Democrats threatening Democrats into going to the polls

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: beezzer
A double post.

Kind of like a Chicago "vote".

oh gee...how profound!....ohhh..."code phrase",Chicago vote...wink,wink...scary black people voting!!!....not electing white people, well that has to stop...got the secret message

I'm sorry.

I apologise for making an assumption that placed leftists/democrats in a poor light.

Please forgive me.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The mythical party-switch-a roo never happened.

You may be describing the fact that members of each party begin to switch, mainly because of LBJ's stance on the Civil Rights.

Remember, I said MEMBERS switched. Not party platforms.

The party platform has NEVER switched. Do really think that Democrats and Republicans got together and said lets trade political ideology?

a reply to: StarGazer77

I have not claimed there was a party "switch a roo."

I have claimed what I claimed and documented the claim. Perhaps if you will reread, you'll see that I suggested, based on the evidence, that the split really started in 1948, not 1964.

The party platforms are issued approximately every four years. Of course they change.

No, I think nothing of the sort. What I do think, and what has been shown, is that the traditional geographic centers of opposition to civil rights and their attendant politicians and adherents, switched from the Democratic party to the Republican party in basically the last half of the 20th century.

Dispute that fact, if you can, with evidence.

a reply to: StarGazer77

Yeah... no.

a reply to: beezzer

Leftists OR Democrats.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Leftists OR Democrats.

Leftists or democrats.

Yes.

Apologies.

I would also like to say, in terms of my recent review of the ATS T&C, that if anyone has felt that my rhetoric here has proceeded to the level of a PERSONAL attack, that was not my intention. Even so, if anyone has taken PERSONAL office at my words, you have my apology.

However, I am uncertain of how to talk about political differences between the American parties without being "partisan." We all utilize shortened names for the general categories: Progressives, Leftists, Wingers, Wingnuts, Socialists, Communists, Dims (Dems), Progs, Cons, Commies, etc.

However, as that later seems reasonably to be directly against T&C, you'll see no more of that from me.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Political opinionated bashing is supposed to be in the Political Mud-Pit.

If you're wandering about ATS, and find a discussion that throttles your political angst, and really really want to start casting harsh aspersions in the direction of one or more political ideologies:

YOU CAN CREATE A NEW THREAD: Quote the post that inspired your ire, link to the non-mud-pit ATS thread, and start a new thread in the Political Mud-Pit forum, making certain not to call-out or otherwise throw mud at any ATS member in the original thread outside the Mud-Pit.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: xuenchen

Thanks Xuenchen for the info. I haven't done any bashing per se I don't think, I haven't said that Democrats all have a "hive mind" or implied that they're incapable of telling the truth, as some here have.

I guess we'll just have to see, eh?

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: beezzer
A double post.

Kind of like a Chicago "vote".

oh gee...how profound!....ohhh..."code phrase",Chicago vote...wink,wink...scary black people voting!!!....not electing white people, well that has to stop...got the secret message

I'm sorry.

I apologise for making an assumption that placed leftists/democrats in a poor light.

Please forgive me.

ok beez...that was clever and made me laugh. look, there aren't too many of us left, to counter the constant bashing of democrats, and anyone left of center here on ATS....

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: beezzer
A double post.

Kind of like a Chicago "vote".

oh gee...how profound!....ohhh..."code phrase",Chicago vote...wink,wink...scary black people voting!!!....not electing white people, well that has to stop...got the secret message

I'm sorry.

I apologise for making an assumption that placed leftists/democrats in a poor light.

Please forgive me.

ok beez...that was clever and made me laugh. look, there aren't too many of us left, to counter the constant bashing of democrats, and anyone left of center here on ATS....

I do feel for you.
But wait until Wednesday morning! It may be worse.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Garbage Gryph. I just showed you that not all Republicans voted for the patriot act extension and not all Democrats voted for it. That was just the house. I even showed you that Joe Biden took credit for drafting the pre-cursor to the Patriot Act in his Omnibus CounterTerrorism Act of 1995. It had elements of the Patriot Act.

Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, US Senate bills S.390 and S.761.[1] Senator Joe Biden introduced the bill on behalf of the Clinton Administration on Feb. 10, 1995.[2][3] The bill was co sponsored by Senators Alfonse D'Amato, Dianne Feinstein, Robert J. Kerrey, Herb Kohl, Jon Kyl, Barbara A. Mikulski and Arlen Specter.[4] Representative Chuck Schumer sponsored the bill (H.R. 896) in the US House of Representatives.[3] Following closely on the heels of Executive Order 12947, prohibiting transactions with terrorists, President Clinton described the bill as a "comprehensive effort to strengthen the ability of the United States to deter terrorist acts and punish those who aid or abet any international terrorist activity in the United States" and requested "the prompt and favorable consideration of this legislative proposal by the Congress".[5]

en.wikipedia.org...

So what about that Gryph? Please stop insulting everyone's intelligence and telling them they are lying when it's clear that this legislation was in the making long before 9-11 and even apparently before the OK bombing, and both parties were involved. O signed the extension. I don't remember hearing that he vetoed. He signed it after he went after Osama and bragged taking credit for finding and killing him.
So don't tell me that it's just evil Republicans who are spying on Americans and assassinating people abroad.
Democrats also pretend they are anti-war but O went to Libya without even Congress, either side. He put more troops in Afghanistan too. What was that about? To guard the poppy fields or what?

a reply to: Gryphon66

What I do think, and what has been shown, is that the traditional geographic centers of opposition to civil rights and their attendant politicians and adherents, switched from the Democratic party to the Republican party in basically the last half of the 20th century.

No, that's a false claim by Democrat party hacks who do not want people to realize that their party was the racist party who opposed the freeing of slaves. It is one of the most disingenuous claims I've ever seen. I've read this over and over in different places on the Internet and it's just not true that the racist Democrats somehow became the Republicans of today and that somehow the republicans who fought against slavery are now in the Democrat party. It's a completely ridiculous claim.
Only one republican I know of was a formerly racist Democrat KKK member and that was Senator Robert Byrd.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Only one republican I know of was a formerly racist Democrat KKK member and that was Senator Robert Byrd.

He was obviously a racist... but when was he ever a Republican?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I'm with you...it can be construed as an intimidating letter--possibly a threat--but I don't think so. I think they're trying to figure out what issues get people to the polls and which ones don't. Sounds like they may already be thinking about strategy for next time.

Of course, I don't know what tactics have been used up until the point of this letter, so maybe this, coupled with other tactics of intimidation lead the recipient to see this as threatening.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: xuenchen

So let me get this straight.

It doesn't matter that you've been shown clear evidence to the contrary, that Democrats have and did oppose the Patriot Act in 2001, 2006, 2011 ... and Republicans supported it virtually 100%

You're still going to claim that because YOU believe "all Democrats support it by default" and "it's the collective hive mentality" and you're going to ramble on about what you think about Obama and then assign that to ... whomever you're talking about ... and then imply that despite what someone says about their own beliefs, YOU still know better because "they will have you believe otherwise"???

That's some really deep delusion going on there in your post if you're not just doing your usual baiting and trolling, Xuenchen.

Those two aren't interested in facts. Third eye didn't even read the entire list only the 2001 part where only 2 republicans out of the house and senate voted against the patriot act and there were 65 democrats that voted against it. In 2005 13 republicans opposed the patriot act and 135 democrats opposed it in 2011 35 republicans opposed it and 140 democrats opposed it.The republicans own the patriot act and they continue to own it.

In the entire history of the patriot act there have been a total of votes from parties opposing the patriot act.

50 votes from Republicans opposing the patriot act

340 votes from Democrats opposing the patriot act

Republicans love the patriot act 680% more than Democrats historically. They own that bill.

It takes some serious mental gymnastics and straight up lies to claim Democrats support the patriot act more than Republicans.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I wasn't aware that we "owned" threads here at ATS

Well, you are right in that the owners of the site do own the content, legally speaking, however individual people make up a thread, and usually everyone thereafter refers to them as OP.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Why don't you try reading people's posts carefully. I was talking about the two Republicans who voted for the Affordable Care Act, so yes the Democrats really own that piece of legislation. Should I check my post to make sure that was clear? Because I think I remember typing out the words Affordable Care Act.

Oh wait, you are claiming that only two republicans in both the house and senate voted against the Patriot Act? I posted who voted on the extension, thank you very much.
I said that whereas republicans did mostly support the 2001 bill, not all did, and not all democrats voted against it. 66 Democrats in the Senate voted FOR it. So it is not truthful to say that only Republicans supported it.
The bill passed both the Senate and the House.
Also both the Senate and the House passed the extension and our President SIGNED it. Right after he claimed credit for getting Osama! But there are some other interesting things about the legislation. Almost no one read it, just like almost no one read the ACA before passing it. Remember the cute little speed-reading trick the Democrats had with ACA? It was hilarious. The Patriot Act seems to have been in the making for long before 9-11.
Furthermore, here is what O said about the extension of the Patriot Act

"I think it is an important tool for us to continue dealing with an ongoing terrorist threat," the president said from the G-8 Summit in France.

Another interesting thing I just found in this article is that supposedly the provisions which are extensions were made to sunset unless extended because they were considered a danger to privacy, and guess who decided to extend it? Why yes it was Prez O. The rest of the bill is permanent. And I don't see where Democrats have tried to repeal.

The roving wiretaps and access to business records are small parts of the USA Patriot Act that was enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. But unlike most of the act, which is permanent law, those provisions must be periodically renewed because of concerns that they could be used to violate privacy rights. The same applies to the "lone wolf" provision, which was part of a 2004 intelligence act.

Also reportedly, Rand Paul is the only one who actively was against the extension.

Paul argued that in the rush to meet the terrorist threat in 2001 Congress enacted a Patriot Act that tramples on individual liberties. He had some backing from liberal Democrats and civil liberties groups who have long contended the Patriot Act gives the government authority to spy on innocent citizens.

www.foxnews.com...

Incidentally, I was also against the Patriot Act when I heard the ACLU testify against it. I am not even for the ACLU, but in this case I think they were right.
I don't believe that Democrats were against it because they champion liberty. Since Joe Biden and Clinton were both for the Omnibus bill which didn't pass, I would guess that Democrats were going to let the Republicans take the fall.
After all, Democrats are usually for bigger government, more regulations, higher taxes, less fattening school lunches, etc.
Still, Admiral Poindexter was trying to get the TIA database together, which is as Orwellian as it gets. Members of Congress stopped that too. However, we cannot give credit to the current admin for stopping invasion of privacy and data collection. After all, this one gave us the fun website Cash For Clunkers which had a button that said that you give the govt full ownership of your files on your own computer. They also gave us Einstein, and I don't remember the current renaming of the TIA/Einstein program. This admin also gave us Common Core and a huge I mean giant data collection warehouse in Utah which tracks our children's progress. I have personally questioned our county school superintendent who although he tried to suggest that the names of the children are not attached to the data, he could claim that government agencies and third party organizations would not have access.

It's the day before the Mid-term elections and CNN is showing the headline, "Tight Races Leave Senate Control in Doubt". Are they saying that there could be a TIE, with neither Democrats or Republicans in control of the Senate?
-cwm

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Your the one that seems to be lost. This is your post after I showed the historic vote on the patriot act.

Grimpach that was from 2001. Democrats voted against it to make themselves look they they aren't spying on Americans....then guess who gets elected and signs the extension? Guess who voted to extend?
Joe Biden himself claimed to have authored the core of the Patriot Act. There were 54 Democrats in the House who voted for the Extension. 31 Republicans voted against. So while we could say that Republicans tended to support it(who would have guessed O would sign that thing) you cannot say that only GOP supported it. Oh yah and the bill came up directly after the O WH went on the raid to kill Osama. You know the one where they had to go get O off the golf course?
The Democrats like to pretend they are against war too, and guess what.....
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you see affordable care act in your above post. Didn't think so.

On top of that I wasn't responding to you so I don't care what you were going on about with the ACA. Try to keep up and pay attention. The subject was the patriot act not the ACA but sense you have done some mental gymnastics on the patriot act then your same reasoning should apply to the ACA since Romney was who came up with it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Maybe you should just stick to responding to posts addressed to you since you obviously had a brain malfunction while reading my post about the "Patriot Act".