Jump to content

Democratic Party Leaders


ready182
This topic is 6673 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

I fail to understand why the Democratic Party is lead by it's worst members. IMHO, the equivilent would be if the leaders of the Republican party were David Duke (KKK), Jerry Falwell, Jim Baker, etc.

 

There are some really great Democrats: Ed Koch, Joe Lieberman, etc. These guys are normal!

 

These people, on the other hand, are IMHO an the party's worst figures:

 

Bill Clinton: disbarred for lying under oath in a court of law.

Hillary: Never trusted her either.

Gore: Insane.Howard Dean: A jerk.

Al Sharpten: Remember Tawania Brawley? A raciest clown.

Kerry: An embarrassment. Common guys, is "not Bush" sufficient reson to support this idiot??? Next time run Ed Koch -- I'll vote for him.

 

As for Edwards, I'm not crazy about his Trial Lawyer background. But at least during the Dem. primary he ran a positive campaign (unlike most of his counterparts).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I fail to understand why the Democratic Party is lead by it's

>worst members. IMHO, the equivilent would be if the leaders

>of the Republican party were David Duke (KKK), Jerry Falwell,

>Jim Baker, etc.

>

>There are some really great Democrats: Ed Koch, Joe

>Lieberman, etc. These guys are normal!

>

>These people, on the other hand, are IMHO an the party's worst

>figures:

 

Actually the Democratic Party is lead by these guys because they were more popular in the primary voting. Joe Leiberman is a good guy, but he went nowhere in the Democratic primaries. He is too hawkish for most rank and file Democrats, but he is still considered a Democratic leader in the Senate.

 

And your buddy Ed Koch has endorsed Bush. I don't know what kind of a Democrat that makes him.

 

>

>Bill Clinton: disbarred for lying under oath in a court of

>law.

 

Aside from his sexual pecidillos, he was actually a pretty good president.

 

>Hillary: Never trusted her either.

 

Have a problem with strong women?

 

>Gore: Insane.Howard Dean: A jerk.

 

Gore is angry. Howard Dean is one of the brightest and most thoughtful politicians on the scene today. He is also one of the most honest, and sometimes folks don't want to hear the harsh truth. Dean is honest and courageous and he has willing to stand up for Civil Unions in Vermont, and he is unwavering in his opposition to the War in Iraq. He was a great Govenor in Vermont and brings great common sense to the debate. The press and the establishment Democrats did not like him, and frankly they were afraid of his brutal honesty. I was visiting old friends in Vermont last month, and Vermonters are very confused as to how the national image of their 11-year Govenor got so twisted. The Howard Dean that the press portayed in the national media is very different than the Howard Dean that governed Vermont for 11 years.

 

>Al Sharpten: Remember Tawania Brawley? A raciest clown.

 

Actually, I have grown to like Rev. Al, mostly because he is willing to say things that others are thinking, but they are too afraid to offend any constituency. I am still mad about the Tawana Brawley thing too. He ruined the lives and careers of some honest law enforcement officials, and he needs to apologize for that, which he still refuses to do.

 

>Kerry: An embarrassment. Common guys, is "not Bush"

>sufficient reson to support this idiot???

 

Kerry won hard fought primaries through out the country, and he will be better for the economy, jobs, the environment, and the working class. And "not Bush" is actually enough for most Democrats in this country.

 

Next time run Ed

>Koch -- I'll vote for him.

 

Ed is 80 years old and has endorsed Bush. You can have him. I'm still kind of waiting for Ed to officially "come out".

 

>

>As for Edwards, I'm not crazy about his Trial Lawyer

>background. But at least during the Dem. primary he ran a

>positive campaign (unlike most of his counterparts).

 

Why a problem with trial lawyers. Are you opposed to the common man being able to seek redress from giant corporations who abuse them? I think this is a good thing. Its how are Constitution was designed.

>

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zipperzone

>There are some really great Democrats: Ed Koch, Joe

>Lieberman, etc. These guys are normal!

 

Ed Koch normal?????

 

About as "normal" as the Wizzard of Oz"

 

Not to mention geriatric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RandyRon

>I fail to understand why the Democratic Party is lead by it's

>worst members. IMHO, the equivilent would be if the leaders

>of the Republican party were David Duke (KKK), Jerry Falwell,

>Jim Baker, etc.

 

Aren't they really running the Republican Pary? IMO, their philosophy is damn close to that of the GOP.

 

 

>There are some really great Democrats: Ed Koch, Joe

>Lieberman, etc. These guys are normal!

 

 

Sounds to me like you really want a luke warm Republican rather than a real Democrat.

 

 

>These people, on the other hand, are IMHO an the party's worst

>figures:

>

>Bill Clinton: disbarred for lying under oath in a court of

>law.

>Hillary: Never trusted her either.

>Gore: Insane.Howard Dean: A jerk.

>Al Sharpten: Remember Tawania Brawley? A raciest clown.

>Kerry: An embarrassment. Common guys, is "not Bush"

>sufficient reson to support this idiot??? Next time run Ed

>Koch -- I'll vote for him.

>

>As for Edwards, I'm not crazy about his Trial Lawyer

>background. But at least during the Dem. primary he ran a

>positive campaign (unlike most of his counterparts).

>

 

 

At least Kerry, Hilary, and Dean really give us a choice rather than a "me too" candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I fail to understand why the Democratic Party is lead by it's

>worst members. IMHO, the equivilent would be if the leaders

>of the Republican party were David Duke (KKK), Jerry Falwell,

>Jim Baker, etc.

 

hate to tell you this, ready, but the Repiglicans are led by their worst members: James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jim Baker (he who was Bush's counsel for the Selection of 2000), Dick F'n Cheney and Karl Rove. You can't get much slimier than Rove and Cheney.

 

And let's not forget these immortal words of wisdom:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>There are some really great Democrats: Ed Koch, Joe

>Lieberman, etc. These guys are normal!

 

Koch, normal? You seem unaware that during his second term as mayor he was constantly regaling the media at his press conferences with every detail of his bodily functions, e.g., whether or not he had gotten up the previous night to urinate and if so how many times. Would you want a president who did that?

 

>Bill Clinton: disbarred for lying under oath in a court of

>law.

 

Clinton was suspended, not disbarred. And so far as I know he was never convicted of any crime or even charged with one.

 

>Hillary: Never trusted her either.

>Gore: Insane.Howard Dean: A jerk.

>Al Sharpten: Remember Tawania Brawley? A raciest clown.

>Kerry: An embarrassment. Common guys, is "not Bush"

>sufficient reson to support this idiot???

 

Kerry, an idiot? The man is a Yale graduate, a decorated war hero, a millionaire and has reached the pinnacle of success in his political career. Last fall everyone was saying his campaign was dead. But he came back to slaughter his rivals and lock up the nomination months before the convention. He deserves respect for that achievement alone.

 

I won't deny there are other Democrats I'd rather see as president. The problem is, they chose not to run. If you do not have amnesia, you may remember that something similar happened in 1992. Some of the party's brightest stars chose not to run for one reason or another, and that left an opening for an unknown governor from a small state who went on to beat an incumbent president and win a second term also. If the Democrats do as well this time they will have no reason to complain.

 

As for the Republicans, don't tell me they always put their best men forward. They could have chosen a genuine American hero who would have won a landslide victory in 2000, and instead they picked Bush. As their leaders in the House they have a high school wrestling coach from Illinois and a bug exterminator from Sugarland, Texas. Their leader in the Senate had to resign because he made remarks that seemed to endorse racial segregation. Is any of this coming back to you now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i like al sharpton; he's s snappy dresser with a great hair do; probabally the best speaker of the lot. so he owes his law enforcement victims a court award they have been unable to collect as he has no attachable assets. imagine living as well as al sharpton with no assets; just think how the poor with no assets can live if they take lessons from him; imagine how the poor in the third world can increase their standard of living with no assets by following the al sharpton path to good living.

 

for those of you who do not understand my humor, my real opinion is that it is shameful that the democratic party puts this man foward as a leader; they are so afraid of critizing a black person that they give a pass to a man found guilty of slander who has refused to pay a penny of danages awarded his victims much less an apology to the people whose lives he has ruined. it would be like the republicans featuring the head of enron at their convention.

 

i would be more forgiving of al sharpton if he gave an apology and paid his debts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>for those of you who do not understand my humor, my real

>opinion is that it is shameful that the democratic party puts

>this man foward as a leader; they are so afraid of critizing a

>black person that

 

No one "put Sharpton forward." He ran for the nomination and he got the same treatment as the other candidates in the debates and at the convention. Far from "putting him forward," the Kerry people saw to it that his speech at the convention was scheduled out of prime time.

 

>they give a pass to a man found guilty of

>slander who has refused to pay a penny of danages awarded his

>victims much less an apology to the people whose lives he has

>ruined.

 

As a matter of fact, the plaintiff in the defamation suit against Sharpton has been paid Sharpton's share of the damages in full. He collected $15,000.00 by garnishing Sharpton's salary from the organization Sharpton runs. The rest was paid to him in 2001 by several of Sharpton's wealthy supporters. That was three years ago. You Republicans really shouldn't use this board to spread misinformation.

 

>it would be like the republicans featuring the head of

>enron at their convention.

 

It's funny you should mention that. Ken Lay, the former head of Enron, actually WAS the chairman of the 1992 Republican Convention. This seems to be your day for tripping over your own words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Edwards Trail Lawyer

 

You said: "Why a problem with trial lawyers. Are you opposed to the common man being able to seek redress from giant corporations who abuse them? I think this is a good thing. Its how are Constitution was designed."

 

I Say "I don't have a problem wiht the comman man being able to seek redress ..." I do have a problem with the trial lawyer getting rich from it. After all, it is not the trial lawyer who was abused, hurt, etc. Why do they deserve 30-50% of the take in multi-million dollar settlements??? i.e. if a well-deserving plaintif gets a million dollar settlement, undeserving laywers like Edwards take half of it.

 

Fact: The Bush family is in the oil business, and are wealthy by most standards. But Edwards and Kerry are SIGNIFICANTLY wealthier than Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Edwards Trail Lawyer

 

>You said: "Why a problem with trial lawyers. Are you opposed

>to the common man being able to seek redress from giant

>corporations who abuse them? I think this is a good thing. Its

>how are Constitution was designed."

>

>I Say "I don't have a problem wiht the comman man being able

>to seek redress ..." I do have a problem with the trial

>lawyer getting rich from it. After all, it is not the trial

>lawyer who was abused, hurt, etc. Why do they deserve 30-50%

>of the take in multi-million dollar settlements??? i.e. if a

>well-deserving plaintif gets a million dollar settlement,

>undeserving laywers like Edwards take half of it.

 

They don't take half. And without the lawyers, the injured parties may get nothing.

>

>Fact: The Bush family is in the oil business, and are wealthy

>by most standards. But Edwards and Kerry are SIGNIFICANTLY

>wealthier than Bush.

 

Unless you are talking about Theresa Heinz's money, this is not true at all. The Bush's have old money, and oil money and plenty of it. Now certainly George W didn't make any of it on his own, but no need to pity the "poor" Bushes.

>

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Merlin

And the Democrat loudest spokesmen are some of the most loathsome creatures in the public eye: Michael Moore, Jim Carvell, Robert Reich, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Greedy Trial Lawyers

 

>I'm guessing you cast your vote just like the soccer moms,

>because you think Edwards is cute.

 

 

I've never voted for Edwards for anything. But I certainly have more respect for a man like him, who owes his money and position entirely to his own talent and hard work, than a man like Bush, who has had everything handed to him by his family and who still can't manage to do anything right.

 

In regard to the absurd and ignorant remarks about "greedy" trial lawyers by several other posters, they need to be reminded that when a trial lawyer takes a case on a contingent fee basis he takes the risk that he will devote thousands of man-hours to the case and put up scores of thousands of dollars in expenses, including stenographers' fees, expert witness fees, investigators' fees, and the like, and get nothing in return -- unless he succeeds in winning a large jury verdict or a large settlement through his own talent and work.

 

Republicans SUPPOSEDLY believe that we are a capitalist society in which entrepreneurs who take risks should be rewarded. They have no problem with the fact that Bill Gates has made billions by buying a rather clunky operating system created by someone else and persuading IBM to make it the exclusive operating system for their pc's. But for some reason they forget about the principles of capitalism and entrepreneurship when it comes to trial lawyers. I wonder why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>And the Democrat loudest spokesmen are some of the most

>loathsome creatures in the public eye: Michael Moore, Jim

>Carvell, Robert Reich, etc.

 

I guess that's the difference between us. Those are all people that I like and respect. They are honest and they ask the hard questions. What is so loathsome about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Greedy Trial Lawyers

 

>But for some

>reason they forget about the principles of capitalism and

>entrepreneurship when it comes to trial lawyers.

 

Even at that, only when it serves their purpose.

 

The Hypocrites Of Tort Reform

Advocates Who Changed Their Tunes

 

As Texas Governor, George W. Bush was one of the "tort reform" movement's biggest proponents...However, when it comes to solving problems involving his own family, Bush heads straight to court. In 1999, Bush sued Enterprise Rent-A-Car over a minor fender-bender involving one of his daughters in which no one was hurt. Although his insurance would have covered the repair costs, making a lawsuit unnecessary, Bush sought additional money from Enterprise, which had rented a car to someone with a suspended license. In this case, Bush seemed to understand one of the most important functions of civil lawsuits -- to deter further wrongdoing. The case settled for $2,000 to $2,500.

 

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/4286

 

Even with Republican control of both houses and the executive, frontal tort-reform efforts have largely given way to back-door liability limitations and consumer-protection curtailments buried throughout the administration's legislative agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest gentle guy

>There are some really great Democrats: Ed Koch, Joe

>Lieberman, etc. These guys are normal!

 

Well, Lieberman certainly doesn't think YOU are normal. I believe his attitude toward gays is similar to Dubya's. You know, Leviticus and all that?

 

(Speaking of Leviticus, I am personally aware of a few educated people, respected professionals in their communities, who hold a biblical view of homosexuality--it should be a crime, and the death penalty might be appropriate for "repeat offenders." This is in the "liberal" Northeast, by the way.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...