Quote: Original post by stonegiant
The party of racial separation is historicaly the Democratic parties shame to bear. Al (carbon foot print) Gore's own Father was in the Democratic party and was a part of a small handfull of Democarts who continually voted against all civil rights reforms, ALL, very shamefull, and disgusting. The apple can never fall far from the tree.
Lincoln was a Republican, if he were a Democrat he never would have entered into our civil war, which accounts for dead Americans than all other american war deaths combined, as the Democratic party at that time was for all forms of slavery.

Isn't the civil rights movement what caused the democrats and republicans to switch platforms around the 60's?

Quote: Original post by stonegiant
Jimmy Carter is considered by many to be the worst President we ever had, and both sides realize he is a stuffed shirt moron. If not for the watergate issue that peanut farmer would never ever had stood a chance at sitting in the oval office.
The party of racial separation is historicaly the Democratic parties shame to bear. Al (carbon foot print) Gore's own Father was in the Democratic party and was a part of a small handfull of Democarts who continually voted against all civil rights reforms, ALL, very shamefull, and disgusting. The apple can never fall far from the tree.
Lincoln was a Republican, if he were a Democrat he never would have entered into our civil war, which accounts for dead Americans than all other american war deaths combined, as the Democratic party at that time was for all forms of slavery.

Carter is considered by Republicans to be the worst President in the modern era, but these days most everyone else thinks that title belongs to W.

You're right that for a very long time the Democratic Party was the party of segregation. That began to change with Truman when he integrated the military. It's very telling that in the 1950's the segregationist Democrats left to form the Dixiecrats and then in the 1960's the left to join the Republicans. You've heard of Strom Thurmond? Trent Lott? And before you launch into it, yes I know that Robert Byrd was once a member of the Klan and all that. At any rate, the political reality these days is quite different. The racial character of the parties has flipped. It's difficult to find people of color at Republican events - except for the few paid staffers posted on stage.

As for Lincoln, today's Republicans would denounce him as a socialist for saying this: Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. -- 1861 State of the Union Address

Switch Platforms?
It is alot more complex than that, not being rude.

Quote: Original post by stonegiant
ACORN has been involved in massive voter fraud, which was set aside by McCain's camp after the election. I guess you won't believe it until John (Leibowitz) Stewart tells you so.

How is Stewart's real name important to the topic? Are you an anti-Semite?

Quote: Original post by stonegiant
Specific: One documented instance was that more voted for Obama in one region than actually lived there. That is why ACORN wanted in on the census, and have been removed, look for yourself about ACORN voter fraud, not pretty.

I'm asking you to substantiate your claims. That means you need to look for me, point me to the information that supports what you're saying. I won't believe what you say about what McCain's camp set aside after the election until you point me to something more substantial than your word. So too with your claim that in some unidentified region of the country there were more Obama votes than voters.

As a point of fact to note about how ineffectual Jimmy was on the first day Reagan was in office the Iran Hostages were realesed, on the first day, the first day Jimmy was out! And Jimmy was supposed to be such an expert on mid-east policy, he is a complete fool.
If the "Overwhelming majority of white Americans oppose Obama because he is a Black man" as said by Jimmy, how the hell did he get elected? It would be immpossible for him to get elected if the "OVERWHELMING majority of white people opposed Obama", it is utterly ridiculous, the two can not exist in the same sentence and both be true, Jimmy is a damn fool!

Quote: Original post by stonegiant
Switch Platforms?
It is alot more complex than that, not being rude.

Apparently not so complex that you can claim that the modern-day Democrats supported slavery and discrimination, while the modern-day Republican party were progressive. Political parties change and evolve, and the modern-day Democrats and Republicans are not the same parties as they were in the past. Whether LessBread's example of the "Southern Strategy" is applicable to the Republican party today is debatable, but regardless.

As regards to your ACORN accusations, it would be nice if you could back up those claims. Claims that a taxpayer-funded organization is criminal and conspired to defraud and steal a Presidential election is pretty serious. Now, there's no doubt that some ACORN workers committed voting fraud, but its not proof of systematic ACORN fraud, any more than some Democrat/Republican worker attempting fraud at their local polling station is evidence that the entire Democract/Republican party endorses voting fraud.

Hey "less" you a race bater? Don't insert race, as you just did.
My Grandmothers last name is Stewart, it annoys me when John (Liebowitz) Stewart uses it, it is not his name. Whay does he not use Liebowitz?

I don't "need to look for me", you. It is not my job to ensure you have the facts, my time is precious, go get an intern, or start paying attention to more than John (Liebowitz) Stewart.

Quote: Original post by stonegiant
I don't "need to look for me", you. It is not my job to ensure you have the facts, my time is precious, go get an intern, or start paying attention to more than John (Liebowitz) Stewart.

I have a better idea. Stay out of the thread if your time is so precious. (It obviously isn't, by the way, because posting in political threads is almost all you've done since you got here.) If you are intent on participating in the discussion, do it productively or you'll get an enforced vacation. Also, if you're so determined to repeat Leibowitz over and over, do us a favor and learn to SPELL it.

Quote: Original post by stonegiant
Hey "less" you a race bater? Don't insert race, as you just did.
My Grandmothers last name is Stewart, it annoys me when John (Liebowitz) Stewart uses it, it is not his name. Whay does he not use Liebowitz?

Its not uncommon to use stage names or pen names. I'd also say its quite rare to repeatedly point out someone's name as you have done so frequently, and even rarer to get upset over someone using the same name as your grandmother. Given the tone and frequency, you certainly come across as trying to say "OMG, John Stewart is a jew!"

Quote: Original post by stonegiant
I don't "need to look for me", you. It is not my job to ensure you have the facts, my time is precious, go get an intern, or start paying attention to more than John (Liebowitz) Stewart.

Its the responsibility of the one making the claims to provide evidence in debates. Dropping serious accusations, and then insisting that the opponent "look up the facts themselves" is a cop-out. Requiring the accuser to provide the facts also prevents accusations of, "You just didn't look hard enough."

What is your beef with the Daily Show anyway? Did you know that there is evidence that Daily Show viewers are more informed about politics?

From that article:

Quote:
On top of that, "Daily Show" viewers know more about election issues than people who regularly read newspapers or watch television news, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey. (Pop quiz)

Dannagal Goldthwaite Young, a senior research analyst at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, said "Daily Show" viewers came out on top "even when education, party identification, following politics, watching cable news, receiving campaign information online, age and gender are taken into consideration."

Oh, and also:

Quote:
"Daily Show" viewers are 78 percent more likely than the average adult to have four or more years of college education, while O'Reilly's audience is only 24 percent more likely to have that much schooling.

Plus, the network noted, "Daily Show" viewers are 26 percent more likely to have a household income more than $100,000, while O'Reilly's audience is only 11 percent more likely to make that much money.

So the guy watching Stewart may not only be smart, but may also be rich.

I'll take the guy who watches the Daily Show over the guy who watches Fox News any day of the week.

Edit:
More statistics: link

Quote: Well-informed audiences come from cable (Daily Show/Colbert Report, O'Reilly Factor), the internet (especially major newspaper websites), broadcast TV (NewsHour with Jim Lehrer) and radio (NPR, Rush Limbaugh's program). The less informed audiences also frequent a mix of formats: broadcast television (network morning news shows, local news), cable (Fox News Channel), and the internet (online blogs where people discuss news events).

That last one doesn't bode well for us here at GameDev.Net, does it? ;)