I hope he sues MoveOn. He could hire Edwards as his lawyer. Whatever the case, even with the same names, this is a hard one to screw up. No excuse and all the more reason for MoveOn to die anytime now.
Did you actually take the time to read the article or are you just posting blindly like it seems you do often?
What can he sue for? The fact that they mixed him up with someone else with the same name? The fact that they accused him of receiving funds from DeLay's pac? That he donated to DeLay's legal defense?
They had a public figure, with a common name. That, had you read the article, you would have seen actually DID receive funds from DeLay's pac. The only mix ups were the amount and the donation to the defense fund. Hardly anything that would hold up in any kind of suit.
So, as usual, the right-leaning posters and CaD especially, ignore the facts of the article to try to make a point that is completely erroneous.
I ignored no such facts. Seems to me that MoveOn relied on a different far left group for information and got burned. I think it's hilarious.
CsG
Originally posted by: Infohawk
I still like moveon.com though. Nobody's perfect.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: ntdz
Black people hate anyone of their race that is successful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And people wonder why Dean suggested Republicans aren't open to blacks?
As for no one is perfect.... based on the powers behind MoveOn.org and their track record you must mean that no one is perfect at not getting caught. To which I say, "thankfully!" but that doesn't explain why anyone would like their agenda.
As to the black comment you have taken it out of context. They (most likely) meant that almost everytime a black person is successful and then supports a conservative view point (equality, responsibility, etc.) they are attacked by the libera black leaders (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.).
As fpr tje Republicans not being open to blacks. Remember, most republicans are color blind and stress the same ideals as Martin Luthor King, Jr. professed in his "I have a Dream" speach.
The majority of Republicans voted FOR the ERA where Democrats argued and voted against it.
Ok, I will allow you to profess that the first black president was Bill Clinton. After all, black is merely a word whose definition can change as fast and furious as the words is and sex.
I will also grant that President Clinton had more blacks on his staff. Mainly menial positions, unlike President Bush. However, the democrat leaders have made it clear that quantity and quotas are more important than quality and equality.
Blacks were first invited to the Republican National Committee. That year the DNC almost caused the city to be burned to the ground. Four years later the democrats were forced to allow blacks to join.
The first Black senator, Hiram R. Revels, was a Republican. He probably couldn't have been elected as a democrat since he was a minister. You know, the religion thing.
The first Black govenor, P. B. S. Pinchback, was a Republican.
The first Black elected to the House of Representatives, Joseph H. Rainey, was a Republican. He was born a slave and forced to work for the confederates. After all, the democrats
The first Black Judge? you got it. Jonathan Jasper Wright was a republican.
Now, go find my list of first women in politics. You will find that all but one was accepted by republicans before democrats.
Quit listening to the mainstream media and find out for yourself. Quit listening to what the used car salesman says and look at the results. Then remember, the education of our children for the past fifty plus years has been by the liberals. The budgets at the national and local levels, in large metropolitan cities, has been by the liberals. What is the track record so far? The only score that has consistently risen has been the tax rate.
One thing. Republicans try not to allow racists to become elected to national offices. Unlike the two that I know of currently in Congress. (Byrd is the only one I can remember at the moment.)
Republicans don't want tokens in positions of power. (As you said, no one is perfect.) The would LIKE to have the best person for the job, not just the best looking, regardless of sex or color.
In fact, these differences between the democrats and republicans is as clear as black and white.
Sue? You sound like a liberal. Stop it.
If he did sue conservatives like me would run him out of town on a rail.
No excuse? How about, "mistakes happen."
Now, had they destroyed any property, physicall hurt anyone, or even assaulted (placed their hands upon someone) then sure. File charges.
If they used any profanity *I* would file charges which would be escalated on any of them who were CHL holders and, hopefully cost them the right to get a CHL. (I like this one because we constantly hear from liberals that the only reason to own a gun is to kill another human. Those are the very people that should be barred from owning a gun!)
But it sounds to me like they had 20 people show up to basically picket the wrong person because the names were the same and both are Republicans. (I would also be non-tolerant if one was a democrat and the picketed the republican!) He is a politican.
It also sounds like someone from his office asked what was going on and corrected their error.
Now, I wonder what would have happened had a conservative organization had made the same error. hmmm? However, both republicans and democrats hold republicans to a higher standard.
First black mayor of a major city: Carl Stokes (D) Cleveland
First black woman elected to the House: Shirley Anita St. Hill Chisholm (D) NY
First black woman elected to the Senate: Carolyn Mosely Braun
First black cabinet member: Robert Clifton Weaver -Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under LBJ
First black woman cabinet member: Patricia Roberts Harris -Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Carter
First black appointed to sit on the federal bench: William Henry Hastie -appointed by Truman (D)
First black on the Supreme Court: Thurgood Marshell - appointed by LBJ
First black to be US Rep to the UN Andrew Young - appointed by Carter
Have you forgotten Thurmond? What about Lott?
Or how about bigots like Santorum? Are they more toward your liking?
To summarize... 2 were racist as democrats, had a change of heart, the democrat party would not change so they switched to the republican party. You will have to showme where the third has even been accused of being a racist. and... all republicans are racist doesn't count unless you fully suppot obvious lies.
Good points. Let's look at them.
Stom Thurmond first ran for office as a Democrat in 1950. He took office in January 1955 as a Democrat. He changed to the Republican party in 1964 because the democrats were opposed to the equal rights amendment and he had long earlier denounced and proclaimed his embarrasment of his earlier racist attitudes. Remember, the Democrats had a platform that officially stated, "We stand for the segragation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; blah blah blah" That was 1948 when the democrats endorsed Srom Thurmond for the President of the United States of America. Not an America that I was proud of but one the democrats were.
Again, Strom later rejected his background but continued to try and move the democrats away from their racists attitudes. Twenty years later he realized, because of the ERA, that it couldn't be done and then he became a Republican.
You mean that Strom? BTW, had he begin running as a candidate with his background and such proof that he had changed. I would hope that he would have failed. Just as David Dukes failed when he tried to run as a Republican.
Trent Lott First worked for William M. Colmer who was a life long Democrat. Beginning to see a pattern?
Lott apprenticed with Colmer for 4 years. Colmer?s retired in 1972 and had Colmers support to fill his seat. However, Lott attended a meeting of Democratic congressional staffers and said his views differed drastically from those expressed at the meeting. He then switched parties and won the election.
Why would he have switched? Well look at the words of Colmer.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/33_truman/psources/ps_south48.html
Mr. Speaker, not since the first gun was fired on Fort Sumter, resulting as it did in the greatest fratricidal strife in the history of the world, has any message of any President of these glorious United States provoked so much controversy, and resulted inthe driving of a schism in the ranks of our pepole, as did President Truman's so-called civil-rights message, sent to the Congress several weeks ago. Not only did that message provoke serious racial controversies, but it raised anew the issue of the rights of the soverign States as against a strong centralized government and drove a devastating wedge into the unity of the Democratic Party at a time when that party was riding high on a wave of popularity in the entire country.
(snip)
But now, for the first time in the history of the country, and the loyalty of my section to the Democratic Party, a President of the United States has asked the Congress to enact such a devastating, obnoxious, and repugnant program to the people of that section and their Jeffersonian conception of democracy as this so-called civil-rights program. No President, either Democrat or Republican, has ever seen fit heretofore to make such recommendations.
Yep, it appears again to be a case where a person could not support the segragationist attitudes of the democrat party and switched.
However, I am not absolutely sure this is the case, so you may have a small point.
Santorum I have to run but Santorum, was elected to office in 1995 in Pennsylvania. I don't know much about him. Nor have I heard anything ever said about him being a racist. Nor have I been able to find any thing where anyone has ever said he was a racist. The only thing he has ever stated that I can find that is controversial was where he said that *IF* sodomy was legal because it is practice in private, then bigamy, polygamy, adultry, and incest would have to be made legal because they are also done in private. Now, if you support those being legal then I could see where the controversy was. Of course, the mainstream media likes to tell everyone what was really meant and it is almost always bad for conservatives and good for liberals.
So, you will have to point out where he has been shown to be a racist.
Good points. Let's look at them.
Stom Thurmond first ran for office as a Democrat in 1950. He took office in January 1955 as a Democrat. He changed to the Republican party in 1964 because the democrats were opposed to the equal rights amendment and he had long earlier denounced and proclaimed his embarrasment of his earlier racist attitudes. Remember, the Democrats had a platform that officially stated, "We stand for the segragation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; blah blah blah" That was 1948 when the democrats endorsed Srom Thurmond for the President of the United States of America. Not an America that I was proud of but one the democrats were.
Again, Strom later rejected his background but continued to try and move the democrats away from their racists attitudes. Twenty years later he realized, because of the ERA, that it couldn't be done and then he became a Republican.
You mean that Strom? BTW, had he begin running as a candidate with his background and such proof that he had changed. I would hope that he would have failed. Just as David Dukes failed when he tried to run as a Republican.
Trent Lott First worked for William M. Colmer who was a life long Democrat. Beginning to see a pattern?
Lott apprenticed with Colmer for 4 years. Colmer?s retired in 1972 and had Colmers support to fill his seat. However, Lott attended a meeting of Democratic congressional staffers and said his views differed drastically from those expressed at the meeting. He then switched parties and won the election.
Why would he have switched? Well look at the words of Colmer.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/33_truman/psources/ps_south48.html
Mr. Speaker, not since the first gun was fired on Fort Sumter, resulting as it did in the greatest fratricidal strife in the history of the world, has any message of any President of these glorious United States provoked so much controversy, and resulted inthe driving of a schism in the ranks of our pepole, as did President Truman's so-called civil-rights message, sent to the Congress several weeks ago. Not only did that message provoke serious racial controversies, but it raised anew the issue of the rights of the soverign States as against a strong centralized government and drove a devastating wedge into the unity of the Democratic Party at a time when that party was riding high on a wave of popularity in the entire country.
(snip)
But now, for the first time in the history of the country, and the loyalty of my section to the Democratic Party, a President of the United States has asked the Congress to enact such a devastating, obnoxious, and repugnant program to the people of that section and their Jeffersonian conception of democracy as this so-called civil-rights program. No President, either Democrat or Republican, has ever seen fit heretofore to make such recommendations.
Yep, it appears again to be a case where a person could not support the segragationist attitudes of the democrat party and switched.
However, I am not absolutely sure this is the case, so you may have a small point.
Santorum I have to run but Santorum, was elected to office in 1995 in Pennsylvania. I don't know much about him. Nor have I heard anything ever said about him being a racist. Nor have I been able to find any thing where anyone has ever said he was a racist. The only thing he has ever stated that I can find that is controversial was where he said that *IF* sodomy was legal because it is practice in private, then bigamy, polygamy, adultry, and incest would have to be made legal because they are also done in private. Now, if you support those being legal then I could see where the controversy was. Of course, the mainstream media likes to tell everyone what was really meant and it is almost always bad for conservatives and good for liberals.
So, you will have to point out where he has been shown to be a racist.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter