Tom Delay says Democrats have no class

[CaseyRyback]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050513/ap_on_go_co/delay_dinner_9

WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom DeLay (news, bio, voting record) fired back at Democrats raising ethics questions about him, telling a crowd of conservative activists that the GOP's opponents have no ideas and "no class." The House majority leader's supporters — among them a dozen conservative organizations — staged a high-profile show of support by throwing a $250-a-plate gala in his honor Thursday night that brought roughly 900 people to the Capital Hilton.

When the Texas Republican took the stage after other speakers had hailed him for his leadership in the Republican Party and the House, he made only a passing reference to the problems that have sparked calls for an ethics probe, joking that one speaker's anecdote had tipped reporters off to another foreign trip he took.

Instead, DeLay told the crowd that as Republicans helped Americans find jobs and helped the country recover from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Democrats offered the country nothing.

"No ideas. No leadership. No agenda. And, just in the last week, we can now add to that list, no class," DeLay said in a reference to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid's remark to school children that President Bush was "a loser." Reid later apologized to Bush adviser Karl Rove.

The ethics questions DeLay faces from Democrats and other critics stem in part from foreign travel arranged by Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist accused of defrauding clients of millions of dollars.

DeLay has asked the House ethics committee to review his travel records. He has portrayed the ethics questions raised about him as a Democratic-organized smear campaign, a message that went over well with conservative activists at the gala.

"I think the message tonight is, if they pick a fight with Tom DeLay, they pick a fight with all of us," Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said.

The crowd dined on filet mignon and salmon and a dessert of red-white-and-blue frosted cake decorated with candy hammers, a reference to the nickname DeLay earned when he was House majority whip.

Several protesters shouted outside the hotel, some holding signs reading "Congress can't police itself" and "Congress — owned and operated by Tom DeLay."

Rep. Tom Feeney (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., while defending DeLay, said he thinks tighter ethics rules are inevitable. He supports a proposal to make lawmakers and congressional aides get their trips vetted by the ethics panel before they travel.

"We need going forward to have rules that are less gray and ambiguous and more black and white," Feeney said.

Several other congressional Republicans also attended the gala, including House Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were not invited, but Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman was there and sat at the head table with DeLay.

 

[atreyue]

[quote name='CaseyRyback']Instead, DeLay told the crowd that as Republicans helped Americans find jobs and helped the country recover from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Democrats offered the country nothing.

"No ideas. No leadership. No agenda. And, just in the last week, we can now add to that list, no class," DeLay said in a reference to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid's remark to school children that President Bush was "a loser." Reid later apologized to Bush adviser Karl Rove.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, I can't see where he's wrong here. What solutions are democrats trtying to offer for anything? Spending all your time trying to trip up your opposition only shows just how much you really care about getting the job done, and it weakens the party whether or not the criticisms are valid.

Not that the republicans wouldn't be doing the same thing if they had lost the election...

 

[Drocket]

The fact that the Republicans are in power is proof that it works. They spent a good 20 years as the minority party, during which they did nothing but try to make Democrats look bad, until finally the Republicans looked like the lesser of two evils.

 

[alonzomourning23]

seems like I made a double post

 

[alonzomourning23]

I still think one of the dumbest insults was the "girlie man" one by arnold.

 

[ZarathosNY]

This is pretty funny considering how Delay is the biggest sleaze-bag in Congress.

 

[dmpolska]

Girlie man comment was fine, since, infact most democrats ARE girlie men.

Democrats have no class? This is new news?

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='dmpolska']Girlie man comment was fine, since, infact most democrats ARE girlie men.

Democrats have no class? This is new news?[/QUOTE]

Ya, insults are only stupid when they apply to me!

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='dmpolska']Girlie man comment was fine, since, infact most democrats ARE girlie men.

Democrats have no class? This is new news?[/QUOTE]

If by girlie men you mean Democrats are grown men who don't wear bowties and get plenty of hollywood girls, then yes, Democrats are girlie men.

Ahh the new Republican party. Working hard to put the ASS back in Class.

 

[zionoverfire]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Ya, insults are only stupid when they apply to me![/QUOTE]

Well you could claim to be an athiest and he'll put you on ignore.

Or wait until he decides you are an athiest.

 

[E-Z-B]

 

[Rich]

[quote name='E-Z-B']

[/QUOTE]

 

[Ozzkev55]

I believe Democratic Liberal Politicians, are not so much without class, as they are more lively than an aged republican, but they are without personal values, and say whatever it takes to win. Republicans stand by there stories, but will leave out certain information, to verify their side of the story

 

[Rich]

[quote name='Ozzkev55']I believe Democratic Liberal Politicians, are not so much without class[/QUOTE]

 

[Ozzkev55]

[quote name='Rich']

[/QUOTE]
wouldnt that be white conservative extremist?

 

[Rich]

[quote name='Ozzkev55']wouldnt that be white conservative extremist?[/QUOTE]

Besides him being a liberal democrat senator? You know, the guy who used the phrase "white $$$$$$" TWICE on TV? You know, the guy who recruited people to be int he KKK.


Had he been a Republican, he would have been ripped to shreds and would have had to resign within days. But no, Democrats are the party or racial understanding and tolerance, so he can say "$$$$$$" on national tv in 2001.

Or maybe [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

But this guy will be in the Senate until he dies.
[/font]

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='Rich']Besides him being a liberal democrat senator? You know, the guy who used the phrase "white $$$$$$" TWICE on TV? You know, the guy who recruited people to be int he KKK.


Had he been a Republican, he would have been ripped to shreds and would have had to resign within days. But no, Democrats are the party or racial understanding and tolerance, so he can say "$$$$$$" on national tv in 2001.

Or maybe [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

But this guy will be in the Senate until he dies.
[/font][/QUOTE]

One of the main problems is this guy has publicly renounced his past and, in the senate, has made repeated denouncements of racism. Guys such as lott can't say that. Whatever he really believes, his actions are different.

 

[Rich]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']One of the main problems is this guy has publicly renounced his past and, in the senate, has made repeated denouncements of racism. Guys such as lott can't say that. Whatever he really believes, his actions are different.[/QUOTE]

How about in 1964 when he filibustered the Civil Rights Act or when he opposed the appointments of BOTH black Supreme Court Justices, Marshall and Thomas. His racism has effected his time in the Senate, regardless of whether or not he denounces it.

And I'm off to work.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='Rich']How about in 1964 when he filibustered the Civil Rights Act or when he opposed the appointments of BOTH black Supreme Court Justices, Marshall and Thomas. His racism has effected his time in the Senate, regardless of whether or not he denounces it.

And I'm off to work.[/QUOTE]


Hmmm..... let's see, 1964, wasn't that like 41 years ago? Reread my post please:

One of the main problems is this guy has publicly renounced his past and, in the senate, has made repeated denouncements of racism. Guys such as lott can't say that. Whatever he really believes, his actions are different.

don't get much more past than that

And besides, he opposed the appointment of black justices, so your argument is anyone who opposes the appointment of minority is practicing discrimination, and they should be judged solely on the color of their skin, correct?

 

[Quackzilla]

Wow, Rich, you are such a cunt.

You say something and link to a photoshopped picture as evidence.

 

[Rich]

[quote name='Quackzilla']Wow, Rich, you are such a cunt.

You say something and link to a photoshopped picture as evidence.[/QUOTE]

Evidence? The picture was a ing joke about Byrd being in the KKK, dumbass. Where the did I point to the picture as evidence?

And besides, he opposed the appointment of black justices, so your argument is anyone who opposes the appointment of minority is practicing discrimination, and they should be judged solely on the color of their skin, correct?

When all the liberals do is talk about how they are the party for minorities and they work for minority rights, then yes, he deserves ridicule.

And he opposed their appointments because he hates black people. I can't fathom how anyone can argue that Senator Byrd isn't racist.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='Rich']Evidence? The picture was a ing joke about Byrd being in the KKK, dumbass. Where the did I point to the picture as evidence?



[/i]When all the liberals do is talk about how they are the party for minorities and they work for minority rights, then yes, he deserves ridicule.

And he opposed their appointments because he hates black people. I can't fathom how anyone can argue that Senator Byrd isn't racist.[/QUOTE]

thurgood marshall was appointed in 1967, his opposition would be well in the past and, since we're talking about recent actions and if he's changed, have no bearing on this discussion. Clarence thomas is a very conservative judge, not exactly someone a democrat would normally support. Your suggestion that, because a party claims to support minorities, they should be a rubber stamp for any judge who happens not to be white is ridiculous, and would be a disservice to all races. And my whole point is, in his votes and his public support, he is a different person and has renounced his past. I said whether he is actually still racist is not the point, when it really counts his more recent history says otherwise, and his actions have not been discriminatory for a while. If you look at the history of a man such as lott, where is the disconnect? Where is the real reversal of his previous stances? There is a gradual moderation but one that appears more a moderation of necessity, than an actual stance against discrimination, as byrd has taken in recent years. The statements byrd made are in character with who he was, but out of character with who he has become, the same cannot be said for lott. Also, calling someone a "white $$$$$$" isn't quite as clear (he has stated he was using the term to mean ignorant, I don't know if I buy that or not) as stating a country would have avoided all these problems if a segregationist (and remember, lott was an ardent segregationist in his past) had become president in 1948. Neither is excusable, and both could very well show racism still exists in those people, but if you look at the more recent history of byrd, there is a very real disconnect with his past. That is why the controversy didn't ruin him.

 

[Sarang01]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']thurgood marshall was appointed in 1967, his opposition would be well in the past and, since we're talking about recent actions and if he's changed, have no bearing on this discussion. Clarence thomas is a very conservative judge, not exactly someone a democrat would normally support. Your suggestion that, because a party claims to support minorities, they should be a rubber stamp for any judge who happens not to be white is ridiculous, and would be a disservice to all races. And my whole point is, in his votes and his public support, he is a different person and has renounced his past. I said whether he is actually still racist is not the point, when it really counts his more recent history says otherwise, and his actions have not been discriminatory for a while. If you look at the history of a man such as lott, where is the disconnect? Where is the real reversal of his previous stances? There is a gradual moderation but one that appears more a moderation of necessity, than an actual stance against discrimination, as byrd has taken in recent years. The statements byrd made are in character with who he was, but out of character with who he has become, the same cannot be said for lott. Also, calling someone a "white $$$$$$" isn't quite as clear (he has stated he was using the term to mean ignorant, I don't know if I buy that or not) as stating a country would have avoided all these problems if a segregationist (and remember, lott was an ardent segregationist in his past) had become president in 1948. Neither is excusable, and both could very well show racism still exists in those people, but if you look at the more recent history of byrd, there is a very real disconnect with his past. That is why the controversy didn't ruin him.[/QUOTE]

Here's how the game works to you IDIOTS who don't get it and I don't mean you at all in this statement Alonzo, I'm just linking to your mention of Clarence Thomas.
Whenever the Pubs call Democrats RACIST for not supporting a Black Republican it's mainly for one reason. Could that reason be that most ALL of them are hard Right Conservatives? I don't care what color you are, if you're hard Right you will find me VERY hard pressed to vote for you. Look at Alan Keyes, this man is BLACK and hearing or reading some of the shit from his mouth made me think he was the Republicans new Jesse Helms and he's BLACK. Republicans basically want to call Dems racist for this so while people are distracted or agree with them without thinking the Republicans can force or squeeze their hard Right agenda(Bushes) into the Supreme Court or other powerful government positions.

 

[Rich]

[quote name='Sarang01']Here's how the game works to you IDIOTS who don't get it and I don't mean you at all in this statement Alonzo, I'm just linking to your mention of Clarence Thomas.
Whenever the Pubs call Democrats RACIST for not supporting a Black Republican it's mainly for one reason. Could that reason be that most ALL of them are hard Right Conservatives? I don't care what color you are, if you're hard Right you will find me VERY hard pressed to vote for you. Look at Alan Keyes, this man is BLACK and hearing or reading some of the shit from his mouth made me think he was the Republicans new Jesse Helms and he's BLACK. Republicans basically want to call Dems racist for this so while people are distracted or agree with them without thinking the Republicans can force or squeeze their hard Right agenda(Bushes) into the Supreme Court or other powerful government positions.[/QUOTE]

And your excuse for Thurgood Marshall?

 

[GuilewasNK]

[quote name='Quackzilla']Wow, Rich, you are such a cunt.

You say something and link to a photoshopped picture as evidence.[/QUOTE]

That was classy. *see sig*

 

[Rich]

[quote name='GuilewasNK']That was classy. *see sig*[/QUOTE]

Some people can't talk about politics without personal insults. Being a right leaning moderate, I got used to the insults a long time ago. I think every video game site ever is liberal, probably because most people on the sites are either a) too young to care or b) in or recently out of college.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']thurgood marshall was appointed in 1967, his opposition would be well in the past and, since we're talking about recent actions and if he's changed, have no bearing on this discussion. Clarence thomas is a very conservative judge, not exactly someone a democrat would normally support. Your suggestion that, because a party claims to support minorities, they should be a rubber stamp for any judge who happens not to be white is ridiculous, and would be a disservice to all races. And my whole point is, in his votes and his public support, he is a different person and has renounced his past. I said whether he is actually still racist is not the point, when it really counts his more recent history says otherwise, and his actions have not been discriminatory for a while. If you look at the history of a man such as lott, where is the disconnect? Where is the real reversal of his previous stances? There is a gradual moderation but one that appears more a moderation of necessity, than an actual stance against discrimination, as byrd has taken in recent years. The statements byrd made are in character with who he was, but out of character with who he has become, the same cannot be said for lott. Also, calling someone a "white $$$$$$" isn't quite as clear (he has stated he was using the term to mean ignorant, I don't know if I buy that or not) as stating a country would have avoided all these problems if a segregationist (and remember, lott was an ardent segregationist in his past) had become president in 1948. Neither is excusable, and both could very well show racism still exists in those people, but if you look at the more recent history of byrd, there is a very real disconnect with his past. That is why the controversy didn't ruin him.[/QUOTE]

Alonzo, you can't really believe that Lott's praise of Strom Thurmond means he favors a return to segregation. If you know anything about the Senate, you know that senators like to smother each other with praise as a rule, especially those who are friends/allies/in the same party. It's the same thing as Democratic senators like Chris Dodd praising Byrd. What I'm saying is that Lott's comment which cost him his position as majority leader was poorly thought out, but I have a very hard time believing he meant it in the way liberals have portrayed it.

 

[GuilewasNK]

[quote name='Rich']Some people can't talk about politics without personal insults. Being a right leaning moderate, I got used to the insults a long time ago. I think every video game site ever is liberal, probably because most people on the sites are either a) too young to care or b) in or recently out of college.[/QUOTE]

I am a independant moderate myself. If people lean more to left or the right that is fine with me. It just amazes me when people want their opinion taken seriously then spew personal insults. I listen to some political radio and when the hosts seem to start "liking the sound of their own voice" instead of just being thoughtful or insightful I turn it off (Neil Boortz get like that sometimes as does Bill O'Reilly). Some humor is fine as long as it is actually funny.

As a black person, Trent Lotts comments didn't offend me in the slightest but what I see as important and what others see as important are different thing perhaps.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='elprincipe']Alonzo, you can't really believe that Lott's praise of Strom Thurmond means he favors a return to segregation. If you know anything about the Senate, you know that senators like to smother each other with praise as a rule, especially those who are friends/allies/in the same party. It's the same thing as Democratic senators like Chris Dodd praising Byrd. What I'm saying is that Lott's comment which cost him his position as majority leader was poorly thought out, but I have a very hard time believing he meant it in the way liberals have portrayed it.[/QUOTE]

I don't really know, but I think he was a racist and I do think he would have wanted at least a weaker civil rights movement. And, again, I don't know of any real change he underwent beyond what was necessary, though maybe someone could post something otherwise. I just would think that, if he really did change dramatically, there would be something more evident, not just what was required, to indicate that. Maybe one of the reasons it isn't obvious is because he was a segregationist, but had no real label you could apply to him, unlike byrd (klansmen), and didn't really need to make it as obvious.