Black Christians vs. the democrat pary...

[billc]

This thread won't interest atheists much since it takes religion seriously...sooo...the biggest moment in recent political convention history may have happened at the democrat convention this year, you know, when the democrats as a party denounced God three times...kind of biblical. This video shows what might just be the beginning cracks in the black Christian and democrat party alliance.

​

​

 

[billc]

If democrats lose even a small percentage of the black or hispanic vote, their ability to win elections will be in danger. That is one of the reasons why they constantly accuse the Republicans, the party that freed the slaves and fought to pass the civil rights laws against democrat opposition, of being racists. Once that myth is over, the democrats are in real trouble. Unfortunately, it may be too late for this election cycle, and if obama wins this election it may very well be a moot point.

 

[geezer]

This thread won't interest atheists much since it takes religion seriously...sooo...the biggest moment in recent political convention history may have happened at the democrat convention this year, you know, when the democrats as a party denounced God three times...kind of biblical. This video shows what might just be the beginning cracks in the black Christian and democrat party alliance.

I guess you have to tune into the right-wing media to get these stories. I never heard anything about the Democrats denouncing God. And, I don't really see the relevance of a few right-wing black preachers to the African-American community as a whole. But who knows? Time will tell.

Anyway, can anyone tell me why is it that Republicans, or at least non-Democrats (like the guy in the video) always refer to the "Democrat Party"? This is something I here more and more often, but only from right-wingers. The Democrats belong to the "Democratic Party". Some may not like that name, but it is the name of their party. Look it up. And, if it's their party, they can call it what they want, right? So why do some persist in calling it something else?

Maybe it's like those people that try to say that they are the only ones who are Christian. Back when I was a kid, Christian meant a whole lot of people, not just the evangelical/fundamentalist/social conservatives who are trying to own the "brand" today.

 

[arnisador]

History aside, the Dems. have been leaders in civil rights, affirmative action, etc., for some time now.

Denouncing god three times at the convention? Because they didn't include references to religion in their platform? Is that what you mean? That's hardly denouncement.

 

[WC_lun]

You need to look up the word "denounce" Bill. Not including reference to God in the democratic party platform is not what it means. Not by a long shot. Since our government is for everyone, those that believe in God and those that don't, not really a huge deal. Not like they said in thier platform God doesn't exsist. National polls indicate blacks support Obama by a %100 to 0% margin, giving a margin of error around 3% for most polls. Even if the full margin of error is used, that doesn't look like much of a split from the Democratic party. So much for your astute poltical observations.

Oh, I almost forgot...I do take religioun seriously. I just don't take those that are so insecure in thier own beliefs that they must denigrate others or spout falsehoods very seriously.

 

[blindsage]

If democrats lose even a small percentage of the black or hispanic vote, their ability to win elections will be in danger. That is one of the reasons why they constantly accuse the Republicans, the party that freed the slaves and fought to pass the civil rights laws against democrat opposition, of being racists. Once that myth is over, the democrats are in real trouble. Unfortunately, it may be too late for this election cycle, and if obama wins this election it may very well be a moot point.

Keep having selective historical memory and black folks will keep voting in their own interests and you'll keep not understanding why.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

If democrats lose even a small percentage of the black or hispanic vote, their ability to win elections will be in danger. That is one of the reasons why they constantly accuse the Republicans, the party that freed the slaves and fought to pass the civil rights laws against democrat opposition, of being racists. Once that myth is over, the democrats are in real trouble. Unfortunately, it may be too late for this election cycle, and if obama wins this election it may very well be a moot point.

Just want to point out that the democrats aren't in danger of losing at least this election. According to nate silver, who statistically analyzes the chances for each candidate to win, and is normally very accurate (last year got 49/50 states correct) states that they(democrats) have a 97.8% chance of winning this election. Whether that's a good thing, I can't say either way, but it's how it currently is.
For nate silver's analysis, go to http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/ and click on 'president now-cast'

 

[elder999]

Billy, Billy, Billy...it seems like in four years, all you've learned about black pastors is that they sometimes say some crazy ****!

It's true-some of them say all kinds of crazy ****!

This dude is nuckin' futz!

]
:lfao:

And let's not forget about Rev. Wright.

never mind, let's forget him!

What about this guy, though? He's not even black!:lfao:

or this one:

or this one, who's only medium crazy:

Guess the only real lesson here is:give some people a pulpit, and they'll say some crazy ****! :lfao:

 

[Steve]

Anyway, can anyone tell me why is it that Republicans, or at least non-Democrats (like the guy in the video) always refer to the "Democrat Party"? This is something I here more and more often, but only from right-wingers. The Democrats belong to the "Democratic Party". Some may not like that name, but it is the name of their party. Look it up. And, if it's their party, they can call it what they want, right? So why do some persist in calling it something else?

It subtly emphasizes the "rat" at the end of the word. Guys like Limbaugh and Hannity use the term with emphasis on "rat."

But ultimately, it's just a political barb. Republicans and right wing pundits use the term for no real reason beyond that it irritates Democrats. Sort of like if your name is Kenneth and someone insists on calling you Kenny knowing that it bothers you.

For a short time, some liberal talk radio hosts used the term "Republican't" when referring to the GOP politicians.

 

[Tez3]

It subtly emphasizes the "rat" at the end of the word. Guys like Limbaugh and Hannity use the term with emphasis on "rat."

But ultimately, it's just a political barb. Republicans and right wing pundits use the term for no real reason beyond that it irritates Democrats. Sort of like if your name is Kenneth and someone insists on calling you Kenny knowing that it bothers you.

For a short time, some liberal talk radio hosts used the term "Republican't" when referring to the GOP politicians.

Well, that could definitely be worse if you change one of the vowels!

 

[Sukerkin]

Just what I was thinking, Tez :lol:.

 

[Steve]

I'm sure that in some areas, the pronunciation leaned that direction.

 

[billc]

More to do with this than anything else...

http://commonsensej.blogspot.com/2009/09/democrat-vs-democratic-and-other.html

The tendency with "ic" adjectives, when paired with another adjective form, is to go with the "ically" form as the stronger grammatical construct of an adverb modifying an adjective. But "Democratically," notwithstanding the capital D, then starts for some people to implicate derivatives of "democracy" in the broader sense than the party. (If you want to read an impassioned, down-and-dirty, name-calling argument over this,

check here.)

As for using "Democrat" to modify the modifier, we have numerous cases in English where the noun is used as a descriptive, so I'm not sure the declension is incorrect in this special case.

Let's think about a parallel using "robot." If the world were controlled by robots (OK, stop the comparison-with-journalists jokes), we might be more likely to say it was "robot-controlled" than "robotic-controlled," even though robotic is the adjective form. "Robotically-controlled" would actually be the better form, but it also has the connotation of something being controlled remotely from afar, not necessarily by robots.

A quick Google search of the terms (not dispositive, but enlightening), shows 168,000 entries for Democrat-controlled and 226,000 for Democratic-controlled. But the usage troubles me. (There are also 105,000 for Democratically controlled, but just eyeballing it, those appear to have a lot more white noise from entries referring to the form of government.)

 

[geezer]

Bill, I fully get what you are saying about the grammatical structures involved, but that really isn't the point. Right or wrong, the official name of that political party is the Democratic Party. If that's their chosen name, so be it. Just like your name... I believe it is Bill? ...so I won't be emulating certain individuals who persist in addressing you as "Billi" just to annoy you. On the other hand, you can make fun of my name "Steve" all you want. Maybe it'll annoy that other er ...impostor who posts on here, but I'm cool with whatever you guys want to say.

BTW, sorry if I'm going off on a tangent. Regarding the OP, I really don't have much to add that hasn't been said. I can't see many blacks switching party affiliations at this time. Some conservative friends of mine would agree with you though, insisting that most Jews, Blacks and Hispanics would find a better home in the Republican party. I just don't see it happenning anytime soon.

 

[billc]

Yes, I agree, there isn't time for sure this election or any election in the near future. Maybe one day that might change, but it will take quite a while and a little more soul searching on the part of christians who are part of the democrat party.

 

[elder999]

NSFW!

:lfao:

 

[WC_lun]

Did Ann Coulter REALLY think she was gonna go on the view, with very famous outspoken liberals, two of whom are also black, and spout her nonsense unchallenged?

 

[elder999]

Did Ann Coulter REALLY think she was gonna go on the view, with very famous outspoken liberals, two of whom are also black, and spout her nonsense unchallenged?

Gotta give her credit for returning to the lion's den-she actually knew exactly what she was in for; she's been on the show before......still, her particular brand of crazy is kind of volatile in certain circumstances, like tossing sodium in water!

 

[Carol]

Gotta give her credit for returning to the lion's den-she actually knew exactly what she was in for; she's been on the show before......still, her particular brand of crazy is kind of volatile in certain circumstances, like tossing sodium in water!

Except tossing sodium in water is fun to watch....


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[WC_lun]

I suppose it createss contreversy, which sells books. I think that is probably Ms Coulter's bottom line anyway.