JFK is correct. Many leaders of foreign lands deplore the Bush doctrine.

[eric]

She actually didn't think she could

Please tell me you are joking ! What planet do you reside on ?

 

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
My wife, a natural Democrat, didn't ever vote until she met me. She actually didn't think she could or that it would matter anyway. The election of 2000 didn't improve her attitude but I think she is finally getting it. To say that the non-voters should be forgotten is also to say that you have no idea as to where your country might stand on a given issue. Even non-voters have feelings and propensities to vote in future elections given the motivation. Nevermind, I don't think you'll ever understand.

I understand completely, friend. Heck I would encourage EVERYONE who can to vote. I LOVE this country and what it stands for, I will respect the office no matter who the president may be. I just have my beliefs and opinions and that is all they are, but I am compassionate about them as many others are theirs. If ( heaven forbid ) Kerry were to be elected I would freakin vomit, then I would compose myself and wonder WTF were people thinking??? But I would let the man do his job, shut my hole for a few years and rejoice when this great country realized and corrected their obvious mistake...

 

[Psychoblues]

Compose yourself, madmax.

I readily admit that I despise the sitting prez. A thing I would never have considered until I witnessed the fiascos of '94, '96, '98 and 2000. Trent Lott and Tom DeLay set me free. I can now publicly state the prez is a stupid, self-serving, puppetized, arrogant and dictatorial son-of-a-bitch and not feel so un-American for stating what I feel. Thank you, Trent and Tom, but where has the respect gone?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
I can now publicly state the prez is a stupid, self-serving, puppetized, arrogant and dictatorial son-of-a-bitch and not feel so un-American for stating what I feel.

Even if that were true, I would take that anyday over a fudgepacker supporting, flip flopping, covering up service, hypocritical democrat like Kerry. And twice on sunday.

 

[Psychoblues]

Even if what were true? Do you have any links to back your assertion they are not true?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Even if what were true? Do you have any links to back your assertion they are not true?

Didn't say it was or wasn't true, did I? So where exactly did I make this assertion that they weren't true?

Here's a wav file I recorded of your old man voice.

 

[nbdysfu]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Americans that for whatever reason don't vote actually DO COUNT. They count in our census, they count in our workforce, they count in our tax-base, they count in our abilities, as far as we can organize them, to choose our leaders.

They count in that sense but if they have the right to vote and they choose not to use it, it's their problem.

If they are overseas, in the armed forces, and they vote, shouldn't their vote also count?(nudge-nudge algore)


Perhaps this is why the Republicans fear them so much. It was Republicans that were so against the rights of women to vote, against non-property owners to vote and the Voting Act of 1964. As our people are made more free to vote the Republicans feel more intimidated by our aspirations. In my 54 years of life and my studies of history, that is the way I see it.


1. "non-propertyowners" were given the right to vote under james monroe, a republican president. link

2. women

1912 Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive (Bull Moose/Republican) Party becomes the first national political party to adopt a woman suffrage plank

Many suppporters of women's suffrage were republican. link
The congress which ratified the 19th amendmant in 1920 was largely republican. link


And of course you seem to have forgotten that other percentage of americans which at on time did not have the right to vote. The Republicans campaigned on and passed the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amends, but were hindered by a massive terror campaign by democrats. Democrats erected the "great white south" and prevented literacy in fear of a black majority and hindered the passing of it for 75 years, at which point in 1965 the democratic party fought tooth and nail to prevent the passing of laws against segregation.

Who exactly is it that is afraid of the people's vote?

 

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Compose yourself, madmax.

I readily admit that I despise the sitting prez. A thing I would never have considered until I witnessed the fiascos of '94, '96, '98 and 2000. Trent Lott and Tom DeLay set me free. I can now publicly state the prez is a stupid, self-serving, puppetized, arrogant and dictatorial son-of-a-bitch and not feel so un-American for stating what I feel. Thank you, Trent and Tom, but where has the respect gone?

I respect your opinion Psycho, although I don't agree, I am just wondering what is self serving about protecting the U.S.A??? What is he directly responsible for that pisses you off so much? Please elaborate, if you would I can be sueded if the pieces fit. Oh, and I will try to compose myself in the fiture. I actually voted for Clinton , his first term, and am sorry as hell I did. I had just gotten out of the Army after 8 years and thought a change would be nice. What a joke, I was even worse off trying to make a living under his " regime " as I was with a strong defensive spending Pres. Not only that I feel we were taken advantage of on Sep. 11th because NO ONE feared what action we might take after being attacked. Sorry again to ramble but I would appreciate your take on Tom Delay and Trent Lott...

 

[nbdysfu]

It's not that I don't think Mr. Heinz has any international support. Actually the list is quite long. It reads:

The Viet Cong
One China
Kim Jong Il (waxing his luggage for the bunker)
Basshar Assad
Saddam Hussein (from the cell)
Ayatollah Khomeini (while beating down some women's rights protesters)
Taliban (from the bushes)
Yassir Arafat (behind the bombed out limo)
John Galloway (with the barrel of oil)
Jacques Chirac (with the barrel of oil, the iraqu beer, and the smell of a manly arabian cologne)
Robert Mugabe
Charles Taylor (what happened to that guy?)
Hugo Chavez (again with the beating down)
David Applewhite (from the grave)
...

?Que claro?

 

[kcmcdonald]

first thing, to the origianl post on this thread.
"It is better to be feared than loved." Macavelli(i think and spelling?)

2nd. If a person refuses the right that is granted to them by not voting they have NO RIGHT what soever to bitch about the political process. If you can't even make it to a polling station for 45 min. mabey you need to think about other things beside fufilling your civic duty.
If you don't vote you can't complain about shit. That's it thats all. no if's and's or but's about it.
Psyco di you vote in 2000? because that was the first year i turned 18. I've been able to vote since then and i have never missed an election(every time i vote republican,)
do your duty as an american or don't it's your choice. waste it if you want but don't bitch about politics because you can't even vote.

 

[MadMax]

I am happy to see others that share the same opinion I have, I don't always articulate it too well, but it seems with you guys saying what I mean, I guess I don't have to. Thamks Jimmynyc, Eric, kcmcdoanld and nbdysfu.
And you are exactly right, if you don't vote.... STFU! and STFD!:clap1:

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
It was Republicans that were so against the rights of women to vote, against non-property owners to vote and the Voting Act of 1964. As our people are made more free to vote the Republicans feel more intimidated by our aspirations. In my 54 years of life and my studies of history, that is the way I see it.

Psychoblues [/B]

I can't believe that no one has explained how wrong you are on this blatantly idiotic claim.
Non-property owners had the vote in all but three states by 1840. North Carolina was the last to give suffrage to all white males, in 1856.
In the Senate vote to pass the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), 36 Republicans voted yes, and 8 voted no. However, only 20 Democrats voted yes, and 17 voted no.
In the House vote to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 80% of Republicans voted yes, while only 61% of Democrats followed suit.

So all three of your claims about the GOP being against the suffrage of women, and minorites, and non-property holders, are flat-out wrong.

 

[kcmcdonald]

Oh syco,
That loud crashing sound you're hearing is your credability hitting the floor...Och that's gotta hurt.

Get em GOP Jeff!!!!!!:clap1:

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by kcmcdonald
Oh syco,
That loud crashing sound you're hearing is your credability hitting the floor...Och that's gotta hurt.

Did he ever have any?

 

[smellthecoffee]

I would have thought that those non-voters are predominantly low socio-economic or somewhat disenfranchised. it follows then that a Govt failing on social policy would not desire these people to exercise the right to vote. I think the basic premise that "poor folk don't vote" serves the Govt very well indeed.

 

[Comrade]

gop_jeff,


The GOP was backing Civil Rights?

That was news to me the first time I'd actually escaped a liberal education. The hell the Dems can claim credit for the civil rights movement after what I've read. Never heard of Dixiecrats until getting a proper education among this type of forum.

Hard numbers:

Republicans and Civil Rights


"Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. "


Does anyone recall when your teacher rated presidents in descending order on the chalkboard?

At the top was always JFK as the father of civil rights, ending out Roosevelt as the other great Democrat... if I knew then what I know now... well I'd be in the principles office I guess!

 

[NightTrain]

Nice work, Comrade and Jeff

Demos are for the common man, right? How about that tax cut that we all received under Bush?? Child Tax Credit? Under Clinton, there was the largest middle class tax increase in history! Yeah, Billy Bob loved us almost as much as Monica.

Sounds like the Demos are really for the working man!

BTW - I work my ass off every day supporting children and a wife, I vote Republican.




I HAVE NEVER SEEN A TAX CUT FROM A DEMOCRAT!!!!!!

 

[kcmcdonald]

Originally posted by smellthecoffee
I would have thought that those non-voters are predominantly low socio-economic or somewhat disenfranchised. it follows then that a Govt failing on social policy would not desire these people to exercise the right to vote. I think the basic premise that "poor folk don't vote" serves the Govt very well indeed.

Ok lets look at this STC. Waht are you saying that the poor and disenfranchised voter of this country don't vote because they are poor and the Govt. has no adverce affect on thier lifes is this right? Let me scroll through your post one more time to double check. yes it is.
you state that because we do not live in a socialist society that these people don't desire to vote. I think it is the opposite that is true. poor people do vote. they are just predomintally more lazy, and feel there is no need to vote because 99/99 times there district votes dem. and guess who gives them more money for free. the dems. It is in the govt's best interest if the poor do vote. because evtually many will realize that to leave the shackles of poverty they will need to put down the hand out and take responsibilty for thier future. until that day happens dems will always win poor nieghborhoods because nobody refuses free money.

 

[kcmcdonald]

ahmen night train,
the dem's are only champions of the poor and downtrauten. They are only popular in this group because this group depends...notice i said DEPENDS upon this party for it's lifelyhood. This is not the exception this is the rule. the poor vote dem because to vote repo. means these poeple have to finally take responsibility and get a meaningful job and education. They can no longer suck on the tit of Welfare. I don't know about you guys but free money is real hard to turn down.

He He i keep saying that

 

[Comrade]

NightTrain,

We're all on the same page here, I bet.

What do you think about Kerry's future promise to be the "second black president"?

I know for a fact no Republicans here would wish their nominee to run on any racial platform at all. Civil rights and racial equality requires a colorblind approach to politics.

Dear GAWD what is wrong with the Democrats?

Kerry:

"President Clinton (news - web sites) was often known as the first black president. I wouldn't be upset if I could earn the right to be the second," he told the American Urban Radio Network.


Let's just make it racial once again, yaaawn. At least Clinton had enough class to never really acknowledge this. It was what others said of him, but it's interesting to see Kerry try to claim it.

After all, there is no other reason to assume he can live up to this unless he stop's Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

I'll say it now but you won't hear it much later, but this is 100% stereotypical pandering racist garbage. Black = Poor.

Thanks for all the new GOP minorities you sent us Kerry! Are you also Hispanic? How about caucasian? Are you for white people?

Does anyone wonder why affirmative action is based on race and not financial means? Not Dems.

And to top it all off, all our afric-Am cabinet members in top slots are Uncle Tom's. As if they had any ever.

Anyway I could go on and on but the Dems are just Racist SCUM.