Posted on 08/13/2006 3:02:43 PM PDT by LdSentinal
So you're 90% Democrat?
They hung up on me too not long ago. When I told them that I changed parties they asked why. All I said is that I have three sons serving in the military and they hung up before I could go any further.
Look more closely. LdSentinal posted something from somebody's blog. The guy "Brandon Loy" is the former Dem.
Nope the Whigs were the predecessors of the Republican Party (mostly) and their opponents were the Democrat Party founded by Jackson.
It was anti-slavery for the most part and that "for the most part" was what brought it down. The party split on whether slavery should be allowed to expand in the US or not.
How dare Senator Lieberman have an independent thought or a display of principal.
" So if the democrats had found room for Lieberman in their party, you would have donated?"
Brendan? Almost certainly. He is a war liberal. Not many left, but there are some. I guess they are just not allowed to vote for democrats, now.
Superior left-wing intellect, hard at work.
Dear ***********
It is a disgrace.... We are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan but the Senate Republicans have spent the summer pandering to their base by debating the estate tax, gay marriage and flag burning. The sole debate we've had on Iraq was notable for Republicans once again offering absolutely no strategy going forward and trotting out the same tired "cut and run" charges against Democrats.
Time and again, Republicans have shamelessly put narrow political considerations ahead of policy. Because of the Republican's lack of leadership, the 109th U.S. Senate has not delivered a sound energy policy, a livable minimum wage or any solution for dealing with 46 million Americans without health insurance.
Today, we are just over 100 days out from the congressional midterm elections, and an opportunity to ensure that the 110th Senate acts on issues that really matter. That will not happen unless we wake up on November 8th with a Democratic majority in the Senate. We need your help to get serious leaders in control of Congress.
Thank you for the correction. The point is -- and I do have a point -- is that the Jacksonian Democrats were in favor of slavery.
And I think you know where I am going with this... At what point did the Democrats become the party of choice for the minorities? And the party of Lincoln (the Republicans) become the suppressor?
I recently had a call from a local Democrat running for statewide office in Oklahoma. I told him that there was absolutly no way I could possibly vote for a Democrat under any circumstances. When he asked why I told him Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durban, Murtha, Gay Marriage, abortion, higher taxes, etc. He said that he didn't stand for any of that. I told him then he must not be a real Democrat because that is what his party stands for. He said well maybe at the national level but not here in Oklahoma. I told him it didn't make any difference. I said I thought that a win for a Democrat at the local level also strengthens the party nationwide. I also told him that the state Democratic Party follows in lockstep the positions and issues of the national party, there is no difference. He simply couldn't understand what I was talking about.
This was an idiot. Everyone knows or should know to be gracious on such a call and argument is worse than useless.
1966 when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. Prior to that minorities were more likely to be Republican then anything else.
But LBJ got all the credit for being "The Great Reformer" even though it was his own party that opposed the bill and the Republicans in the House and Senate who sent it to him.
For some reason Americans have an interesting blind spot as to who creates the laws. A President is given credit or blame for a law that he may not have much choice about signing.
Republicans were also the ones who fought and passed legislation that gave women the right to vote and passed Indian Citizenship Act that made American Indians legal citizens of the USA.
Somehow all of these things have gotten lost in the fog of mis-taught history.
I'd leave the last part out. Joe is still an untrustworthy liar. Always has been. He "supports" the war because of the Jewish vote. If this war concerned any other country than Israel, he would have won the nomination. Don't doubt it for a second.
Your facts above prove he's not to be trusted......(not unlike any politician I can think of)
FMCDH(BITS)
You should have told them you don't deal with middle men and asked to speak to the boss. When he asked if you wanted to speak to Howard Dean, you could tell them "no, I mean Osama"
Did you ask if he was calling from a princess phone? ;0)
um.. no.
I work phones, too...it isn't an easy job. Especially if you get an angry person. Just move on to the next name...:)
Maybe it's just me, but hanging up on a person is one of the most insulting things one can do, particularly when you are the one who made the call. It is also ignorant and childish. Not that I'd expect anything else from someone trying to raise funds for the Dims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.