Harry Reid: racist or political realist?

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Haha, that was 40 years ago! Time flies!

Oh my goodness.... I guess I am still rounding todays date to 2000.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

an interesting response/seque however the development of the zero-sum methodology by the republican/dixiecrats did begin at walk-out of the Dem convention nominating H Truman and peaked with the nomination of R Reagan.

Yeah, I was around at the time of the boll weevils. The blue dogs aren't all from the south but they're pretty much their sucessors - though leftists.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Set, I can alway count on you for a new angle of attack - and you can always count on me for a little Paddyish and even Jesuitical evasion. I'll even play the Naval Aviation card if that is what it takes. We differ only in the particular tools we use.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

We differ only in the particular tools we use.

You differ in at least one other respect. He doesn't seem to be predisposed to offer unflagging support for mass murderers.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

However, I suppose you sorely need a label to affix to the boogeymen whom you imagine are opposing the vanguard (of which you appear to see yourself as a member) leading us all to a bright new future. Okie needs one too: his is liberals & socialists.

I usually don't use labels that way.

Well, isn't it wonderful you don't use labels, George! I happen to believe that extreme leftists and ultra socialists or Fascists, Marxists and communists, such as Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Hitler, and a few others are responsible for at least tens of millions of deaths, probably hundreds of millions of deaths and untold suffering in world history, and too many people have died fighting such scourges for us to turn a blind eye and pretend that certain kinds of political philosophies should not be viewed as boogeymen. I certainly do not believe we should all pretend that labels are somehow not appropriate, after all politicians are labeled because they may believe and espouse certain philosophies, and those philosophies and policies do have labels, George.

I have decided to quit pulling punches here. As for me, I have no respect whatsoever for ultra socialists and extreme leftists as the Democratic Party is now bringing to the forefront of their party and pushing, such as President Obama. We had better wake up as a nation if we care about freedom, liberty, and the America we love.

1 Reply

Of course you had to throw Hitler in there, and continue your bullshit, brain dead propaganda effort to suggest that everyone on the left is a closet Nazi, and all murderous dictators are leftists.

What a f*ckin' idiot . . .

0 Replies

By the way, asshole, the nightmare state you envision does not suggest freedom and liberty to the rest of us, with your right-wing religious gestapo poking their noses into everyone's bedroom, your "Homeland Security" Nazis tapping everyone's phones and opening their mail, and an idiot-child in the White House starting foreign wars for no good reason, who can't be bothered to provide the troops armored vehicles and body armor, and drops them like so many hot rocks when they come home wounded and out of work.

And Mr. Obama is not a communist just because the thought of a Democrat in the White House makes you pee in your little lacy panties. I don't believe i've ever seen anyone sink into complete paranoid delusion as fast as the rightwingnuts have since Mr. Obama was elected.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

The Republican connection with racism started about 30 years ago around the time of Nixon. Later, Reagan did everything he could to pull racists from the Democratic party (and he was very successful). Since this time Republicans have pushed "States rights" (which meant segregation), fought any affirmative action, fought against harsher punishments for hate crimes and promoted America as a Christian nation.

Of course, as America gets more and more diverse, this strategy is less and less effective.

As I see it, yes, the Republicans have pulled some of the conservative Democrats into their camp during the past few decades, but it is not because of racism, because even as you admit, the Republican Party was not a racist party. To be clear, the Republican Party has its roots to Abraham Lincoln, the man that established anti-racism as the centerpiece of the party, which I believe has endured until now. The Republicans stand for individual liberty and responsibility, regardless of race.

I think it has rather been the countless other ridiculous and even silly liberal Democratic policies that have driven conservative Democrats into the Republican camp, including economic policies, issues in regard to labor and unions, tax policy, extreme environmentalism, and many other things. Example, it is liberal thinking that bring us things like a burglar being able to sue and win a lawsuit against a business owner for having an unsafe roof while the burglar is attempting to break into his place of business through the roof or crawlspace in the ceiling. It is liberal thinking that causes things like the woman suing McDonalds for serving her hot coffee that spilled and burned her little skin.

Based upon individual liberty and responsibility, yes, the Republicans have not favored some of the race based government initiatives, such as quotas in hiring through affirmative action and so forth, which are really nothing more than reverse discrimination, which have been sold by the Democrats as a method of granting special favors and treatment to racial minorities in exchange for votes. Unfortunately, it has worked, but I will continue to be one to point out that such policies are really at their base a practice similar to slavery, to keep minorities on the plantation. In other words, the Democrats message is essentially we will take care of you and provide for you as long as you work for us and bring us your votes.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I think it has rather been the countless other ridiculous and even silly liberal Democratic policies that have driven conservative Democrats into the Republican camp, including economic policies, issues in regard to labor and unions, tax policy, extreme environmentalism, and many other things.

I would like to add to the list above "national security" as one huge issue that has driven conservative Democrats into the Republican camp. The Democratic Party is the home of the former pot smoking peaceniks and hippies of the sixties. What happened is they put on coats and ties and became part of the Democratic establishment of today. We have seen guys like Kerry try to pretend that he was pro-national security by even going to the phony extent of driving a boat into Boston for the DNC and then delivered his famous lame salute and said he was reporting for duty. Of course many people saw through the phoniness of the man and voted him down at the polls, and it remains a fact that people associate Republicans more with national security and strong national defense.

Some of the more bizarre happenings that have come out of the schizophrenic Democratic Party in regard to national security have included Obama's accusations of torture by Bush and his proclamation to close Gitmo, only to try to send them to Illinois where they represent a threat to the local community, and choose to try enemy combatants in New York and give them every legal right as if they are citizens of the United States committing garden variety forms of crime such as robbing a liquor store. The Democrats also accused Bush of violating our rights to privacy and acting like Hitler, simply because he cared about our security enough to check out phone calls to suspected foreign terror locations, meanwhile they turn a blind eye to Obama compiling enemies lists of emails, identities, and profiles of people that oppose some of his policies such as Obamacare. Such weird happenings are a product of a party that is totally and absolutely confused in regard to national security and what is reasonable and proper in regard to our rights, and the rights of enemy combatants that have essentially declared war upon us.

Obama and the Democrats are also a party of folks sympathetic and possibly even affectionate toward dictators like Hugo Chavez, Chairman Mao, and Ahmadinejad of Iran. They also claim Hussein, the murderer of tens of thousands of his own people, was virtually harmless and should have been left alone and trusted with potential WMD.

0 Replies

Good news, the people of Nevada seem to be waking up about their pathetic and corrupt Senator Reid.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/nevada/election_2010_nevada_senate_race

"Support among Nevada voters for embattled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s reelection has fallen even further following disclosure in a new book of remarks he made about Barack Obama during Election 2008.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in Nevada finds Reid earning just 36% of the vote against his two top Republican challengers. That’s a seven-point drop from 43% a month ago."

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Good news, the people of Nevada seem to be waking up about their pathetic and corrupt Senator Reid.

Surprisingly, I agree with your assessment of Senator Reid.

Hopefully the Republican attack machine damages him enough that we can get a stronger Democrat nominated to keep the seat.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Well, isn't it wonderful you don't use labels, George! I happen to believe that extreme leftists and ultra socialists or Fascists, Marxists and communists, such as Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Hitler, and a few others are responsible for at least tens of millions of deaths, probably hundreds of millions of deaths and untold suffering in world history, and too many people have died fighting such scourges for us to turn a blind eye and pretend that certain kinds of political philosophies should not be viewed as boogeymen.

In debates such as these, you are very good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, okie. You invite the resistence you get. I suspect that very few posters here would have anything good to say about any of the tyrants you listed, and that most would acknowledge that high degrees of even well-intended government involvement in the economic and social lifes of the people can indeed lead to tyranny. However it isn't necessarily so, and there are numerous examples in recent and history and the contemporary world to prove it. In short there are other significant factors involved, the existence of which you refuse to recognize. Instead you repeatedly beat the same old drum - and are heard less and less because of it. Worse, you excite the same sort of gross oversimplifications from those who oppose you. Its OK by me if you continue, but don't expect me to pay much attention if you do.

2 Replies

With respect to the basic question here, I strongly suspect that Senator Harry Reid has already long since made the decision not to run in the forthcoming election, and done so for his own reasons. His son is already campaigning to become Governor of Nevada and the combination would be highly unprecedented. It is simply impolitic for him as Majority Leader to make the announcement and thereby reduce his power and influence at a time when he needs both badly.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I strongly suspect that Senator Harry Reid has already long since made the decision not to run in the forthcoming election,

Really! I haven't heard this theory before. The conventional wisdom (at least in my liberal Democratic circles) has been that any thought he might not run is pretty far fetched wishful thinking.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
I strongly suspect that Senator Harry Reid has already long since made the decision not to run in the forthcoming election,

Really! I haven't heard this theory before. The conventional wisdom (at least in my liberal Democratic circles) has been that any thought he might not run is pretty far fetched wishful thinking.

really? I had assumed Reid was real gone and long gone too for numerous reasons.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

I don't know of any Democrat positioning to run for this seat.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

We shall see.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

In debates such as these, you are very good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, okie. You invite the resistence you get. I suspect that very few posters here would have anything good to say about any of the tyrants you listed, and that most would acknowledge that high degrees of even well-intended government involvement in the economic and social lifes of the people can indeed lead to tyranny.

George, I disagree that most would acknowledge that high degrees of well intended government involvement can lead to tyranny. In fact, if leftists agreed with that, they would not be leftists, they would instead oppose the idealogy that they espouse.

Quote:

However it isn't necessarily so, and there are numerous examples in recent and history and the contemporary world to prove it. In short there are other significant factors involved, the existence of which you refuse to recognize.

There are always other factors, but George face it, there is always one common denominator involved, and you seem to want to gloss this over, while I believe it is imperative that we face the truth, that political idealogy does have consequences and it does lead to common outcomes if not opposed.

Quote:

Instead you repeatedly beat the same old drum - and are heard less and less because of it. Worse, you excite the same sort of gross oversimplifications from those who oppose you. Its OK by me if you continue, but don't expect me to pay much attention if you do.

Yes, I will continue to state the truth, it is not my fault if leftists and those that have sympathies for ultra leftism get tired of it, the truth deserves to be heard. Principles do matter, and it matters that we stand up for the right ones and do not quit beating the drum of truth.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

By the way George, Hitler was in fact a leftist. He was a Statist, a man that believed in the State to solve every problem, and he did in fact despise capitalists, which he associated with Jews and vice versa. Now, when he could intimidate the capitalists and provide them public works, in other words get them to get into bed with him to help him build his military machine for example, then they could be useful to him and to the State, to the "folks." That is called Fascism, a hybrid of communism and capitalism. Another term used for Mussolini's brand of fascism was "A Third Way," or a combination of communism and capitalism.

George, what is Obama doing now? You might wish to ponder that alot and wake up to what is going on right in front of our noses.

1 Reply

@okie,

I see my last two posts have been voted down. Some people cannot bear to face the truth of history, including Hitler and other leftists littering the path of history.

1 Reply

Harry Reid: racist or political realist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know