Finally Some democrats get it right!

There is hope for the dems after all

from JoeUser Forums
The state of georgia is showing some common sense in the democratic party at last!

The have 81 democrats in the state legislature and 40 of them have broken ties with what they call A party that NO LONGER REPRESENTS what the democratic party use to stand for.

Altho they remain democrats they have formed a voting block of there own more in tune with the traditions of america.

They say they will no longer be voting party lines and will make up there own minds about what is best for the great state of georgia, and her peoples..

I can say that this pleases me to no end, as finally some democrats are starting to think things thru and see how out of touch
with mainstream america the democratic party has gone.
This voting block of almost 1/2 the georgia legislature {democratic wing} sees the writing on the wall for the present democratic party, AND they do not like it at all, which was the main factor in them parting ways with the luny left.

This bodes well for democrats if more of the party does the same thing... leaving behind the lunitics that seem to run the party now.

We can only hope the {dems} siezes this time to break ranks with the crazies and become what they once were a party for the people and not the representative of the lunatic fringe.

I assume with the mandate the republicans got this last election cycle has smacked some sense in A FEW dems.

Now we will see if other dems can suck it up enough to break with the crazies in the democratic wing to force the dems to moderate the insane views and policies that they now eshew.
politics
13,317 views 49 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
What exactly does "no longer represents what the democratic party used to stand for" means? If it means voting more like Republicans, then I can't agree with their big budget, spend everything to make us safe but we really aren't safer attitude.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think it means they'd rather think for themselves and make up their own minds and to break away from the stereotypical democrats who have actually become the majority of democrats

Ditto!

Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: whoman69Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2005What exactly does "no longer represents what the democratic party used to stand for" means? If it means voting more like Republicans, then I can't agree with their big budget, spend everything to make us safe but we really aren't safer attitude.


nope means useing some common sense...
Reply By: Helix the IIPosted: Saturday, January 15, 2005I think it means they'd rather think for themselves and make up their own minds and to break away from the stereotypical democrats who have actually become the majority of democrats.



you got it helix!!
Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Saturday, January 15, 2005I think it means they'd rather think for

themselves and make up their own minds and to break away from the stereotypical democrats who have actually become the majority of democratsDitto!


you 2 dr guy finally some democrats I can get behind//
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
spend everything to make us safe but we really aren't safer attitude.


did we have an attack by terrorist that I did not hear anything about after 9/11 ???
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
did we have an attack by terrorist that I did not hear anything about after 9/11 ???


must be that tiger bell we are ringing, we hadn't had a sucessful foreign act of terrorism in the states since the first attack on the twin towers in the early 90s. At that rate, Al Quada should strike again around 2009.

You still haven't told me what it means to get away from what the current Democratic party represents that these Southern legislators are getting away from. Republicans have common sense? Giving huge tax breaks to the rich, shifting the burden to those less prepared to take it and giving the majority of Americans a few hundred dollars bribe money is common sense? Giving tax breaks to huge corporations that are bleeding most Americans dry like the drug industry is common sense? Having every single reason for going to war debunked and then still saying it was a good idea is common sense? Going to war with enough troops to take ground but not to hold it is common sense?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
 whoman69 Well stated. The Georgian legislators have been terrorized by Zell Miller.
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
?????WTF?? What do you call 2001? A love in?


let me suggest reading comprehension. moderateman praised bush because there have been no acts of foreign terror on american soil since 2001, when in actuality the last one previous was the other attack on the towers. it brings up the story of the tiger bell for the people in the jungle who thought that ringing a bell would keep tigers away because whenever they ring the bell, the tigers stay away. it doesn't say anything about how rare a tiger attack is nor an attack on american soil.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #8 By: whoman69 - 1/15/2005 7:03:58 PM
did we have an attack by terrorist that I did not hear anything about after 9/11 ???



must be that tiger bell we are ringing, we hadn't had a sucessful foreign act of terrorism in the states since the first attack on the twin towers in the early 90s.


?????WTF?? What do you call 2001? A love in?
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: stevendedalusPosted: Sunday, January 16, 2005 whoman69 Well stated. The Georgian legislators have been terrorized by Zell Miller


sweet kind loveing zell? terroizing someone... who?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
You still haven't told me what it means to get away from what the current Democratic party represents that these Southern legislators are getting away from. Republicans have common sense? Giving huge tax breaks to the rich, shifting the burden to those less prepared to take it and giving the majority of Americans a few hundred dollars bribe money is common sense? Giving tax breaks to huge corporations that are bleeding most Americans dry like the drug industry is common sense? Having every single reason for going to war debunked and then still saying it was a good idea is common sense? Going to war with enough troops to take ground but not to hold it is common sense?


no need to get into all this whoman you KNOW ......what your present party stands for and you also KNOW my opinion of what they stand for lets try to remember I was registered dem. since 1968 till 2004 ok?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
how about you choose to believe bush is the devil incaranate and I choose to believe he is not..


this is for anyone that wants to believe bush is bad.... I feel and believe differently ok?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: whoman69Posted: Sunday, January 16, 2005


moderateman praised bush because there have been no acts of foreign terror on american soil since 2001


where do you see me praising bush??? all I did was STATE A FACT. and asked a question.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
?????WTF?? What do you call 2001? A love in?


let me suggest reading comprehension. moderateman praised bush because there have been no acts of foreign terror on american soil since 2001, when in actuality the last one previous was the other attack on the towers. it brings up the story of the tiger bell for the people in the jungle who thought that ringing a bell would keep tigers away because whenever they ring the bell, the tigers stay away. it doesn't say anything about how rare a tiger attack is nor an attack on american soil.


Really, doctor. Reading comprehension, some common sense and a little bit of mathematical skills might do you some good. Judging that the early-mid 90's are now a decade gone, it would be at least 2013 before a terrorist attack if we used mid 90's and today as the ammount of time between terror attacks. I believe whoman said 2009. That doesn't sound like a decade away. Hmm.. .well using my (apparently very advanced compared to yours) duduction skills, I realize whoman must have been refering to the distance between the first attack on the WTC and the second attack on the WTC as the expected time between each terror attack.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
The have 81 democrats in the state legislature and 40 of them have broken ties with what they call A party that NO LONGER REPRESENTS what the democratic party use to stand for.


Hmmm.. well the only thing that comes to mind when I see this is that these 40 democrats want to go back to the time when the democrat party represented the racist southerner. That was oh... I don't know, possibly back before desegregation. Now, that demographic has been catered to by the republican party.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: sandy2Posted: Sunday, January 16, 2005


Really, doctor. Reading comprehension, some common sense and a little bit of mathematical skills might do you some good. Judging that the early-mid 90's are now a decade gone, it would be at least 2013 before a terrorist attack if we used mid 90's and today as the ammount of time between terror attacks. I believe whoman said 2009. That doesn't sound like a decade away. Hmm.. .well using my (apparently very advanced compared to yours) duduction skills, I realize whoman must have been refering to the distance between the first attack on the WTC and the second attack on the WTC as the expected time between each terror attack.


as this is a PRIME example of how the left twists facts and other things to suit the perverse way of thinking , It does not call for any other comment..
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I just LOVE the way you lefties connect facts.. if it happened in deleware and des monies it will happen in denmark because it starts with a d too.

If it happen in 1700 then 1800 the 1900 then 2000 IT cannot possibly happen BEFORE 3000, Thats why I left the democratic party becaue you all have become so cynical and dense.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
as this is a PRIME example of how the left twists facts and other things to suit the perverse way of thinking , It does not call for any other comment..


Where did I twist anything when refering to Whoman's remark?
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hmmm.. well the only thing that comes to mind when I see this is that these 40 democrats want to go back to the time when the democrat party represented the racist southerner. That was oh... I don't know, possibly back before desegregation. Now, that demographic has been catered to by the republican party.


I think this qualifies as twisting...........
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
..
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Monday, January 17, 2005I think this qualifies as twisting...........Or at least twisted! lol


too cute ted..... maybe i should have added all forms of twist. twisted twisting twist twists did i miss any?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

let me suggest reading comprehension. moderateman praised bush because there have been no acts of foreign terror on american soil since 2001, when in actuality the last one previous was the other attack on the towers. it brings up the story of the tiger bell for the people in the jungle who thought that ringing a bell would keep tigers away because whenever they ring the bell, the tigers stay away. it doesn't say anything about how rare a tiger attack is nor an attack on american soil.

Not for want of trying.  Several were foiled, and others that were planned did not come off.  Mostly due to the fact of the response to 9-11.

ANd it is apparent after Somalia in 93, that OBL was emboldened.  And now just a craven coward.  You can deny all the empirical evidence you want, but MM's statement has more truth than your omission of evidence support him would have others believe.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

Really, doctor. Reading comprehension, some common sense and a little bit of mathematical skills might do you some good. Judging that the early-mid 90's are now a decade gone, it would be at least 2013 before a terrorist attack if we used mid 90's and today as the ammount of time between terror attacks. I believe whoman said 2009. That doesn't sound like a decade away. Hmm.. .well using my (apparently very advanced compared to yours) duduction skills, I realize whoman must have been refering to the distance between the first attack on the WTC and the second attack on the WTC as the expected time between each terror attack.

Better check your sources.  That WAS a response by Whoman.

Reply #24 from PolMach Forums Top
Not for want of trying. Several were foiled, and others that were planned did not come off. Mostly due to the fact of the response to 9-11.
ANd it is apparent after Somalia in 93, that OBL was emboldened. And now just a craven coward. You can deny all the empirical evidence you want, but MM's statement has more truth than your omission of evidence support him would have others believe.


there have been few and more plots were foiled under the clinton administration including a plot to blow up planes taking off from the west coast, assassination of President Clinton and more
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #25 By: whoman69 - 1/18/2005 11:15:39 AM
Not for want of trying. Several were foiled, and others that were planned did not come off. Mostly due to the fact of the response to 9-11.
ANd it is apparent after Somalia in 93, that OBL was emboldened. And now just a craven coward. You can deny all the empirical evidence you want, but MM's statement has more truth than your omission of evidence support him would have others believe.


there have been few and more plots were foiled under the clinton administration including a plot to blow up planes taking off from the west coast, assassination of President Clinton and more


and this takes away from the present adminastrations foiling plots today how?