Well worth the time and effort

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by RetiredGySgt, May 26, 2007.

  1. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,589
    Thanks Received:
    5,907
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,016
  2. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    my guess is, that if James Seale has been voting for republicans since Ronnie Reagan gave his great states rights speech in Philadelphia Mississippi - as I suspect he has, that the retired gunny has not been asking that his vote not be counted because he was a racist.
     
  3. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,589
    Thanks Received:
    5,907
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,016
    I suggest you go pound sand up your liberal ass. Last I checked the voting laws allow even dumb ass liberals and racists to vote. And until such time as convicted he will continue to have the right to vote. I further suggest you check his party affiliation at the time of the murders. And whom his "racists" ass voted for before those murders and after.

    Of the two of us, YOU, not me, has publicly posted on this board that the ends are all that matter. Any ally is acceptable to you as long as they vote for whom YOU support. Meanwhile the Republican party publicly booted the extreme right out and when another certain racist managed to run on a republican ticket the party tried to legally have his right to claim the party stripped, failing that they openly supported his opponent ( a democrat) and asked registered republicans to vote for anyone other than the racist.
     
  4. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    less than three years ago,the republican party glorified and honored the career of one of their senators who had run for president on the platform of racial segregation and banning interracial marriage. the republican party said, at his fete that America would be better off TODAY if we had elected a racist segregationist as president.

    Racists started getting the message that the DEMOCRATIC party was not the party for them as early as 1948 when Hubert Humphrey put them on notice with his national convention keynote address. Since then, they have pretty much abandoned my party for the open arms of your party....where you honor them.

    Like I said, you certainly would not turn away anyone's votes for republican candidates just because they were racists, so PUHLEEZE get off your fucking high horse about "the ends justify the means".
     
  5. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,589
    Thanks Received:
    5,907
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,016
    Once again your tirade is FULL of lies, mistruths and ignorance. I ask again, which of us has openly told someone that is supposedly one of their own, on this board, they were wrong? Which of us has posted that the ENDS are all that matter?

    As to the Senator in question, as I recall he PUBLICLY changed his views long before he retired. And as I recall he apologized for his poor opinion back then.

    When will Byrd apologize for having been a Grand Klegal of the KKK?

    Which of these parties, Republican or Democrat, has publicly booted extremists from the party, disallowing them to use the party machinary and title? Which of these parties has its members resign in SHAME when caught breaking the law or morals of the party? And which openly rallies to not only support the law breaker but to give them high offices in Congress and help get them reelected?
     
  6. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    Your assertions are absolutely devoid of merit or basis in fact. Oh, and did I mention baldly disingenuous? Thurmond committed all his sins as either a Democrat or a protest offshoot of the Democrat Party. By the time he switched to the Republican Party in 1964, civil rights was a done deal, and he fought it no more. Instead, he committed himself to the ideals of conservatism - specifically, strong national defense.

    The notion that the Republicans open their arms to racists is preposterous; PLEASE say it louder, and more often. It only reinforces what thinking people know already: the only hard, immutable truth in the Democrat ideal is political expediency. No sin perpetrated by those of its followers whom it deems useful is too heinous to ignore; no lie told about its enemy too bald or audacious.
     
  7. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572

    did you miss the fact that Lott said we would be a better country TODAY if we had elected Thurmond in '48?

    We would be a better country TODAY if, instead of Harry S. Truman, we had elected Strom Thurmond...a man who wanted to outlaw interracial marriage and codify segregation. Spin your way into explaining how that is not a racist sentiment.

    And as I said, the reason Thurmond ran as a Dixiecrat was that the democratic party put all racists on notice in 1948 - with the famous and stirring keynote address at the 1948 convention given by the young mayor of Minneapolis, Hubert Humphrey - that they should try and find another political party....and most of them did.


    contrast these two quotes:

    "The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadows of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights," Hubert Humphrey 1948


    "I believe in states' rights." Ronald Reagan 1980.

    and puhleeze don't tell me that "states rights" has not been a code word for segregation and racism since reconstruction...

    George Wallace, the Alabama governor who famously declared in his inaugural address, "Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!", later remarked that he should have said, "States' rights now! States' rights tomorrow! States' rights forever!"
     
  8. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    No - and neither did the Republican Party, which promptly threw Lott to the dogs.

    Do you mean to imply, sir, that I aspire to "spin artistry"? Your experience in debate with me should tell you otherwise. My approach is quite straightforward, as you should know very well by now.

    Perhaps Lott's remarks about Strom Thurmond were an attempt to show kindness to an old man on his 100th birthday. Then again, maybe they betrayed the heart of a racist. In the final analysis, it didn't matter; Republicans showing even the appearance of impropriety wind up under the bus. Lott is now the Senate Minority Whip for a party whose very relevance is in flux; he is a figurehead. He will never again wield any serious power in the GOP.

    Contrast this with our other illustrious party, circling the wagons around its perjurer, its drunk driver who leaves his hapless passenger to drown so he can swim home and beat a DUI charge, and - more to our present point - its Klan recruiter. You seek to portray the Republican Party as a haven for racists; I hereby declare that you don't have a leg to stand on. You'd better come up with something better than your tape loop of "Trent Lott" and "states' rights". We've established that Lott is an irrelevant buffoon, and we're going to deal with states' rights in about a hot minute.

    Please track, for us, the path of this exodus - detailing, of course, the party or parties to which these racists were dispatched, and the ascendancy they enjoyed within those new havens.

    I don't doubt one bit that Hubert Humphrey would have been emptyheaded enough to emit this feel-good spew. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, though, and assume he was cluelessly, idealistically advocating tyranny, rather than doing so with malicious intent. Maybe I'm being too kind.

    President Reagan was in good company - right alongside our founding fathers.

    Well, I hate to dis-puhleeze you, but states' rights is the foundation of our representative republican form of government. Take a gander at the Tenth Amendment and get back to me on this. And, check that "code word" paranoia at the door, while you're at it. Anybody who tries to sell you the notion that "states' rights" is a means of repression means you no good will. That's because that person is a tyrant. States' rights are our built-in constitutional protection against what central government - left unchecked - will become; MUST become. Human nature demands it. The U.S. Constitution is genius. Have enough respect for it to learn something about it, maineman.

    And how did George Wallace make out, trying that tack? I'll tell you how: not worth a shit. Segregation violates the law of the land; it is one of the very few instances where the federal government has the right and the duty to step in to the affairs of a state. But, then I can understand Wallace's confusion on the issue - look at which party he was with:

    George Corley Wallace, or officially George C. Wallace, Jr. (August 25, 1919 – September 13, 1998), was an American politician who was elected Governor of Alabama as a Democrat four times (1962, 1970, 1974 and 1982) and ran for U.S. President four times running as a Democrat in 1964, 1972, and 1976, and as the American Independent Party candidate in 1968. He is best known for his pro-segregation attitudes during the American desegregation period... - Wikipedia

    You're all confused, maineman. Here's an easy way to keep it straight in your mind: Republicans are the Party of Lincoln.
     
  9. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    what confuses me then is why nearly ninety percent of the descendants of the slaves that Abe Lincoln freed would be voting for the democratic party today. Do you think that, perhaps, the moral cores of institutions change over time? Do you think that black Americans realize that the party of Abe Lincoln has become the party of wealth and corporate influence? Do you think that just maybe the blacks in America are smart enough to figure out which way the wind blows?

    Republicans are the party of Lincoln, my ass. Abe is undoubtedly rolling over in his grave in Springfield even as I type.
     
  10. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,589
    Thanks Received:
    5,907
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,016
    Remind us which party prevented blacks from voting from 1866 to the 1960's again.

    Blacks vote for Democrats because Democrats have bribed them to do so. Remind us again which party started and continued the fight for equal rights. And if you claim it was the democratic party you are a bald face liar.

    Remind us which party calls any minority that supports the conservative cause as some derogatory racial term. Why is it when a conservative critizes a minority he or she is a racist but when a Liberal democrat calls conservative blacks "uncle toms" and other racial derogatory names it is just "political" speach?

    Remind us again which Presidents have appointed the MOST minorities to high positions in the Government. Which party has bad mouthed said minorities in high office?

    Remind us what the Black cacaus in the House of Representatives did when a black Republican served there? Let me remind you, they told him he was unwelcome and changed it to the Democratic black cacaus.
     

Share This Page