Well worth the time and effort

[RetiredGySgt]

These old cases are well worth it. The time and effort put in now to see justice done after 40 years and a total lack of Justice at the time. If this is politics, I am all for it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070526/ap_on_re_us/murders_cold_case

 

[maineman]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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.

 

[maineman]

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".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

 

[musicman]

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.

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.

 

[maineman]

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.

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!"

 

[musicman]

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

No - and neither did the Republican Party, which promptly threw Lott to the dogs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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

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

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.

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!"

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.

 

[maineman]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ted Rall is a Liberal democrat, I suggest you check out some of his "political" cartoons. And then remind us how the ends justify any means.

 

[Gunny]

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".

I'm going to stick my two cents in on this one. The Republican party did not "glorify" Thurmond. They gave the man a birthday party and thanked him for his service.

You're mixing and matching to suit your argument. Saying America would have been better off had he been elected President was playing to partisan politics, not the fact that the ENTIRE UNITED STATES at the time was segregated, and Southern Democrats were every bit as racist if not moreso than Republicans. The racist context was added by the left, AFTER THE FACT where it did not exist.

 

[musicman]

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.

Maybe they're being played like Stradivari by a party which continues to hate, devalue, and cynically manipulate them.

Do you think that, perhaps, the moral cores of institutions change over time?

I'd say the red/blue demographic - as we understand it today - has held pretty consistently for at least the last century. As I stated before, the Constitution is genius; our founders foresaw the respective proclivities of the urban and rural voter - and made provisions for the protection of representative government, via the electoral college.

The Democrats are the party of the big city voter - the party of government largesse; of confiscation and redistribution of wealth through taxation; beholden to coercive labor unions and an ever-growing recipient constituency.

Republicans attract the more self-reliant voter who prizes the opportunities afforded him by minimal interference from central government. This is not to say that the GOP cannot find itself vulnerable to ugly global capitalists of the George Bush stripe; it is a human enterprise, after all. But, at its best, it at least proceeds from the assumption that the U.S. Constitution is a valid document.

Do you think that black Americans realize that the party of Abe Lincoln has become the party of wealth and corporate influence?

As opposed to WHAT?

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.

You realize, don't you, that you are essentially saying nothing here? Maybe you ought to get your nose out of "The Selected Works of Hubert Humphrey", and mount a substantive argument. Your initial point was - what - that the Republican Party is the party of racists? You haven't provided a shred of rational evidence.

 

[maineman]

Maybe they're being played like Stradivari by a party which continues to hate, devalue, and cynically manipulate them.

yeah..go with that.... blacks are stupid and easily manipulated. That will work well.



I'd say the red/blue demographic - as we understand it today - has held pretty consistently for at least the last century.

bullshit. the south was solidly democratic up until 1964.


You realize, don't you, that you are essentially saying nothing here? Maybe you ought to get your nose out of "The Selected Works of Hubert Humphrey", and mount a substantive argument. Your initial point was - what - that the Republican Party is the party of racists? You haven't provided a shred of rational evidence.

I pointed out that as late as 1980, the republican presidential nominee was using the code word "state's rights" in the speech where he announced his candidacy for president. And he did so, of ALL places, in the town of Philadelphia Mississippi, which is famous only for being the real life model for "Is Mississippi Burning"

I pointed out that as late as THIS century, your party's senate leader made the statement that America would be a better place to day if we had only elected a segregationist racist bigot in 1948

 

[musicman]

Maybe they're being played like Stradivari by a party which continues to hate, devalue, and cynically manipulate them.

yeah..go with that.... blacks are stupid and easily manipulated. That will work well.

I'll thank you not to twist and misrepresent my words.

I'd say the red/blue demographic - as we understand it today - has held pretty consistently for at least the last century.

bullshit. the south was solidly democratic up until 1964.

Why?

You realize, don't you, that you are essentially saying nothing here? Maybe you ought to get your nose out of "The Selected Works of Hubert Humphrey", and mount a substantive argument. Your initial point was - what - that the Republican Party is the party of racists? You haven't provided a shred of rational evidence.

I pointed out that as late as 1980, the republican presidential nominee was using the code word "state's rights" in the speech where he announced his candidacy for president.

See - this is where your word-twisting comes back to haunt you. I never suggested that people who are politically manipulated are stupid or easy. I don't think those things about you, and you're being played to perfection by the tyrannical masters of deceit. They've got you believing that "states' rights" - the constitutional protection that keeps you out from under a dictatorship, is some kind of evil "code". Why don't you just offer them your outstretched throat?

And he did so, of ALL places, in the town of Philadelphia Mississippi, which is famous only for being the real life model for "Is Mississippi Burning"

Mississippi is the only place Ronald Reagan ever uttered the term, "states' rights"? I'm stunned.

I pointed out that as late as THIS century, your party's senate leader made the statement that America would be a better place to day if we had only elected a segregationist racist bigot in 1948

And immediately ceased being the Republicans' senate leader. You really need to stop doing all my work for me, maineman. You are doggedly and diligently killing your own arguments here, faster than I can type. George Wallace. The Solid South. The fate of Trent Lott. What other devastating proof do you have that the Republican Party is the party of racists - Robert Byrd in full Klan regalia?

 

[maineman]

I'll thank you not to twist and misrepresent my words.

I am not twisting your words in any way. It is you who suggested that a group of Americans have routinely continued to vote for a political party that hates and devalues them. How fucking stupid do you have to be to do something like THAT?

Why?
Well gosh...I dunno....maybe it was just magic...or maybe it was because the democratic party nationally, and the democratic administration pushed for and got passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. (and the fact that some republican northerners helped did not change the perception in the south that it was the democrats who "let them blacks ride in the front of the bus and sit in the same classrooms with our clean white daughters"


See - this is where your word-twisting comes back to haunt you. I never suggested that people who are politically manipulated are stupid or easy. I don't think those things about you, and you're being played to perfection by the tyrannical masters of deceit. They've got you believing that "states' rights" - the constitutional protection that keeps you out from under a dictatorship, is some kind of evil "code". Why don't you just offer them your outstretched throat?

If you want to make believe that state's rights is not a code word for segregation, go right ahead. I posted the quote from Wallace. Read it and weep

Mississippi is the only place Ronald Reagan ever uttered the term, "states' rights"? I'm stunned.
You KNOW it is more than that. It wasn't just "Mississippi" that the man, who was born in Illinois and who became Governor of California, chose as the place to announce his candidacy for president. It was Philadelphia, Mississippi , where three meddling college students trying to foist voter's rights for blacks were MURDERED and, at the time of Ronnie's speech sixteen years later, they had NOT been brought to justice. It was a town of enormous symbolic importance: "you northerners stay the hell out of here cuz we in Mississippi believe we have a right to do whatever we have to to keep things the way they are and to keep those black men in their place and even if you force a trial, ain't no group of twelve white men in Philadelphia Mississippi ever gonna convict a white man for killing a black man" THIS town, of ALL towns in America, Ronald Reagan chose to announce his candidacy for president... and made sure to use "states rights" in his speech often.

And immediately ceased being the Republicans' senate leader. You really need to stop doing all my work for me, maineman. You are doggedly and diligently killing your own arguments here, faster than I can type. George Wallace. The Solid South. The fate of Trent Lott. What other devastating proof do you have that the Republican Party is the party of racists - Robert Byrd in full Klan regalia?

I have never once tried to suggest that there were no racists in my party or that my party had not, at one time, embraced southern racism. Wallace and Byrd were and are anomalies in my party.

What do you have besides your bizarre opinion that the overwhelming majority of blacks in America are unaware of what YOU seem to see so clearly: that the democrats - according to YOU -continue to hate, devalue, and cynically manipulate them? and then get your feathers all ruffled when I suggest that an entire race of people would have to be pretty fucking stupid to not see what was so clear to you if it were, in fact,

Oh... and tell me again: Who is the U.S. Senate Minority Whip?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And how long as Byrd served again?

 

[maineman]

sarge...look...

Are you really buying into the "blacks are all stupid and vote overwhelmingly for the party that hates and devalues and manipulates them" line of bullshit?

yes or no

and I take it you got nothing to counter any of my other points, eh?

why am I not surprised?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Using your "logic" I must assume you do NOT want these trials to occur or succeed since you won't "debate" the issue ,, just making personal attacks on me.

Is not that what you claim across this board when someone won't tell you what you want to hear?

Stupid is not the word I would use. Gullible and hoodwinked come to mind.

Do you deny that the democratic party uses as a point to garner votes the fact that IT is the party that "cares" and provided billions in handouts?

 

[maineman]

Using your "logic" I must assume you do NOT want these trials to occur or succeed since you won't "debate" the issue ,, just making personal attacks on me.

Is not that what you claim across this board when someone won't tell you what you want to hear?

Stupid is not the word I would use. Gullible and hoodwinked come to mind.

Do you deny that the democratic party uses as a point to garner votes the fact that IT is the party that "cares" and provided billions in handouts?

when have I ever suggested that putting old racists in prison was not a good idea?

and I think that you may have stumbled on the slogan to turn the black voters towards your party: "Hey...all you black folk! Vote for republicans because you are gullible and the democrats have been hoodwinking you for all these years!"