Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 89

Thread: Ann Coulter: Democrats and the Jews

  1. #61
    CZ_2004
    Guest
    Al, you and IB can joke all you want and misquote and mischaracterize my posts all you want. You can twist and spin or do an Irish jig for all I care.

    All you've done is turn me off from this board. There is no reason to continue with either of you or this board.

    I'll let my posts speak for themselves. I'll also let your dishonest characterization my posts speak for the both of you.

  2. #62
    Alfred
    Guest
    Don't leave CZ. You just have to learn to take abuse if you give abuse. I certainly have learned that.....for I have given a little and received a little. Just relax and realize this is a debating society. No one here has the power to change anything in Israel or in the States. And frankly, as fun as this forum can be at times, it is not read by Sharon, Arafat, Bush, or Osama to my knowledge. And so far, unlike the Islamic websites, no one has threatend to rip out your testicles (I do make an assumption here) and feed them to the mother of all pigs.


    Ibrodsky:

    I read, and for the life of me I cannot remember where, that Israel is experiencing a very strong form of Judicial Imperialism. That the courts have all but emasculated any Israeli government...Left or Right. Maybe it was Savage's book...or an excerpt from it.

  3. #63
    abu afak
    Guest
    Primary Problems for Dems
    The breakdown of the black-Jewish alliance.
    Sept 6, 2002

    By Edward B. Miller

    For some time now, Jewish voters have been disproving the old adage that Jews live like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans. Republican incumbents such as New York's George Pataki and Ohio's George Voinovich, and recent Republican officeholders like New York's Rudy Giuliani and Al D'Amato and Massachusetts's Bill Weld each won more than 40 percent of the Jewish vote in one of their campaigns. However, if the recent division between blacks and Jews in the Democratic party continues to grow, these politicians will no longer be the exception and Jewish support for Republicans will be the rule.

    This latest rift within the Democratic party began in late spring when rank-and-file Jews across the country targeted for defeat several black members of Congress, because of their positions on Israel.

    The first to lose his seat was Earl Hilliard. During his nearly 30 years in elective office the Alabaman repeatedly took positions which were offensive to Jews. These included voting against non-binding resolutions supporting Israel in her fight against terrorism, including one in May less than one month before his primary. He also opposed U.S. sanctions against rogue regimes, and introduced legislation only weeks after last September 11 to remove the sanctions in place against Iran, Iraq, and Libya, among others.

    The division widened after Cynthia McKinney, a ten-year veteran of Congress was defeated The Georgian, too, had voted against pro-Israel resolutions, joining Hilliard and 16 other Democrats (compared with only five Republicans) in opposing the May resolution. She had also criticized New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani for rejecting a $10 million donation from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal to aid the families of the victims of September 11 because of comments the prince made tying the attacks against the U.S. to its Middle East policy and support for Israel. In addition, last year, one of her congressional staffers, referring to Jewish members of Congress, wrote in a Capitol Hill newspaper, "[M]ost disturbing to me is that many of these pro-Israeli lawmakers sit on the House International Relations Committee despite the obvious conflict of interest that their emotional attachments to Israel cause. The Israeli occupation of all territories must end, including Congress."

    The fact that two veteran Democratic officeholders were defeated by two political novices would have been cause enough for concern for the Democratic-party leadership. In fact, aside from Gary Condit and redistricting-related primaries in which incumbents faced one another, Hilliard and McKinney were the only incumbents in either party this year to lose a primary election.

    That both were black and their defeats resulted from overwhelming Jewish opposition is cause for panic among Democrats. Without the combination of Jewish money (Jews raise at least one-third of all Democratic funds) and black-voter turnout (nearly twenty percent of Democratic voters are black)
    Minority Leader Richard Gephardt has about the same chance of becoming Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives this November as Newt Gingrich. However, as a result of Hilliard's and McKinney's defeat this is exactly what is now unfolding.

    Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D., Tex.) said that among black voters there was a growing perception that "Jewish people are attempting to pick our leaders. There is some concern about that." And, when asked to explain his daughter's defeat, state representative Billy McKinney, said, "J-E-W-S."

    Indeed, Hilliard's and McKinney's challengers, both blacks, received strong support from Jewish donors, including eight out-of-state Cohens who contributed to McKinney's opponent. As Jews become more attuned to the voting records of elected officials outside of their own districts the differences between Jews and blacks within the Democratic party will only expand. For years now, Jews have looked the other way as the Democratic party has embraced the likes of Earl Hilliard and Cynthia McKinney and acquiesced to their anti-Israel positions. But, for several reasons, Jews are no longer willing to do so.

    For starters, the number of Jews being killed in Israel during the past two years has led many American Jews to conclude that the stakes are just too high to sit by and let the Earl Hilliards and Cynthia McKinneys in Congress continue to shape U.S. foreign policy. Other Jewish Americans have become emboldened by President Bush's decisive leadership in the war against terrorism and in support of Israel's right to self-defense, and consider themselves political free agents, free to support and oppose candidates based on their records.

    Many see survey results, such as those released by Time magazine earlier this summer in which 53 percent of Republicans term themselves supporters of Israel compared with only 40 percent of Democrats, and choose to identify with Republican candidates.
    On top of that are the results from the congressional votes on Israel, like the one last May, in which the vast majority of those opposing pro-Israel measures are Democrats. Finally, demographics are also playing their part in reducing Jewish ties to the Democratic party. The most pro-Democratic Jewish voters are those who came of age during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency and each election cycle will continue to see fewer of them at the polls.

    Such a shift will make it much harder for the Democratic leadership to keep its fragile coalition intact. Consider Hilliard's election. Responding to criticism from the Congressional Black Caucus that the Democratic leadership had not done enough to protect black incumbents (from more moderate black challengers), the Democratic House leadership contributed nearly $50,000 to Hilliard's campaign after he had been forced into a runoff. Yet, it was at precisely this time that Jewish donors were pulling out all of the stops in their fundraising efforts, correctly sensing that momentum was on their side.

    The Democratic congressional leadership has taken for granted Jewish support for so long that it ignored the potential political fall-out from making such a sizable contribution in the face of overwhelming Jewish opposition to Hilliard. Moreover, Jewish success in defeating McKinney and Hilliard has given Jews a newfound sense of political empowerment, which they may use against additional Congressional Black Caucus members with poor records on Israel. This will only intensify the conflict within the Democratic party between Jews and blacks, many of whom already feel a sense of disenfranchisement in the wake of these losses.

    This is not good news for Democrats, who need only look back to 1994 to see the effects of low black-voter turnout combined with large-scale Jewish support for Republican candidates. That year, the GOP captured Congress and a majority of the nation's governor's mansions. Without the support of Jews and blacks, Democrats look likely to live with those results for some time to come.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...ller090602.asp

    — Edward B. Miller is an attorney practicing in New York and formerly a Republican pollster.

  4. #64
    Alfred
    Guest
    I am convinced that 20 percent of the Democratic vote is really for FDR. My grandfather was that way. He thought Clinton was a bozo but he would not betray FDR.

    It will be interesting to see how the blacks, Jews and Latinos vote this year. Republicans have pretty much given up on Blacks, but are fighting hard for Latinos. I think we are wait and see regarding Jews. The Israel issue may make it a 50/50 vote for the Jews and Republicans. The problem is that the Jewish vote is pretty small...its their one-third total Democratic contributions that hurt. The problem with seeking Latino votes is that you have to propose some kind of amnesty to get it. I am not sure I want to make that sacrifice.

  5. #65
    abu afak
    Guest
    Originally posted by Alfred
    I am convinced that 20 percent of the Democratic vote is really for FDR. My grandfather was that way. He thought Clinton was a bozo but he would not betray FDR.
    ....
    I somewhat Agree .. My parents were big FDR fans too and still democrats.
    And as I've said to Mediocrates in a previous discussion..
    for some reason, perhaps 2000 years of Persecution etc, Jews have stayed in the minoritIES party much longer than any other Successfull and sucessfully absorbed group.

    I think it 's slowly changing... finally.

    Jews under 30 are now voting a Majority for the GOP.
    (I'll try and find the article I read recently containing the stats))
    Last edited by abu afak; 01-30-2004 at 11:55 PM.

  6. #66
    red crabtree
    Guest
    An interesting though somewhat wandering discussion here. Thought I would jump in a bit.
    First, while I do not agree with all that CZ has said, the premise that the Republicans of the 1800's became the Democrats of today is fairly correct. It is necessary to take a look at the differences in the Democratic party to see this. There were Northern and Western Democrats, then there were the Southern Democrats. And that southern block saw things from a very different viewpoint then the democrats from other regions.

    Note that after the Civil War there was an election not so different than the one that put Bush into office. President Hayes ended up as President after making a deal with the southern Democrats that would pull out the soldiers in the south and end reconstuction. By making that deal Hayes was voted in as President. I don't want to go into all the politics of that, so for those interested simply do a search and it is easy to find. While Civil rights in the 60's were brought about by the Democratic party as a whole, the history of the Democrats particularly in the south was not one that was friendly to the blacks or to women in particular. I don't think the south of the 20's through the 60's needs to be belabored here, I believe we are all familiar with that history. The political force at the time was Democrats, not Republicans. And so while the Democratic party changed and the Democrats of the late 50's and early 60's AS A PARTY, NOT A REGIONAL BLOCK, fought hard for Civil Rights etc... the south as a region did not continue to stay Democrat. The south of this country is much more Republican now than at any time before or since the Civil War.
    What I am trying to say is to not mix up what particular parties did or did not do, with how particular regions vote. So certainly the Democratic party remains and is seen as the champion of minorities, they were not always thus. And while they Democrats held the south for over a 100 years more or less, they no longer do, and there are reasons for that.
    By and large the south is more conservative from many standpoints first of all, and the Democrats are no longer the party of conservatives they once were. Next, the south by and large, is much more conservative religiously than the rest of the country. Many cultural reasons there, that I won't get into here either, or the post is too long.
    So yes, the parties have flip flopped to a large extent and the south followed that change, from a region that could always be counted on to vote Democrat, to one that primarily votes Republican.
    I personally find the Fundamentalist wing from both parties, left and right, to be something that needs to be contained for the good of this country. While their ideology is quite different, what they want is essentially the same. A country that runs ONLY according to their particular ideological view and they will smear, scare the hell out of people and scream and rend their hair, in order to get it down. Neither Fundamentalists side, left or right, is willing to concede that they do not have the right in this country to make others live the particular lifestyle that each feels is the only way to "save" the country.
    It is that in particular, that pisses off each side. When someone else's morality from either camp, is forcing it's way into my home, I have a problem with it. When the constitution is not being followed I have a really big problem with it. I don't give a damn what party that comes from. Neither is right all the time.

  7. #67
    Ahava
    Guest
    Originally posted by ibrodsky
    Marriage isn't a right--it is a privilege. It's possible to defend the rights of gays without supporting their access to the privileges of traditional marriage.

    Someone else could come along and claim it is unfair not to let two men and one woman marry. We could argue all day whether that is moral, natural, or fair. But the point is that societies also have rights--such as the right to determine their form of government, immigration rules, and marriage laws.
    It's such an easy counter argument: if you start allowing gay marriage, what will follow? Instead of these theoretical brain twists, one should look at the reality. The reality is that quite a number of people are gay, and that these people cannot marry therefore. Everybody should have the same rights, or privileges as you like to call it. Gays shouldn't be deprived from this "privilege". Everybody is allowed to marry only one person: that is fair and should remain so. Of course, every country has the right to determine their from of government and laws etc. Doesn't mean it's good, or that I agree with it.


    Really, when you demand gay marriage you are insisting either 1) that any combination of people be permitted to marry or 2) that those who believe we should encourage traditional families are so wrong that they must be overruled even if they are the clear majority.
    Point 1: yes, that is, woman and man, man and man, and woman and woman. Point 2: here you lost me totally! if gay marriage is allowed, straight people won't suddenly become gay and marry someone from the same sex! The number of gay people won't rise. Nothing changes for the straight people.

    However, the problem we have in the U.S. right now is that the judiciary is being allowed to change laws and not just interpret them.
    Nothing as ever-changing and fluctuant as law.

    I also think the question of whether people are born gay is far more complicated than you suggest. Based on my experience, I believe there are people who are born gay, there are people who choose to be gay, and there are people who find homosexuality physically disgusting.
    I can't find myself in either of the three profiles above. There's enough scientific evidence, genetic research, to state with little doubt that gayism is a question of nature, not nurture or free choice. The deciding factor is the percentage of female brain structure and male brain structure, or lack of it, as the original mold of human brain is entirely female and is "masculined" in the process when the embryo is a boy.

    But the fact there are bisexuals and gays who married someone of the opposite sex and then ran off with someone of the same sex proves beyond any doubt that *some* people do choose to be gay in that they can switch from one mode to the other.
    What you're describing here, is not neceassarily people who chose to be gay. Without a doubt, there are people who are exploring in an extravagant way in their youth and be temporarily 'gay', which is fake. I do think, however, that bi-sexuals are exactly on the line of straight-gay, and therefore can fall in love with either sex.

    It's interesting that many Islamists also claim they are tolerant. So maybe what's needed is not your claim of tolerance versus mine versus Alfred's, but some objective standard. You would tolerate gay marriage, but would you tolerate my community saying that we prefer single-family homes inhabited by traditional families?
    It's an interesting point you're raising here. The question is: how tolerant should one be towards an intolerant person? It's a hard question. You have the right and freedom to express what you think of gay marriage, and you have the right not to attend gay marriages even if it's a friend of yours who's gonna marry. But do you have the right to decide for other people what they cannot do, cutting in on their freedom, whilst it is NOT affecting YOUR freedom?

    We might not impose gay marriage on the entire country, but certain local communities or even states may choose to recognize such marriages or provide gays with other privileges. At least then people can live where they feel most comfortable instead of a self-proclaimed elite telling them they have no choice.
    I entirely fail to understand this "imposed", "have no choice" thing. Holland is smaller than average state in America, and was the first country to allow gay marriage, something a good number of people, including some American Jews I know, have used to do what they long wanted: marry. I don't notice these things, it doesn't affect me or bother me: I can totally pretend as if it doesn't happen if I want to, I'm not confronted with it. There's nothing being "imposed" on me and I have as much choice of everything as before.

  8. #68
    jewbyc
    Guest
    Originally posted by Mediocrates
    I would prefer to leave off the specifics of Mr. Shapiro's critique because I think there are some flaws in it and it appears to be a thinly veiled slam at non Orthodox Jews. Ok so everyone is entitled to their own identity Mr. Shapiro, let he who is w/o sin...and so on.


    But I think the wider political question is this. For decades the Democratic party has automatically assumed "The Jews are with us.." and taken us for granted. In truth the Democratic party has for a long time dropped any concern or action on Jewish or Jewish-American issues in the US and focused on issues that appeal to Jewish-American's self perception and perceived values:

    Labor unions, women's rights, immigration, egalitarianism, senior care, public education reform, etc. Yet for most of those issues with the exception of women's rights and reproductive rights, few really touch directly on our lives. They are to be sure, national issues but we don't live in the inner city, aren't in the group of people with no medical care or can't afford college, aren't a force in unions (anymore). The few million of us in the US are for the most part middle class dual income urban/suburbanites. And while we might feel an affinity for all those other issues for their own sake and see a need to address them 'liberally' we are for better or worse victims of our own success.

    The Democratic party was happy to go into the Jewish community and prompt cooperation with the Freedom Ride movement. We were happy to do that. After all it wasn't so long ago that Jews couldn't vote, own real estate or hold public office (in my own state, NC Jews were given that right in 1868 fully 3 years AFTER passing the 13th, 14th and 15th ammendments).

    But what did we get out of the bargain? A faint promise to 'support Israel'? That's been pretty uneven and very hard fought. What about the values we want now? What about public support of Hillel schools? What about Jewish museums? What about hate crime legislation, what about Koby's Law?

    (2001)
    http://www.jlaw.com/LawPolicy/kobymandellact.html
    (2003)
    http://www.congress.org/congressorg/...4&congress=108

    See instead of taking us for granted and telling us to go find new allies we might have to hold our noses over, they should be addressing our issues. Unlike the Democrats who want to tell us to do nothing as long as our hearts are pure and our hands are clean, we have to deal with the Republicans who are at least willing to trade. And if they will address our national and international interests, for whatever reason then I for one am willing to, as we used to say on Wall St. to "not look too hard up that rhino's ass."

    That is the lesson the Democrats have to learn. Today either they are indifferent to Jewish interests and not just Israel but solid middle class domestic issues or they simply take us for granted. I think it's something of both. I think they have been comandeered by their own extremists as much as have been some of the Republicans. Because when Al Sharpton starts making sense, you know you're in deep. And it's also true that they're playing the Jew-Liberal card too heavily. They believe they will always support them even if it means losing out ourselves because we all just want to be 'nice'. The time for 'nice' is over. I and many of the people and fellow Jews are not 'nice'. We're not waiting around for someone to tell us how grateful they are. Not anymore. Not when Democrats rub shoulders with CAIR and AMC and flat out deny the need for vouchers sometimes and deny all the good work that religious organizations do every day.

    And it's not just them. We are as guilty. American Jews will always tell you about how interesting some other culture is but theirs. They will always support some far off place or some group here in the US who wants to preserve their history and identity as long as no one reminds them where they came from. They will always tell you how Jewish they are as long as you never bring it up yourself. They will always want to listen and appreciate everyone else's POV when it comes to Palestinians murdering people. They will always warn you of the dangers of 'extremist fundamentalism' w/o once understanding how important cultural and religious education is for their very survival as a people. They will always tell you they hate religion while regaling you of their latest trip to the their new Buddhist temple or Quaker Hall or Unitarian Fellowship. This is the group the Democrats count on. People always willing to subsume their interests beneath those of people who are quite open with how indifferent, sometimes openly hostile to those Jews.

    Is it striving? Low self esteem? Shame? I don't know. What I do know is that every time I hear a candidate claim some pittying long lost connection to his/her Jewish roots I am ashamed to be associated with public statements of Judaism and Jewishness which are no different from brand names and shoe logos.
    While I agree with a lot of what you are saying but you are suggesting that jews should get in bed with a party( Republicans) that claims Daivd Duke and Pat Buchanan as members. No thanks I would rather remain independent. thanks but no thanks. When you lay down with dogs you just might end up with fleas. I think at this point both of the major partys could use a good flea bath.

  9. #69
    Senior Member Mediocrates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    N Carolina
    Posts
    30,616
    I'm not so sure you need to paint with so broad a brush. The Buchanans etc are fairly marginal to the Republican party and let's face it, Sen Robert Byrd REALLY IS a KLAN HOOD WEARING RACIST (- some people are regenerate but not him. Don't be swayed by glorious oratory against the Iraq war - it's straight up isolationist twaddle. )

    -So are all the radical elements of the far left end of the Democratic party. And a big piece of the African American chunk of the Democratic party barely restrains from talking about "The Jewish Problem" in antisemitic language.

    At any rate - It's all about politics isn't it? If the Democrats see us all flee and the Republicans can help us for even the short term, then why not? I mean, I really can't think of any reason to ignore what Dean says about Palestine, can you? Those are MY issues for this electorate, you are though free to have your own.

  10. #70
    RichardP
    Guest
    Originally posted by Mediocrates
    I'm not so sure you need to paint with so broad a brush. The Buchanans etc are fairly marginal to the Republican party and let's face it, Sen Robert Byrd REALLY IS a KLAN HOOD WEARING RACIST (- some people are regenerate but not him. Don't be swayed by glorious oratory against the Iraq war - it's straight up isolationist twaddle. )

    -So are all the radical elements of the far left end of the Democratic party. And a big piece of the African American chunk of the Democratic party barely restrains from talking about "The Jewish Problem" in antisemitic language.

    At any rate - It's all about politics isn't it? If the Democrats see us all flee and the Republicans can help us for even the short term, then why not? I mean, I really can't think of any reason to ignore what Dean says about Palestine, can you? Those are MY issues for this electorate, you are though free to have your own.
    Well said, Mediocrates!

  11. #71
    Alfred
    Guest
    I think if Kerry wins the democratic nomination, he will suddenly discover that he has Jewish great-grandparents.

    Ann Coulter says this guy is on the prowl for rich widows. After throwing his medals away in a protest he finds a widow with $300M...has a couple of kids, then dumps the old widow for a new model (Heinz) with $750 million.

    It will be fascinating to see (this fall) what percentage of the Jewish population in the USA care more for Israel than for ideology. I doubt if Lieberman will get the VP slot, but assuming he doesn't....

    I predict 70% of the American and Israeli Jewish voters will still vote Democrat. That is my prediction.



    Let's see what happens this November.

  12. #72
    ibrodsky
    Guest
    Originally posted by Alfred

    I predict 70% of the American and Israeli Jewish voters will still vote Democrat. That is my prediction.

    Let's see what happens this November.
    And I predict the percentage of Jews voting Republican will increase a few points. That's still far from a majority, but any movement away from knee-jerk support for Liberals/Democrats is welcome.

    The percentage of Jews voting for Bush might be higher if Dean wins, though that now looks very unlikely. Though Dean's wife is nominally Jewish, I think we could have counted on Dean to take a "balanced" position between Arab/Muslim jihad-genocide and Israeli self-defense.

    BTW Alfred, given your fixation on Jewish liberals, perhaps you should pick up a copy of Commentary magazine. You'll find that Jews can not only be effective liberals, they can be effective conservatives.

    It's time for you to give some credit to Jews who are helping to advance conservative causes. Bill Kristol, David Frum, Daniel Pipes (plus his father, Richard Pipes, a fervent anti-communist), and Normon Podhoretz to name but a few.

  13. #73
    ibrodsky
    Guest
    Originally posted by jewbyc
    While I agree with a lot of what you are saying but you are suggesting that jews should get in bed with a party( Republicans) that claims Daivd Duke and Pat Buchanan as members. No thanks I would rather remain independent. thanks but no thanks. When you lay down with dogs you just might end up with fleas. I think at this point both of the major partys could use a good flea bath.
    This is more an indictment of a flawed political system that permits people to choose political parties as if they were deciding what clothes to wear.

    From a Washington Post article: "GOP officials repudiated Duke at every turn, and many Republican leaders openly endorsed Duke's Democratic opponents... Yesterday, the party moved quickly once again to disassociate itself from Duke. Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson declared: "There is no room in the party of Lincoln for a Klansman like David Duke."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...duke122198.htm

    In fairness, it should be mentioned that former Klansman Robert Byrd is a leading Democrat to this day, and that 3/4 of those in Congress who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were Democrats--Al Gore Sr. being one of the most outspoken "no" voters.

    Regarding Pat Buchanan, he ran in 2000 as the "Reform Party" candidate against both the Democrats and Republicans. I suppose I could claim he was an "independent" like you, but that would be misleading wouldn't it? So perhaps you should be fair and acknowledge that neither David Duke nor Pat Buchanan have any significant support in the Republican Party (though both have encountered fierce opposition).

  14. #74
    Alfred
    Guest
    Originally posted by ibrodsky


    BTW Alfred, given your fixation on Jewish liberals, perhaps you should pick up a copy of Commentary magazine. You'll find that Jews can not only be effective liberals, they can be effective conservatives.

    It's time for you to give some credit to Jews who are helping to advance conservative causes. Bill Kristol, David Frum, Daniel Pipes (plus his father, Richard Pipes, a fervent anti-communist), and Normon Podhoretz to name but a few.
    #1. I helped out on Bruce Herchenson's California Senate campaign in 1992.

    Bill Kristol comes off as an opportunist.... neocon
    David Frum is ok...... neocon
    Herschenson....is great in my book
    Dennis Praeger (sp?)...is also great in my book.
    Pipes is focused on Israel/war on terror/Israel only. To my knowledge.
    Michael Savage? I think he is Jewish...not sure. He is great in my book but very unhappy sounding.
    David Horowitz...necon...but sounds like a true convert in writing. Watching him on TV he comes off as an opportunist.

    There is a difference between a fiscal/war on terror-only "conservative" and a true conservative. But it is nice to have them on our side for half the issues. I welcome them.

    I think "fixation" is a bit strong. This is a Jewish forum, so it may appear that way. If this were a Catholic or Black forum then one might say that I was fixated on Catholic or Black Liberals. I am equal opportunity....as I am against all Liberals in principal. But most Liberals are just airheads, misinformed, voting for FDR or naive.

    It is the Liberal powerstructure that is the real threat. The Jewish Liberals....as was mentioned earlier in the thread contribute fully 1/3 of the total Democratic party funds. Thus they are more influential than their numbers, wouldn't you say?

    I give full credit to all 1273 Jewish Conservatives (social and fiscal...as social Libs are still Libs) in America. More power to them and may the Force be with them. I have a cousin in law who is one of them.

    Happy Super Bowl Sunday! Enjoy the game, and more importantly the great commercials.


    Oh, #2. Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion" is coming out this Easter. I noticed a billboard at the movies yesterday where I saw the Last Samurai. Very good movie by the way.

    I am saving up wood and barbed wire to build Concentration Camps. As the ADL and JDL insist that there will be another Holocaust after the movie (could it be that they are looking for more funding??)

  15. #75
    Alfred
    Guest
    Originally posted by Mediocrates
    I'm not so sure you need to paint with so broad a brush. The Buchanans etc are fairly marginal to the Republican party and let's face it, Sen Robert Byrd REALLY IS a KLAN HOOD WEARING RACIST (- some people are regenerate but not him. Don't be swayed by glorious oratory against the Iraq war - it's straight up isolationist twaddle. )

    I agree.


    David Duke could hardly be called a Republican.... he is VERY regional....more like micro-regional....more like within several counties.....more like, you get the idea.

    Buchanan had a lot of appeal to conservative Republicans mainly for his stand on:

    1) keeping jobs in America not in China, Japan etc. etc.
    2) keeping our foreign aid dollars in America...not in Egypt, Israel, Germany, France, Saudi, Korea, South America, Africa etc.
    3) bombing Hollywood. (Oh well, he never actually said that)
    4) building a fence at the border and controling immigration
    5) The Left is the most dangerous enemy to the USA
    6) The West is in decline and the Muslims will be taking over in Europe....low birth rates, abortion, suicide, drugs, immorality.

    I have seen some the above arguments on this board. In particular, numbers 1, 4, and 6.

    My major disagreement with Pat is his isolationist foreign policy. I see where it comes from but it is much too strong. As far as he being a Nazi....that is the ADL and the JDL calling him that .... which is kind of like Jesse Jackson calling you a racist. It's politics. Meaningless. There are plenty of real Nazi's out there to be tossing around the word like the JDL and ADL do.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •