Just smile and pull the donkey lever

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Raven

Yes but that is why it must be based upon the Constitution and logic. If you solely base it upon belief, without any basis, then it could be as destructive, as it might have been constructive. Take the universal, single-payer health care system for instance. Is it the job for the federal government to institute such things? Will it benefit the people more than harm them? Does it remove the rights of the American people? These are just a few of the questions someone should ask themself before determining what is right for the American people.

Right. And how does this prove that moderates exist? The ability to compromise on your own beliefs does not make you a moderate, it makes you fair, understanding, and agreeable. But you still had your vision of where the initiative would/should go.

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Kevin, why would republicans get more money from corporations?

Hmm... perhaps because most corporations are ran by people who don't want to be taxed to death and want the economy to self-regulate. Republicans are traditionally conservative fiscially, so it goes without saying that they will get the most donations from corporations.

ok dipshit, now with the very logic you just used, ask yourself why every group of people in America would presumably support the group that they do. Thanks for proving my own point, clambake.

*ding*

Please take a hike.

Originally Posted by 071394658

I'm sure he would've mentioned it in the article.

If you can believe that such a snide commentator would've included this, you should re-read the article.

But, even if what you say happened to be true, I would still support the black man's reasoning. I could be a PhD in Jewish studies, have written novels on the Holocaust, but I still would probably know less than someone who was actually a victim of the Holocaust.

Wait, wait, wait,...I seem to have missed something. Is Mr. Massie a former slave? Is he the decendant of slaves? Wait, lets be fair, maybe he recalls the segregationist South as a young boy. But he doesn't tell us any of this. All he tells us is that he (a black man) had an argument with a professor (a white man) about "being black." I'm willing to bet the conversation was a little bit more complex than this, and I'm likewise willing to bet that he gladly neglected to include all of that.

[quote]The author is not trying to say, "this guy is an idiot because he is discussing it with me", but he's saying "this guy is an idiot because he's trying to tell me, a black man, how to be black."

From the article: " I recall a white, social-liberal Democrat arguing with me about what it was to be black. That's right – a white, liberal college professor telling me what it was to be black."

This can mean MANY more things than what you just stated above. I, a white Irish Catholic, am learning a great deal about Jewish culture, history and society (namely Israel). I have numerous Lefty friends who happen to be Jewish, very secular, and generally lack any kind of empathy for the state of Israel. Do these people hold the right to dismiss an argument made by a white Catholic in defense of Israel, merely because they happen to be Jewish???

Those are just the Top 10 wealthiest. You also made your statement about being a corporate player. I hate the modern fallacy that just because you believe in or support corporate America, that automatically makes you a scumbag. Not true at all.

Not true all of the time. But this wasn't my point. My point, as Vince so uneloquently, and unknowingly pointed out, was that certain interests tend to lean towards certain parties for their own personal, er, interests.

But the author was saying that many, if not most Democrats opposed civil rights legislation passed after 1993. He was just making a historical tangent to the Civil Rights Movement, to better reinforce his point.

From the article: "It is a fact that "in the 26 major civil-rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil-rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes." ("Republicans and Civil Rights" – Diane Adler, Dec. 14, 2002)

1933, not 1993. There's a big difference, and as I said previously, the stat lacks an appreciation for Party history.

Just because many black people register Democrat doesn't mean it is in their best interests. That is what the author is pointing out.

I realize, but the great irony in his argument is that he dismisses one white man for arguing about what it means to be black, citing that he couldn't POSSIBLY relate to black people, and then he goes on to discuss why a majority of blacks in America are mislead sheep. Again, condescending, and with his use of history, VERY manipulative.

To be honest, I'm not even saying this argument can't be had. But I think I've seen it made in a much better fashion than how this fool conducted it.

The link is broken. I thought that corporate contributions were banned from campaign elections for the past 100 years or so...

Yeah, I just noticed the link. I don't know why, I hope they didn't shut down. A GREAT resource for congressional campaigns.

Corporations have various methods they can use to donate to campaigns. One way is setting up a "separate" PAC which they support, or, a really clever one is donating lumps of their employees bonuses to a campaign. That way, when registered with the FEC, it looks like many, many individual donors contributed the cash. Also, I'm not completely certain that there was any legislation banning corporations from making a contribution to a campaign, but they can give it to the Party for certain, which then filters down to the candidate (ie. soft money).

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Kevin, while it doesn't encompass the majority of average people who call themselves liberals or democrats, it does a pretty good job of summing up the democratic leadership. My friend calls them the "biggest pimps in America"

The DLC and DNC are two BIG reasons why I am not a Democrat, nor have I ever been. But their tactics are not to just run black people, they rather prefer to run hollow candidates who support their GOP-Light agenda. This July, the DLC will be showcasing its "up and coming" minority candidates, among them will be Harold Ford and Denise Majette. These two certainly are black, but they certainly don't represent the majority of black Democrats.

Thats completly unfair. You make it seem as if the appointees were not the most qualified people available. Have you seen Professor Rice's credentials (far greater the Hilary Clinton's I assure you)?

Hahaha, I LOVE how you threw "professor" in there. Wasn't it one of those arrogant fucks who started this entire thread? Oh wait, this one's black, so she can have a say. :/

Blanco, in volunteering on several campaigns, both candidate based as well as issue based, I have learned that every decision that is made by an elected official is a calculated one. I'm not saying Colin Powell and Coni Rice aren't accomplished individuals, but what I AM saying is that their skin color played a big part in their appointments, especially with a Party that is trying to defeat "stereotypes" about them being an anti-black, anti-minority party.