I think that by deliberately mirepresenting Bush’s policy, Kerry has dishonored himself. If Bush is as much an idiot as the Democrats claim, and if his policies are as poorly conceived and implemented as the Dems and Kerry claim, why don’t the Dems and Kerry attack Bush’s actual policies?
What a load of shite.[/quote]
What is hilarious is that the photo, of black voters being sprayed with firehoses (literally) to drive them away from the polls, shows what a DEMOCRAT did to blacks to prevent them from voting Republican. The sheriff’s name was Theophilus Eugene “Bull” Connor.
A nasty lie. The Dems introduced the bill to bring back the draft and the Republicans squashed it. Bush doesn’t want a draft.[/quote]
And with the number of military personnel who are preparing to resign if Kerry gets elected, Kerry probably would have to bring back the draft just to get the military back up to its current size, much less the 40,000 additional troops Kerry claims to want to draft, er, authorize.
[quote=“MaPoSquid”]
And with the number of military personnel who are preparing to resign if Kerry gets elected, Kerry probably would have to bring back the draft just to get the military back up to its current size[/quote]
If he doesn’t, I think you should show us where Bush misrepresents Kerry. Of course, its difficult to misrepresent Kerry, cuz, he’s had just about every position on every issue… depending upon the political winds.
[quote=“jplowman”]Also, read carefully… op-ed stands for opinion. Op-ed writers often don’t provide solid evidence for their claims. Like this one:
Sounds nasty I’d agree. But the next paragraph says:
[quote]The flyer reproduces a Civil Rights era photograph of a black man pinned against the wall of a building by water shooting out of a fire hose. “This is what they used to do to keep us from voting,” it reads.
And “This is how Republicans keep African-Americans from voting now,” it adds, listing several recent incidents in which blacks supposedly were discouraged from casting ballots. [/quote]
In what way does this amount to a suggestion that anyone is planning to physically attack a black voter in 2004? If blacks were “supposedly” (nice touch that) discouraged from casting ballots because they vote democrat, are people not supposed to write pamphlets about it?[/quote]
What do you think the pamphlet suggests?
And yes, it is another lie that blacks were prevented by Republicans from voting in the 2000 election. If you dispute this fact, then provide the evidence of Republican acts to disenfranchise black voters in the 2000 election.
Proof?
[quote=“jplowman”]Oh, and
[quote=“Joseph Perkins”]Finally, there’s the Kerry claim that, “After nearly four years under George Bush, the middle class is paying a bigger share of America’s tax burden, and the wealthiest are paying less.”
That’s another big lie. The fact is that Bush lowered taxes across the board.[/quote]
Is the last sentence of your post your opinion or Joseph Perkins’?[/quote]
Its not an opinion. Its a fact. If its a false fact, then demonstrate the same.
What a load of shite.[/quote]
What is hilarious is that the photo, of black voters being sprayed with firehoses (literally) to drive them away from the polls, shows what a DEMOCRAT did to blacks to prevent them from voting Republican. The sheriff’s name was Theophilus Eugene “Bull” Connor.
[/quote]
White supremacists do not want blacks to vote.
And you said the reason was to stop them voting Republican? Surely your quote echoes Bush’s 2000 debate misstatement (Which luckily might also appeal to Republicans in the South. He practices his lines, you know.) “I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children.” - Bush, Second Debate, 2000.
The Dixiecrats like Theophilus Eugene “Bull” Connor split from the Democrats in 1948, years before the picture was taken. They opposed modest racial reform. They didn’t want blacks to be voters. It had to do with white supremacy, not political party affiliation. Why do you say he was a DEMOCRAT, so emphatically, when in fact he was a Dixiecrat?
Republican Senator Strom Thurmond was a Dixiecrat, too. You might as well have said had he become President when he ran, “We wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.” Strom was a Dixiecrat along with Theophilus Eugene “Bull” Connor who led southern white supremacy Democrats to the Republican party. They opposed Democrat President Truman’s election in 1948 because he advocated moderate racial reform in the US.
The NAACP won the lawsuit against the State of Florida.
I guess you’re going to say how it’s “not that bad”. Maybe it’s only hundreds or thousands of voters, and it was a mistake, wasn’t it? The jury is not out on this one. This is just one case in which Republican acts disenfranchised minority voters in the 2000 election.
[quote=“jplowman”][quote=“MaPoSquid”]
And with the number of military personnel who are preparing to resign if Kerry gets elected, Kerry probably would have to bring back the draft just to get the military back up to its current size[/quote]
Link please?[/quote]
Just what I’m reading on other forums. Of course, you probably don’t read military-oriented forums, so you wouldn’t see how disgusted U.S. military personnel are with Kerry.
[quote=“twocs”][quote=“MaPoSquid”]What is hilarious is that the photo, of black voters being sprayed with firehoses (literally) to drive them away from the polls, shows what a DEMOCRAT did to blacks to prevent them from voting Republican. The sheriff’s name was Theophilus Eugene “Bull” Connor.
[/quote]
White supremacists do not want blacks to vote.
And you said the reason was to stop them voting Republican? Surely your quote echoes Bush’s 2000 debate misstatement (Which luckily might also appeal to Republicans in the South. He practices his lines, you know.) “I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children.” - Bush, Second Debate, 2000.
The Dixiecrats like Theophilus Eugene “Bull” Connor split from the Democrats in 1948, years before the picture was taken. They opposed modest racial reform. They didn’t want blacks to be voters. It had to do with white supremacy, not political party affiliation. Why do you say he was a DEMOCRAT, so emphatically, when in fact he was a Dixiecrat?
Republican Senator Strom Thurmond was a Dixiecrat, too. You might as well have said had he become President when he ran, “We wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.” Strom was a Dixiecrat along with Theophilus Eugene “Bull” Connor who led southern white supremacy Democrats to the Republican party. They opposed Democrat President Truman’s election in 1948 because he advocated moderate racial reform in the US.[/quote]
You have already demonstrated your utter lack of knowledge of history repeatedly, but just for your information: politicalgraveyard.com/bio/connor.html
In other words, as late as 1963, “Bull” Connor was a leader of the Democratic National Commitee.
Moreover, you appear to be forgetting about Robert “KKK” Byrd, former member of the Ku Klux Klan and current senior Senator (Democrat) from West Virginia.
Blacks didn’t defect to the Democratic party until the 1960’s, when Lyndon Johnson bought their votes with welfare and the 1968 Civil Rights Act. Republicans were the ones who passed that act over Democrappic opposition, however. Prior to that, they voted for the Party of Lincoln, the Republicans, who delivered them from slavery.
[quote=“twocs”]MaPoSquid: You don’t know what a Dixiecrat is. Just admit it.
In today’s political party system, he would be a Republican. No doubt about it.[/quote]
Excuse me, twods, but I know exactly what a Dixiecrat is. And Bull Connor was a Democrat through at least 1963. Read the link.
You have demonstrated your ignorance repeatedly. What are you going to do next to try to “win” your “argument”, belittle my penis size?
[quote=“MaPoSquid”][quote=“twocs”]MaPoSquid: You don’t know what a Dixiecrat is. Just admit it.
In today’s political party system, he would be a Republican. No doubt about it.[/quote]
Excuse me, twocs, but I know exactly what a Dixiecrat is. And Bull Connor was a Democrat through at least 1963. Read the link.[/quote]
You say you know what a Dixiecrat is but you make no effort to reveal the truth of your assertion. I am by nature a skeptic.
Strom Thurmond was head of the Dixiecrat movement, and Bull Connor was one of the Dixiecrat’s leaders. “The Dixiecrat episode was one of the most significant third-party efforts in America’s history.” In 1964 Strom Thurmond was a Democrat but not like you’re saying. He was a Dixiecrat. Dixiecrats wanted state’s rights despite federally mandated equal rights issues. And from 1964 to 2003 he was a Republican.
If the only source you have is from 1963, I think you won’t get a good picture of the racist south. Bull Connor was a Dixiecrat. Look at something from 1964 or later, please.
Black people aren’t so forgetful as you think. They vote for Democrats in part because people like Bull Connor and Strom Thurmond left the party.
How about the Equal Rights Amendment - do you think Bush would support it? Nope.
[quote=“twocs”][quote=“MaPoSquid”][quote=“twocs”]MaPoSquid: You don’t know what a Dixiecrat is. Just admit it.
In today’s political party system, he would be a Republican. No doubt about it.[/quote]
Excuse me, twocs, but I know exactly what a Dixiecrat is. And Bull Connor was a Democrat through at least 1963. Read the link.[/quote]
You say you know what a Dixiecrat is but you make no effort to reveal the truth of your assertion. I am by nature a skeptic.
Strom Thurmond was head of the Dixiecrat movement, and Bull Connor was one of the Dixiecrat’s leaders. “The Dixiecrat episode was one of the most significant third-party efforts in America’s history.” In 1964 Strom Thurmond was a Democrat but not like you’re saying. He was a Dixiecrat. Dixiecrats wanted state’s rights despite federally mandated equal rights issues. And from 1964 to 2003 he was a Republican.
If the only source you have is from 1963, I think you won’t get a good picture of the racist south. Bull Connor was a Dixiecrat. Look at something from 1964 or later, please.
Black people aren’t so forgetful as you think. They vote for Democrats in part because people like Bull Connor and Strom Thurmond left the party.
How about the Equal Rights Amendment - do you think Bush would support it? Nope.[/quote]
Actually, you are by nature intellectually dishonest and too partisan to admit flaws within your own narrow view. But let it pass.
I notice that you still haven’t addressed Robert “KKK” Byrd (D-WV)'s membership in the Ku Klux Klan. Is this because he is a current Democrat, or because you don’t know what the Ku Klux Klan is? I am by nature skeptical. . . .
If he doesn’t, I think you should show us where Bush misrepresents Kerry. Of course, its difficult to misrepresent Kerry, cuz, he’s had just about every position on every issue… depending upon the political winds.[/quote]
…but you knew about these, right? From that website factcheck.org that you were recommending? Where you got Kerry’s misrepresentations of Bush?
Do you consider Bush’s misrepresentations to be somehow purer than Kerry’s?
I dunno, I guess that “the man” wants to keep “us” down. He used to have a fire hose, now he has a felons list. Suggesting that Republicans were planning to attack black voters would probably be, as you noted, “a load of shite.” But the pamphlet doesn’t suggest that, as a careful reading of the op-ed column shows.
[quote=“Tigerman”]
I don’t have any, that’s why it is imho.
[quote]
Its not an opinion. Its a fact. If its a false fact, then demonstrate the same.[/quote]
My question was not whether it was true, it was, whose words were those? Your wording and his seemed similar, I thought perhaps you’d omitted the quote code by mistake.
The NAACP won the lawsuit against the State of Florida.[/quote]
Your cite above (without the link) does NOT state that the NAACP won its case against Florida. Your cite states that a suit alleging the systematic exclusion of voters was settled.
Moreover, your cite does NOT say that the Republicans were doing the disenfranchising. The fact is, nearly all of the precincts where voying problems occurred were democratic precincts.
Mistakes are not the same as “systematic” exclusion. And, most of the mistakes were committed by or at precincts run by Democrats. And, the mistakes resulted in, if I am not mistaken, far more white voters being erroneously excluded than black voters who were wrongly excluded.
If the jury is still undecided, then it is wrong of Kerry and the Democrats to claim that the Republicans purposely or systematically disenfranchised certain voters in the 2000 election, right? This is a most basic notion of fair play.
In any event, all of the tribunals and investigating agencies (including the newspapers) concluded that there was NO systematic or purposeful disenfranchisement in Florida in the 2000 election.
When they asked Byrd what his biggest mistake was, he said it was joining the KKK. How about Bull Connor, co-leader of the Dixiecrats? He would likely be like Strom Thurmond, who never renounced his racist past. “Thurmond has never publicly repudiated his segregationist past, and with his 100th birthday and a Senate career behind him, it’s doubtful he ever will.”
Who was it who died this year, and it turned out he’d had an illegitimate child with a black woman? Was that Thurmond? Whoever it was it was a fascinating glimpse under the outer layer of a man who’d seemed monstrous to me.
If he doesn’t, I think you should show us where Bush misrepresents Kerry. Of course, its difficult to misrepresent Kerry, cuz, he’s had just about every position on every issue… depending upon the political winds.[/quote]
…but you knew about these, right? From that website factcheck.org that you were recommending? Where you got Kerry’s misrepresentations of Bush?
Do you consider Bush’s misrepresentations to be somehow purer than Kerry’s?[/quote]
Yes and yes.
I think its clear what the pamphlet suggests. But, you’re free to pretend whatever you like.
I am asking for proof that the Republican party is, as you above claim, currently whittling voter rolls and aggressively challenging voter eligibility on technicalities in order to drive down turnout in democratic-leaning groups.
What are you suggesting? Were my words the same as the words from the article? No. I put in quotes that which I quoted and stated in my words that with which I agreed. I am not going to look for an especially creative and different way to write “that is a lie”. Of course my wording was similar… I agree with him.
Isn’t showing evidence from 2000 enough, Tigerman? I gave you links and summaries that show that many minority voters were disenfranchised. How much research do I need to do for you? Just read the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report that says that Gov. Bush and Harris “chose to simply ignore the mounting evidence” that voters were having serious problems on election day, perpetuating “a pattern and practice of injustice, ineptitude and inefficiency” and “the disenfranchisement of Florida’s voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of African Americans,” the report states.
The jury is out on this one means that it is still undecided. How about what I said? African Americans were disproportionally denied the right to vote.
How could you cite current Republican efforts to disenfranchise voters before the vote even started?
Maybe you’re talking about Florida, where they started voting last week to get a head start on riggin the polls, as Letterman joked. If anyone has some more information on voter disenfranchisement now or in the past, let’s hear it.
The unexamined belief that an ever-higher rate of voter registration is a Good Thing has met its limit in the center of the state that this year is the center of the political universe – Ohio. The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2003 estimate is that in Franklin County – Columbus – there are approximately 815,000 people 18 or over. But 845,720 are now registered. [/url][/quote]
[quote][url=http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/will/s_264984.html]What liberalized registration and voting procedures do increase are opportunities for fraud, including the sort that Milwaukee televisionstation WTMJ found in 2002. Fund says it “filmed Democrat campaign workers handing out food and small sums of money to residents of a home for the mentally ill in Kenosha, after which the patients were shepherded into a separate room and given absentee ballots.”
In 2000, in heavily Democrat St. Louis, at 6:30 p.m., a judge, responding to a Democrat complaint filed in the name of a man the judge did not actually hear from (the man was dead), ordered polls to remain open until 10 p.m., three hours longer than the law allows, and ordered one voting place downtown to be open until midnight. [/url][/quote]
Wanna guess whether Philadelphia is predominantly Democrat or Republican?
Look, this stuff, unfortunately, happens too often, and both parties are guily to certain extents.
However, in connection with the allegations of voter disenfrancisement in Florida in the 2000 election, the issue is settled and NO systematic and purposeful disenfranchisement was found… by anyone.
I am asking for proof that the Republican party is, as you above claim, currently whittling voter rolls and aggressively challenging voter eligibility on technicalities in order to drive down turnout in democratic-leaning groups.