Quoting:





He should drop the failed attempt at comedy, and stick to...well...whatever it is he does for a living. :)
End Quote

he should stick to his failure at everything else.......


he was pretty darn bad....did you see how many times he messed up? and how bout how many words he mispronounced?  Apparently , Harvey FIREstein is on Broadway, and Michael Jackson is not a pedIFILL (which he said twice)

Quoting:
Didn't see it...it's not time yet.

But then again it might be blacked out in CA since he's trying to run for a Prez spot here ::)
End Quote

hes trying to run for President everywhere  ::)



Sacramento is in for a surprise lol

Quoting:
I wasn't able to watch because of "equal time" restrictions in Iowa!  I'm sure I didn't miss much though.  :)
End Quote

oh man oh man oh man...they let you guys have it good....during Weekend Update theey decided to make fun of all the Cities (and states) that blacked out the show (since they wont see it anyway).....Des Moines Iowa was called a few bad words, Sacramento, Nashville, Meemphis, Rochester, and the whole state of Oklahoma were made fun of pretty bad...but the worst was Boston.....they claimed that they didnt air the show because they just hate blacks up there......

Quoting:

It was just plain awful.  I mean, at least Al Bore was somewhat funny when he hosted. :D
End Quote

I liked when he was in the college dorm room and talking smack to Phish ;D

Quoting:


I liked when he was in the college dorm room and talking smack to Phish ;D
End Quote

Oh yea, that was great.

As much as I think Al Gore is the "Prude of the Century", he was a good host on SNL.

Quoting:
I dunno, I thought the 3 black Wise Men getting pulled over by the Roman camel cop was hilarious.  That was classic SNL.  It was Sharpton, but the idea of the skit was just so freaking funny.  

But then again, that was the only skit I saw, and I didn't see Sharpton's monologue or Weekend Update....so I don't know how awful the rest of the show was.  But the 3 Wise Men skit...that was a good one.
End Quote

funny.. I saw that and figured it was time to turn off the TV.  It was a funny concept, but none of the actors seemed all that competent at executing it

Quoting:
oh man oh man oh man...they let you guys have it good....during Weekend Update theey decided to make fun of all the Cities (and states) that blacked out the show (since they wont see it anyway).....Des Moines Iowa was called a few bad words, Sacramento, Nashville, Meemphis, Rochester, and the whole state of Oklahoma were made fun of pretty bad...but the worst was Boston.....they claimed that they didnt air the show because they just hate blacks up there......
End Quote

Wow, that sounded hilarious...or not.

Quoting:
Al Sharpton is no comedic genious, but he's a democrat and a minority......and that irritates the flag waving republican sloths in this thread!
End Quote

Thank goodness he's a Democrat ;)

Quoting:
but of course you'd love for him to be a republican, that way maybe you'd get more than .1% of the black vote every year. He will be out supporting the Dem candidate, and registering new voters, and that is a threat to Bush.
End Quote

I'm not so sure he's as big of an impact on the black community as people say, but okay :)

Quoting:
but of course you'd love for him to be a republican, that way maybe you'd get more than .1% of the black vote every year. He will be out supporting the Dem candidate, and registering new voters, and that is a threat to Bush.
End Quote

well, if it makes you feel any better:  I'm a Republican, and think Sharpton is an idiot.  And would not want him in my party.  He's a race-bater, and exploits racism to fill his bank account (just like Jesse Jackson).  

So as far as I'm concerned, the Dems can keep him (although it seems they haven't quite claimed him either  ;)),

Quoting:
but of course you'd love for him to be a republican, that way maybe you'd get more than .1% of the black vote every year. He will be out supporting the Dem candidate, and registering new voters, and that is a threat to Bush.
End Quote

Actually Sharpton is MUCH more of a threat to the Dems than the Repubs.  The Dem primary has NUMEROUS candidates, and because of this all the Dem candidates are busy tearing each other down.

The Repubs have but one candidate so the focus is on winning the election.

Also please note that Pres Bush's record is such that he has placed more minorities, in higher echelons of power, than any other president, Republican OR Democrat.

(This is where Dems step in and accuse Colin Powell and Condy Rice of being Uncle Toms or House N*ggers . )

Quoting:
Did anyone catch the sketch where Al Gore played Willy Wonka's brother/accountant?

Oompa Loompas:  Oompa loompa doopity doo, I've got the third quarter earnings for you!
Gore:  Guys, cut to the chase.
Oompa Loompa:  Uh... (flips through report)... we're oompa loompa doopity screwed.
End Quote

Al Gore would have made a great agent in the Matrix trilogy.

Quoting:
anyone see the latst polls conducted by some university (I forget which)...the polls said, it doesnt matter who the dem canditate is, the majority of americans polled still would vote Bush in
End Quote

It seems that ever since 1968, the Democrats have had a lot of extreme candidates running, mostly in order to get an agenda they have on the campaign plank.  That has done little other then splintering the party from my observation.

As a consiquence, you end up with totally unelectable people running in the main election.  Look at McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale, and Gore.  With people like Jackson and Sharpton making them make promises that does not engender them to the main population.

On the Republican side, you rarely see such people so far from the main stream.  David Duke is the only one I can think of since Barry Goldwater that had any kind of serious attention payed to.

The result of this fragmentation is largely a Democrat in between long term Republican terms.  Jimmy Carter was the only Democrat in the middle of 20 years of Republican office holders.  California tends to be the same way with Governors.  They get an extreeme Democrat in, and once he leaves office, they stick with Republicans for 2-4 terms.

After Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, Republicans had the Governor's office for 16 years.  After 6 years of Grey Davis, they ousted him for another Republican.

THe problem I think is the often extreemist people that capture some of the attention.  Once they get in, they upset so many people, that their core group can't save them from themselves.  Maybe someday the Democrats will wise up and go back to a single party, like they had with Trueman and FDR.  Until then, I expect to just see more Democrats sandwiched between Republicans.

Quoting:


I'm not so sure he's as big of an impact on the black community as people say, but okay :)
End Quote

Quoting:


It seems that ever since 1968, the Democrats have had a lot of extreme candidates running, mostly in order to get an agenda they have on the campaign plank.  That has done little other then splintering the party from my observation.

As a consiquence, you end up with totally unelectable people running in the main election.  Look at McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale, and Gore.  With people like Jackson and Sharpton making them make promises that does not engender them to the main population.

On the Republican side, you rarely see such people so far from the main stream.  David Duke is the only one I can think of since Barry Goldwater that had any kind of serious attention payed to.

The result of this fragmentation is largely a Democrat in between long term Republican terms.  Jimmy Carter was the only Democrat in the middle of 20 years of Republican office holders.  California tends to be the same way with Governors.  They get an extreeme Democrat in, and once he leaves office, they stick with Republicans for 2-4 terms.

After Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, Republicans had the Governor's office for 16 years.  After 6 years of Grey Davis, they ousted him for another Republican.

THe problem I think is the often extreemist people that capture some of the attention.  Once they get in, they upset so many people, that their core group can't save them from themselves.  Maybe someday the Democrats will wise up and go back to a single party, like they had with Trueman and FDR.  Until then, I expect to just see more Democrats sandwiched between Republicans.
End Quote

My personal opinion is that Republicans tend to play a vicious hardball style of politics...i.e., Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly...the Fox News Channel.  From 1972 to 1992 the Democrats offered nothing but weak candidates who could not match the hardball in your face tactics of Republicans.  Yes I know Jimmy Carter won in 1976, but the guy was a rather weak President, and he was in the mold of the push overs like the George McGoverns, Walter Mondales, and Michael Dukakiss.

Then FINALLY in 1992 comes a strong Democratic canididate,....Bill Clinton.  A guy that could dish it out and give just as much as he would get.  Repubs may not want to admit this, but I always felt that a huge reason they hated Clinton was because for 20 years they had their way with weak push over Democrats, and then when they ran into a Democrat like Clinton that could stand up to them and handle political enemies like a pro...they just really resented it.

I really don't care about Al Sharpton.  Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are just loudmouth guys that don't really represent the Black community in America.  I also personally believe that Republicans secretly love both Sharpton and Jackson.  They love them because everytime either one of those morons opens their big mouth and says something stupid, it makes the whole Democratic/liberal party look bad.  

Quoting:
Then FINALLY in 1992 comes a strong Democratic canididate,....Bill Clinton.  A guy that could dish it out and give just as much as he would get.  Repubs may not want to admit this, but I always felt that a huge reason they hated Clinton was because for 20 years they had their way with weak push over Democrats, and then when they ran into a Democrat like Clinton that could stand up to them and handle political enemies like a pro...they just really resented it.
End Quote

Actually, that has nothing to do with my opinion of him.  There are a lot of Democrats I liked and respected, but would not vote for.  I actually considered voting for Gary Hart, before his candidacy went down in flames.

I tend to vote the candidate and his policies.  I am conservative by belief, and for the most part, that means Republican.  But I diverge on several issues.  If a conservative Democrat runs for office, I may well vote for them again.

Quoting:
There is also the issue of the racist Southern Democrats or Dixiecrats that switched parties and turned into Republicans after the Democrats vomited out the bigotry that infested them,...but that is probably another thread.
End Quote

And as for the "Dixiecrat", that was not about race, but philosophy and the history of the Democratic party.  The "South" has almost always been a very conservative region of the nation.  Remember in 1860, the Republicans were the new radical party that wanted change and reform, it was the Democrats that formed to keep things the way they were, and keep slavery.

Southern Democrats have always been conservative, and most of them left the Democrats because of many policies they started to take up.  Race was a part for some of them, but it was also the new welfare state that Lyndon Johnson was trying to bring about, the way that the forced bussing made some students take excessively long rides to and from school, how Federal money (expecially Highway budgets) were spent, and other issues.  (do not think I agree with all of these issues, but they were big parts of the Dixiecrat cause).

That the Dixiecrats largely became Republicans is ideology.  This was a base that was Conservative, but went to the Democrats over the slavery issue 100 years before.  But by then, the fact that the Democrats were originally a Pro-slavery party was lost to history.  The 1960's were a time where history was rewriting itself.

As for bigotry, a lot of people forgot that a lot of the earliest and most sweeping race legislature was started by Dwight D. Eisenhower.  RIchard Nixon also did a lot for equality, and other issues (like drug addiction) that are normally considered "Democrat" policies.

Quoting:
And as for the "Dixiecrat", that was not about race, but philosophy and the history of the Democratic party.  The "South" has almost always been a very conservative region of the nation.  Remember in 1860, the Republicans were the new radical party that wanted change and reform, it was the Democrats that formed to keep things the way they were, and keep slavery.

Southern Democrats have always been conservative, and most of them left the Democrats because of many policies they started to take up.  Race was a part for some of them, but it was also the new welfare state that Lyndon Johnson was trying to bring about, the way that the forced bussing made some students take excessively long rides to and from school, how Federal money (expecially Highway budgets) were spent, and other issues.  (do not think I agree with all of these issues, but they were big parts of the Dixiecrat cause).

That the Dixiecrats largely became Republicans is ideology.  This was a base that was Conservative, but went to the Democrats over the slavery issue 100 years before.  But by then, the fact that the Democrats were originally a Pro-slavery party was lost to history.  The 1960's were a time where history was rewriting itself.

As for bigotry, a lot of people forgot that a lot of the earliest and most sweeping race legislature was started by Dwight D. Eisenhower.  RIchard Nixon also did a lot for equality, and other issues (like drug addiction) that are normally considered "Democrat" policies.
End Quote

Thats very well put.


I think in the last 30 years people have just looked at Democrats as the party who help minorites, and Republicans as the racists.

But in reality, it is so far from the truth.

The way I see it, the Dems have pandered to minorites so much and so extreme that its almost become a joke.  They have made it a point to be the "party of the minority".

Whereas Republicans, such as Nixon and most recently Bush Jr., haven't shamelessly pandered to minorities.  I mean look at Bush.  2 of the top officials in his administration are black.  That is unprecidented.  He chose them because they were the most qualified, not because they were a minority.

Dems seem to pander and cater to minorities because those same people think they are being better benefited by them...and of course, the Dems know they will get their votes. ::)

Quoting:
I think in the last 30 years people have just looked at Democrats as the party who help minorites, and Republicans as the racists.
End Quote

Well, I think you said it quite clearly.  The Democrats pander to people.  (Personally, I prefer "Liberal" in cases like that, but most Democrats are Liberals, and vice-versa).  In much the same way, we do not support affirmitave action, ERA, or any such legislation.

Instead, most of us prefer to just put in anti-discrimination laws, and let the legal system deal with that.  Why have laws to protect blacks, hispanics, women, Asians, jews, gays, etc?  Just put in a single anti-discromination alw and make it illegal, period.

Myself, I do not care what ancestry somebody is, or their orientation, or anything else.  I am a straight white republican male.  My best friends in the world are a gay film maker in LA and a lesbian female here in Alabama.  My ex wife was an illegal alien from South America when I first met her.  My best friend in High School was black.  So what?

I never looked at them as anything as people.  Because that is what they are, and that is all that matters to me.  I am against "gay marriage" on a religious ground, but am *NOT* against the creation of a firm "domestic partners" law to protect them.  (I was in favor of it, until I heard about groups that were going to sue churches that refused to marry them, and that turned me again the term "marriage").

I myself, I pander to nobody.  If somebody wants help and honestly works for it, I will give them the shirt off my back.  If somebody wants me to feel sorry for them because of something 140 years ago, go away and stop wasting my time.

I think 15 years ago, 99% had almost forgotten the effects of slavery.  But more and more recently I hear about the modern effects of it.  I mean, come on!  It was a dead institution 40 years before my Great-grandfather was even born!  How am I responsible for that?

Quoting:If somebody wants me to feel sorry for them because of something 140 years ago, go away and stop wasting my time.

I think 15 years ago, 99% had almost forgotten the effects of slavery.  But more and more recently I hear about the modern effects of it.  I mean, come on!  It was a dead institution 40 years before my Great-grandfather was even born!  How am I responsible for that?
End Quote

Exactly.

I feel the same way.

People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson use things like slavery to further divide the races, and therefore keep themselves in business.  I simply lose interest and turn the channel whenever I see/hear Jesse or Al anymore.  Its pretty much guaranteed that its going to be a racial statement.

Whats ironic is that both Sharpton and Jackson try to portray themselves as "furthering the cause" of people like Martin Luther King.  Yet in all reality, in my opinion, have taken King's "dream" about 20 years in reverse, rather than forward.

Quoting:
Whats ironic is that both Sharpton and Jackson try to portray themselves as "furthering the cause" of people like Martin Luther King.  Yet in all reality, in my opinion, have taken King's "dream" about 20 years in reverse, rather than forward.
End Quote

I agree 100%!!!!

I am a big believer of Dr. King, and he is one of my heros.  He believed in integrating all people, reguardless of creed or color.  Jackson and Sharpton just want another handout.

It seems that they feel that unless "Big Brother Government" gives them a handout, they CAN'T compete with whites.  I feel that is *SO* wrong!  It is doing them a disservice, and belittles those that succede on their own.

Look in the military, that is a perfect example.  Of new recruits, there are more blacks then the national average.  And in the higher enlisted ranks, there are a large number of blacks serving.  They got there on their own, with no help from anybody.  No special programs, just their own work and integrity.

Granted, shows like "60 minutes" shows how there is discrimination, by looking at the officers.  But that is not fare, look at ENLISTED for real facts.  After all, how many black (or any other race) after finishing 4-8 years of college, after being told they can make $40k+ a year, choose to work for $20k a year in the military?

Add to it what a lot of the colleges teach nowadays.  I actually took a "black studies" course once, and was told I was to blame for everything in history.  But then again, I was also told of my oppression of women when I took a female studies course.

:)