's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Why I am glad I am not a Democrat(37 posts)

Why I am glad I am not a Democratmoneyman
Jan 21, 2003 10:59 AM
All due respect to you and your opposing viewpoints, but I am so happy I don't even have to pretend to support this guy.

He will be good for comic relief, though.

Give my regards to Falwell. (nm)czardonic
Jan 21, 2003 11:04 AM
Almost as funny as Pat Robertson.OldEdScott
Jan 21, 2003 11:07 AM
Not really that funny53T
Jan 21, 2003 11:30 AM
It is beyond comprehension to compare Al Sharpton to Pat Robertson, or vice versa, as it were.

Pat Robertson is a conservative, christian minority candidate with a small following. Sharpton is a bum. I'll bet you liberals don't even know where Wappinger's Falls is.
Robertson's nutty as a fruitcake, andOldEdScott
Jan 21, 2003 11:40 AM
if by 'bum' you mean living off the contributions of those who believe in your message instead of by labor, he's a bum too. They're both nutty as fruitcakes, and bums by your formulation, and so what? It's no surpise that both parties have a comical fringe.
Jan 21, 2003 11:50 AM
Pat Robertson never sought political gain by promoting a fictional story about his political opponents abducting and raping a young girl and covering her with feces. Has he?

Pat Robertson has never led a political rally wering a sweat suit and a hub cap around his neck.

There is no comparison, Pat is at the fringe of the Republican Party, Al is at the fringe of the human race.
Jan 21, 2003 11:56 AM¬Found=true
Jan 21, 2003 12:11 PM
OK, you score a point with that one.

See my previous posts on the evils of organized religion.
Hey, believe it or not, manyOldEdScott
Jan 21, 2003 12:26 PM
of us on the modern American left feel a great kinship with Barry Goldwater. A lot of us first got involved in 'radical' politics by way of the 1964 campaign.

"Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Left and right alike can sign on there, I believe.
Hey, believe it or not, many53T
Jan 21, 2003 1:27 PM
"Extreemism is defence of liberty is no vice"

I guess you are refering to my mention of Goldwater in another thread. Goldwater stood for limited government, as well as a lot of other things. Today's left is home to Hilary's national health, Shumer's gun bans, Kennedy's 100% tax rate plan. Maybe you should come back from the dark side?
Jan 22, 2003 6:50 AM
I like those things. But I tell you what: The Republican Party would be a lot more attractive today if it were more a party of Goldwater and less a party infested with religious/social conservatives who want to tell you what you can do with your pecker and put you in a Camp if you don't go to chuch on Sunday. Scary people. Goldwater had no truck with them.
You're right.Alex-in-Evanston
Jan 21, 2003 12:31 PM
I don't know where Wappinger's Falls is. What's the reference?

It is a reference to Tawana BrawleyAlpedhuez55
Jan 21, 2003 1:16 PM
She accused several white men including a cop of abducting, raping and writing racial slurs on her among other things. Apparently she had snuck out while being grounded by her mother and did not want to get into trouble. Here is a link to a story:

Sharpton was a defender of Brawley who used her to try to gain publicity. He was claiming the system was abusing blacks. He even went as far as to falsely accuse a proscecutor of participating in the rape and said Gov. Cuomo was part of the cover-up. He tried to stir up hate and division in the black community. But it was all based on lies.

Now he is running for President as a Democrat. Then again, David Duke ran as a Republican. The difference is, they will probably let Al Sharpton in the debates. What a Country!!!

Mike Y.
Very Good53T
Jan 21, 2003 1:23 PM
You missed the part where he blamed the IRA as well.
Well at least we know that liberty is alive and well.Kristin
Jan 21, 2003 1:46 PM
Absolutely anyone can run for president.
Actually, you need to be over 35 and natural born (nm)TJeanloz
Jan 22, 2003 10:39 AM
one more nit-picky requirementDougSloan
Jan 22, 2003 10:43 AM
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
Strange questionKristin
Jan 22, 2003 12:38 PM
Was there anything in the original constitution that would have kept a woman from running for office?
Open to interpretation,TJeanloz
Jan 22, 2003 1:05 PM
The document refers many times to the President as "he"; but the question remains whether "he" actually was written in to specifically exclude women, or whether it is just the way things were written in the 18th Century, the latter being my own personal belief.
"person" is used, tooDougSloan
Jan 22, 2003 1:28 PM
Again,this is the original text:

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

They could have written "man" or "he", but "person" is used throughout. I have no doubt whatsoever that they intended to include both sexes with this language.

Jan 22, 2003 1:58 PM
See my post above too, but how does that mesh with the culture that they lived in at the time? Women were very restricted right up until the early 1900's. Were the framers secretly trying to open a door to women that was closed at the time. If so, then why did sufferage not gear up until much later?
they were brilliantDougSloan
Jan 22, 2003 2:09 PM
They were brilliant guys. They may well have foreseen the day when a woman may be qualified, even if as a practical matter they'd not be elected at the time.

Women as leaders have not been unheard of in history prior to that time. There were lots of women monarchs. So, suffrage and leadership might be two unrelated concepts.

I have no doubt that if they intended only men to be qualified that would have said that. The fact that they used the term "person" tells me that they full well intended women to be qualified to run, even if 500 years in the future.

I don't think the original Constitution prohibited women or blacks from voting, either. That was determined at the state or local level. It just didn't expressly, or at least clearly, state that they could vote.

Its clear, they left it to the states.53T
Jan 23, 2003 6:54 PM
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Of course nobody elected the Senators, those were the good old boys only.
I'm not so sureKristin
Jan 22, 2003 1:55 PM
While the framers were framing, weren't the social and political roles of women seriosly restricted? Women could not vote, so I can't image that in 1801 a woman would have been allowed to run for office. Because of the social culture at the time the Constitution was penned, I would infer that "men" meant men and that "all" meant, "primarily men, but by extension women." It does not specifically ban women from doing anything, but sufferage didn't even exist in the 1700's. So how could the constitution have intended equal rights for women?
interesting twistDougSloan
Jan 22, 2003 2:23 PM
Here is section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which is largely responsible for securing most of the civil rights at the state level we enjoy since:

"Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state."

Curious that they expressly denoted "male citizens" several times, and I don't see this elsewhere in the Constitution or amendments. Therefore, by ordinary rules of interpretation, if a specific item (males) is mention in one place, and not another, you must assume that where it is not specifically mentioned, it is not intended.

Here is the full text and a handy reference:

The Constitution was silent on women's suffrage,TJeanloz
Jan 22, 2003 2:31 PM
The Constitution did not say that women couldn't vote. It didn't explicitly grant them the right to vote either. Senators were elected by the legislatures of the states they served, Representatives were elected by the "people" of their districts, and the President is elected by the electoral college. When did the first women vote for the Presidency? 1872, when women in the Wyoming Territory were allowed to vote under Wyoming's Territorial Law. Suffrage wasn't granted universally for women until 1920.

But the framers were heavily influenced by their wives; most notibly Samuel Adams, who corresponded extensively with his wife, Abigail, throughout the drafting process. It wasn't all about white men maintaining their power...
On the other hand. . .czardonic
Jan 21, 2003 2:00 PM
JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

Conservatives in a nutshell. (Pun intended.)
Old Ed Scott beat you to that one, cz (nm)53T
Jan 21, 2003 5:57 PM
re: Why I am glad I am not a Democrat.. So am ijrm
Jan 21, 2003 3:57 PM
If i generalized all republicans to be like Pat Roberson and Jerry Farewell id be a dumbass.
So am I.czardonic
Jan 21, 2003 5:05 PM
Glad that you are not a Democrat that is. It wouldn't take generalizing all Republicans to be like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to make you a dumbass.
Hey no one told you that you had to agree...jrm
Jan 22, 2003 7:47 AM
But ad hominem comments in Lew of reading and understanding my post? save it for the playground..
lieu (nm)53T
Jan 22, 2003 11:36 AM
Sharpton is on Fire!!!Alpedhuez55
Jan 22, 2003 1:20 PM
Well, maybe not his campaign, but his offices are. I think the fire is out now though:
Jan 23, 2003 3:50 PM
Yeah we're going to love the debates.

Speaking of debatesmickey-mac
Jan 23, 2003 9:04 PM
It would be priceless from a comedy point of view if Sharpton won the Democratic nomination and Admiral Stockdale jumped into the race on Independent ticket. I'd pay a lot of money to be in the audience for a general election debate between Sharpton, Stockdale, and Bush.
It will all be worth it if.....Alpedhuez55
Jan 24, 2003 8:13 AM
Sharpton gets more votes than John Kerry in New York's primary. I am glad Leiberman entered the race because he will steal a lot of support from Kerry, who is a big fraud. I will give a couple of examples:
- He votes in favor of the war because he is running for president. Then he attacks the prseident on his actons. Talk about playing both sides.
- He has thrown river medals into a river to protest war. Then he runs for office pushing his war hero status. When asked why he threw his medals into the river, he said they were not his, they were someone elses.
- He has been known on occasion to show up for photo ops with this big cardboard checks. THe only problem is he has done this for bills in which he did not vote for. He will still try to take credit though.

It would be nice if he and his wife's money get beat out by Sharpton's lunacy in a few states.

Mike Y.
Poor Stockdale doesn't have too much left.sn69
Jan 26, 2003 7:27 AM
Age plus the abuse he suffered in Hanoi have left him a shell of a man compared to what he once was.

Here's my suggested alternative:
Prez: Henry Rollins
VP: Joan Jett
Sec. of State: Jesse Ventura
Sec. of Defense: John McCain
Sec. of Treasury: Aaaahnold
Sec. of Education: Sponge Bob, Ren or Stimpy
Sec. of Transportation: Lance
Sec. of the Interior: Ed Viesturs (it woulda been Alex Lowe but he's no longer with us)
Sec. of Commerce: Gerard from Cervelo
National Sec. Advisor: Paul Wolfowitz
Chief of Staff: William Safire