<< Why do I have a lack of decency because I dislike a party (group of people) who has done nothing but try to tear down minorities? >>
Examples being . . . ? I really would like to hear how the Republican "man" has been keeping minorities down.
<< What I got to like them because you do? I have to be happy about Bush winning the presidency, despite the awful incident which happened in his state and this a$$hole didn't even have decency to offer condolences to the family. >>
Perhaps Bush did offer condolences to the Byrd family, but chose not to make a political spectacle out of it? Even so, what good would his condolence do? Did Bush know him or any members of his family? If he didn't, any condolence could be seen as a political move. I know I wouldn't appreciate the death of a loved one being used as a politlcal spin - and it was the Gore campaign that released that horrid commercial, in case you've forgotten.
<< They want guns and minorities in check, that is the way it is. >>
Wait a minute . . . you can't have it both ways. You say Dameon supports the Republican party because they allow "Guns and god knows what else." Support for gun control is definitely a liberal thing - most Republicans will acknoweledge that the laws to effect control are in place, it's enforcement that is lacking.
<< I know about Wallace Daemon, but that still doesn't change what Republicans are, what they have done, and what they will do. >>
Again, you can't have it both ways. You want to forget Wallace and Gore Srs. racism, but you want to paint the Republican party with a charge of racism for things they've done in the past . . . ?
<< And Black Secretary of State? I won't say what I think Of Colin Powell. He is a good man. But has not taken a stand in any way to help the fight of rights for minorities. >>
"Rights of minorities" . . . interesting concept.
We hold these truths to be self evident - that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.
The actual phrase "right of minority" is a dangerous one. Because it implies that a person of differing creed, color, and race should have additional rights than persons of the national majority. Restricting anything (or treating them differently in any way) from a person because of the color of their skin, religion, or national origin is illegal under the Constitution. Why do we need additional laws to effect the same? Yes, Colin Powell is a good man. And he has chosen to serve his country in a manner that he felt would be beneficial. Indicting him as a bad person simply because he chose not to follow the path set forth by Jesse Jackson and Lewis Farrakhan is sad. I would venture that Colin Powell is actually a better role model than Jackson or Farrakhan.
<< And last time I checked Gore had chosen a Jew to be his running mate, to stand side by side with him. >>
So? Lieberman is a highly qualified individual, but what does his creed really have to do with anything? Does it show that Al Gore is more sensitive than Bush? Not really - let's be honest, all a VP is for is to break Senatorial ties and safeguard against the death of the President. Condaleeza Rice is one of the top directors of Bush's campaign, but you don't hear much said about her, do you?
On Colin Powell again . . .
<< But that gives him no voice into the issues minorities face in this country. He will deal with foreign policy. >>
Again, so what? Are you saying that foreign policy isn't important? Perhaps we should become isolationist and let the rest of the world attend to itself. Oh, that's right, the last time we did that we got involved in a little shindig called World War I. Should be interesting in '04 or '08 when Powell runs for President. I look forward to casting my vote for the man. It should also be interesting to watch the Democrats try to discredit him without alienating black voters.
<< But guess what they I don't have the same feeling. >>
Congratulations. The Constitution of the United States grants you that power, as well as the right to discuss what we're talking about. Last time I checked, it was the Democrats who were trying to shred the Constitution in favor of "feel-good" politics rather than the Republicans.