A place to exchange ideas supported by facts. Independents and Liberals are invited to submit their comments, provided they support their opinion with facts and references. Spinning is discouraged.
The Democratic Party Had Lost Its Soul
Published on February 20, 2004 By aconservative In Democrat
I was Democrat once. I was a Kennedy Democrat. Not the current Kennedy from Massachusetts. His brother was President who said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

Today you can’t get any Democrat candidate to say these words in public. Why? The reason is, it is against the playbook of the Democratic Party. It is against liberalism – hiding as socialism.

Ask the Democrat Senator from Georgia, Senator Zell Miller? Read his book – The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat. It will tell you that the present Democratic Party has lost it’s soul.

Let me give you examples – liberals please prove to me I am wrong.

a. New Jersey’s law prohibits electing any candidate who did not register before the stated date. During the last senatorial voting it was violated quoting that it was the people’s right. They choose a retired candidate and he won. He is sitting as a senator today.


b. Socialist leaning senator from Minnesota was killed in a plane crush. Minnesota has the same law that candidates must adhere to the prescribed registration date. Again they chose a retired candidate and this time the people know better. He lost. Again the liberals violated the law quoting the same reason – people’s right.

c. Massachusetts Supreme Court created a law that would permit gays to marry. However in California the state constitution prohibits marriage unless it is a man and a woman. California liberals lead by the Mayor of San Francisco started issuing marriage licenses to gays. As of this writing over 3000 gay marriages had been perform. The reason – the constitution as it is written violates gay rights.

If you took civics in grade school, there are provisions in our government where you can go to the courts, The liberals followed all three of them but the sitting judges are also liberals. So who to you think won? The liberals of course.

Liberals do not respect the constitution as our founding fathers wrote it. They say that the constitution is a living document and can be changed anytime by the courts.

But my civics teacher, Mrs Everett said that only the legislative branch of government can make laws, the courts and the executive branches can not make laws. So why are the courts making laws like abortion, women’s rights, environment, etc. Granted that the courts interpret the constitution a different way, should that interpretation be given to the legislative branch, have them debate it then have them enact it into law, before it becomes a law?

Poor Mrs. Everett, a Democrat, she must be turning in her grave. Sorry, ma’am, now you know why I quit the Democrat Party.







Comments (Page 2)
6 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Feb 22, 2004
aconservative:
Same thing with gay marriages. It's the freebies that are at stake.


did you ever see that episode of will and grace where the gay guy is trying to prove his competition in the gay chorus(matt damon) is actually a straight guy? grace: "you want me to IN him?"
on Feb 22, 2004
jeblackstar

I am not convinced that your definition of gays would stand in court. Since (I believe) you are both a professor and a lawyer, if you were asked by the Massachusetts and California legislatures to write a definition of what is a gay? How would you word it?

russellmz2

Please let me hear also your definition of gay that would stand in court?

You have to excuse me for not saying more - I am in Las Vegas now and I have to attend to why I am here.

Wish Me Luck

aconservative

P. S. By the way - my hotel room is a freebie.
on Feb 22, 2004
With liberals like Jeblackstar attempting to indoctrinate impressionable minds from his ivory tower of academe, it is a miracle that any of his students have a clue about the history of Korea, Iran, Iraq, US, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, France, Germany, Israel, Arabia, India-Pakistan or our own role in American History the past Century.
on Feb 22, 2004
The Democratic party is definately not the same party that it was back in the JFK days. I think that becoming pro abortion was the big turning point for them. At least looking back, thats the way it seems to me. Alot of people changed partys when this happened. I've heard others saying that Joe Liberman was the last of the great democratic party leaders of yesterday. Democrats today wouldn't know a great party leader if he bit them in the arse. They seem to be grasping at straws. Just wait until they see what happens to their pick come November. GCJ
on Feb 23, 2004
I am not convinced that your definition of gays would stand in court. Since (I believe) you are both a professor and a lawyer, if you were asked by the Massachusetts and California legislatures to write a definition of what is a gay? How would you word it?


My definition for what is "Gay" is that it doesn't matter whether you are gay or not. In fact, making the distinction violates the fourteenth amendment right that prevents discrimination due to position.

With liberals like Jeblackstar attempting to indoctrinate impressionable minds from his ivory tower of academe, it is a miracle that any of his students have a clue about the history of Korea, Iran, Iraq, US, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, France, Germany, Israel, Arabia, India-Pakistan or our own role in American History the past Century.


First off, it's an ivory tower of academia, not academe. Second, I share my "tower", i.e. office, with another professor since we are both fairly new to the staff. Second, just because I don't subscribe to your hick newsletters which refuse to show beliefs contrary to your own in no way means I'm lacking information on any of the countries you just listed. In fact, any one of my students could probably give you the history of those countries back to before their creation better than you could. Also, knowing the reasons for a war, ie Vietnam or Korea is very important. You don't know them, your previous posts have proven that. Do you read books? Do you know what one looks like? I can recommend a few dozen on each of those countries to give you the "true" role of each of those countries, including America, in the last century. Besides, why do list America twice? Once as US and the second time as "our history". And more importantly AR-15, if you know better, why the heck am I drawing crappy professor's pay and you're not? I teach because I believe in the Truth, I'll admit the Truth is biased by my own beliefs, but from what you imply, and outright state, my beliefs have twisted the truth around 180 degrees. If you can point out, with document evidence where I have been wrong, I'll apologize, assuming I haven't already. I even provided, in your little rant on "Hanoi Jane" evidence which condemnded her, but also mitigated her. There are three sides to every story, your side, their side and the truth. If you can see both sides, maybe you can see the truth, but right now you see only your own, and for that I pity you.

Cheers
on Feb 23, 2004
India-Pakistan


Also, at least for the better part of the last century India and Pakistan have been two different nations. Of course it's doubtful that you knew that the two countries actually worked together to throw the british out.


Oh, I'm still waiting for a reply from AR-15 or aconservative.

Cheers
on Feb 23, 2004
Jeblackstar do not throw a conniption fit! I am sorry if I offended you by stereotyping you as a liberal professor who would reconstruct history, and present a distorted interpretation of events to students. You have always been a gentleman in presenting your liberal views, I simply disagree with them, and you have personal beliefs and thoughts, not like one of these “Bush’s resume” copy and paste drones. I do not live in the Ozark regions, nor am I missing teeth, or shooting critters from my porch. I realize that I now have a liberal professor stalking my writings seeking to pick apart everything I say and put red X’s all over the place, I must digress, I have read at least one book, you could grade it if you like Prof. Blackstar.



The Quiet American

on Feb 23, 2004

The judicial branch was created, in part to protect the minority. Something Democracy doesn't do.

No it wasn't. The CONSTITUTION was designed to protect the minority. To protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

The judicial branche is designed to INTERPRET the law. That's it.

on Feb 23, 2004
The judicial branche is designed to INTERPRET the law.


Yes, exactly, interpret whether the law is constitutional or not.

Cheers
on Feb 23, 2004
aconservative:

wait a second. how do we know all these "heterosexual" couples walking around are actually heretosexual? what if a pair of lesbians and a pair of gay guys decide to pretend to be married for the tax benefits, "married couples" deals, and free wedding gifts?

do you get the feeling that this is a silly idea? that's the feeling i got when i heard your "pretend to be gay so they can get benefits" theory.
on Feb 23, 2004
::laughs:: Thank god for you russell, I was beginning to think I was the only one who saw a hole the size of a gas guzzling SUV in aconservative's theory.

Cheers
on Feb 24, 2004
Looks like more than one is willing to drink the proverbial "kool aid."
on Feb 24, 2004
Obviously you are talking about Jonesville, but what the heck does that have to do with anything said here?

Cheers
on Feb 25, 2004
You're still an idiot.
6 Pages1 2 3 4  Last