Please,can`t we all just get along 8)
Here`s my response to the critics
MORE COWBELL MAN !!!
Printable View
Please,can`t we all just get along 8)
Here`s my response to the critics
MORE COWBELL MAN !!!
Oh my! :shock:
We're posting toy catalogs now? :lol:
:roll:
Here's another White Male In A White Sheet like yourself....
:deadhorse
OMG! :shock:
Hollywood! That avatar is a weapon in and of itself! :lol:
yes.....like they say "no pain no gain" :whoa
You mean Democrat Robert ,Grand Kleagle of the KKK, Byrd? Who said,`I vow never to fight 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.’Quote:
Here's another White Male In A White Sheet like yourself....
Nope,my GF is olived skinned . But keep trying you intolerant bigot.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...¬Found=true
Can we please re-ban the dickhole now?
As I've stated before, I vote for the Dems as the lesser (far lesser), of two evils...and I am reminded of the reasons why when I read the drivel from closeted repug swine like yourself...
but if you want to dredge up ancient history, White Male In White Sheet , here's one of your ilk who I would like to believe is roasting on a spit in hell... that is, if I believed in the religious fairy tales that your disgraced party endorses....
Timothy B. Tyson: Review of Jesse Helms's Here's Where I Stand
Source: Raleigh News and Observer (9-11-05)
Timothy B. Tyson won a 2005 Southern Book Award for his history of a racial murder in Oxford, Blood Done Sign My Name.
Jesse Helms has led a remarkable life. The son of a small town lawman, he became the second most politically influential North Carolinian of his generation. His five bruising races for U.S. Senate attracted intense national interest; his 30-year legislative career earned him international fame. His slashing style and amazing money machine virtually reinvented modern politics. Helms bridged the gap between the segregationist South and the New Right. He was also a deeply polarizing figure whose success hinged on his Old South racial views. And so we turn to his memoir with two key questions about his rapid rise and his racial politics: How did he do it? And why did he do it?
His book's title, "Here's Where I Stand" promises an uncompromising plate of North Carolina barbecue, served up hot with red pepper vinegar. But it delivers a broth so thin, as Sen. Paul Douglas once said of a civil rights bill that Helms nevertheless opposed, that it is "like soup made of the shadow of a crow which had starved to death." This tough, bare-knuckled pol begs us to see him as a figure from Mayberry, presenting his life as the nostalgic saga of a small-town boy who makes good by defending the free-enterprise system, befriending his fellow man, and standing by the woman he loved. Of course, Helms could only join Floyd and Andy and Barney down at the barbershop by ignoring huge chunks of his actual life, and therein lies the tale.
Helms begins his story in the small town of Monroe, where he was born in 1921, son of Jesse Alexander Helms Sr., the chief of police. He portrays "Big Jesse" as "six feet five inches tall and tough when he needed to be," and also as a saint who reflected the virtues of his town and his time. "Monroe was the kind of place where you knew just about everybody," Helms recalls, "and just about everybody knew you." What Helms does not tell us is that many of Monroe's black residents knew Big Jesse's boot better than they did the man himself. "He had the sharpest shoe in town," said Ray House, a white man close to the Helms family, "and he didn't mind using it."
Educated at Wingate and Wake Forest, young Jesse Helms started his journalism career at The News & Observer, where he also met and married Dorothy Coble. After a stateside stint in the Navy, Helms met A.J. Fletcher, a right-wing businessman whose Capitol Broadcasting Co. sought to offset the influence of the supposedly liberal News & Observer. Hired as news director in 1948, Helms set out to shield the South where he grew up from the fresh breezes that blew through the postwar era.
Helms' first big break came during the infamous Democratic primary for the Senate in 1950 between Frank Porter Graham, beloved liberal former president of the University of North Carolina, and Willis Smith, a respected conservative lawyer from Raleigh. Ostensibly a reporter covering the race, Helms was deeply involved in Smith's campaign -- a fact he dodges with Clintonian parsing: "I had no official role in Mr. Smith's campaign."
Helms suggests that race was an issue in the campaign but avoids the details. He does not tell us that Smith forces proclaimed "White People Wake Up," warning that "Frank Graham favors mingling of the races." Smith organizers accused "Dr. Frank" of being a Communist dupe and called UNC "the University of Negroes and Communists," though it was still segregated. Helms disavows any connection to these ugly attacks, claiming, "It would have been unthinkable for me to do or allow anything to be done that assaulted that fine man's [Graham's] character."
Nevertheless, when Smith won election to the Senate, Helms went to Washington as his administrative aide. Two years later, he joined Richard Russell's segregationist crusade for the White House. Moving back to Raleigh after Russell lost, Helms became a bank lobbyist and served on the City Council.
In 1960, as the sit-ins rippled out across the South from North Carolina, Fletcher again hired Helms at WRAL-TV, this time to do nightly editorials. Here was the crucial break in Helms' life. His attacks on civil rights and campus radicals won him a wide following. And yet his book provides none of the flavor of the editorials he would ride to power. He doesn't mention his diatribes against "Negro hoodlums" and "forced integration," as if segregation had been voluntary. He does not repeat his assertion that the "so-called" civil rights movement "is about as non-violent as the Marines landing on Iwo Jima." Helms does not explain why his byline appeared in the pages of The Citizen, the journal of the segregationist White Citizens Council.
"I never advocated segregation, and I never advocated aggravation," Helms now claims. But in fact, segregationist backlash was his ticket to the top. He supported segregationist candidates and organizations from his early days in politics. Helms outlined what he called "the purely scientific statistical evidence of natural racial distinctions in group intellect" and equated the Ku Klux Klan with the NAACP, though one flung dynamite and the other filed lawsuits. Praised by the KKK, candidate Helms said merely, "I appreciate anybody saying complimentary things about me." When a young black man applied for membership in First Baptist Church in Raleigh, churchman Helms rabidly and successfully opposed his acceptance -- apparently "Here's Where I Stand" did not have room for that anecdote.
His assaults on the civil rights movement won Helms a U.S. Senate seat in 1972, part of President Richard Nixon's "Southern strategy," which hammered together a new white Southern base for the GOP. Strom Thurmond, the old "Dixiecrat" war horse who twice led segregationist stampedes out of the Democratic Party, campaigned tirelessly for Helms.
Helms became a decisive force in the rise of modern conservatism. Along with Richard Viguerie, who marched George Wallace's financial supporters into the armies of the New Right, Helms pioneered direct-mail fund raising. His support for Ronald Reagan in the North Carolina Republican primary in 1976, defying a sitting president of his own party, proved historic. Reagan became first the darling and then the standard-bearer of the New Right. Helms, like Wallace and Thurmond, bridged the old segregationist movement with the new conservative revolution though, unlike Helms, Wallace and Thurmond both recanted their white supremacy and won many black votes.
Unfortunately, Helms' memoir mutes his historic contributions. Denial of his opposition to racial equality is perhaps the central theme of the book; Helms must have been tempted to steal Eleanor Roosevelt's old book title, "Some of My Best Friends Are Negro." His tribute to his father, a notorious racial enforcer who chased peaceful demonstrators off public property in 1961 with a pistol, twice recounts how "Big Jesse" taught him never to use the n-word. His opposition to the MLK holiday, he says, was a matter of anti-communism, not white supremacy. His race-baiting Senate campaigns are carefully scrubbed of content, even the unscrupulous "white hands" ad, which encouraged white working people to blame their economic woes on minorities and affirmative action and nailed Harvey Gantt on the cross of racial backlash.
Denying that he ever cared about race, Helms now claims to have been defending "free enterprise." In fact, segregation undermined the market economy, using laws to restrict whom businesses could employ or serve.
Helms also claims to have been defending "the Southern way of life," and charges that the civil rights movement "ripped away at the customs and institutions people cared about. Black neighbors and white neighbors depended on each other, and the vast majority lived in harmony."
But even in Monroe, the hamlet that Helms calls home, Klan terrorists punished blacks and whites who tried to exercise their freedoms of speech and association. J. Ray Shute, scion of one of Monroe's leading white families who long served as mayor, founded the Human Relations Council in 1955 to encourage "orderly discussion of common problems" across the color line. For this he endured social ostracism, economic reprisals and at least 15 shots fired into his home. Black leaders suffered worse, and Jim Crow laws and customs barred blacks from nearly everything but menial labor. This is the "liberty" Helms lauds, never acknowledging that segregation was not a free choice. "If we had started a fight against [segregation]," Ray House said of Monroe, "somebody would have shot us."
As a literary work, "Here's Where I Stand: A Memoir" never fails to disappoint. Platitudes plod from page to page. Shopworn phrases and political cant grind the reader down. Whatever his failings as a writer, however, Helms must be given his due. After all, he is almost certainly the second most politically effective North Carolinian of his generation.
The most influential Tar Heel of the Helms era, Ella Jo Baker, is a black woman from Littleton whose name will not be familiar to most. But during World War II, Baker built a mass base for the NAACP in the South. In the 1950s, Baker organized the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which lifted Martin Luther King Jr. to international acclaim. And in 1960, when these two organizations proved hesitant in the face of the student sit-ins, Baker summoned these young new Southerners to Raleigh to form the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. These three groups, the NAACP, SCLC and SNCC, won battles that forever altered the arc of American history. Their achievements still echo around the globe, wherever people resist tyranny and combat what King called the "thingification" of human beings.
Helms will go down in history as one of the most able and relentless adversaries of the South's homegrown freedom movement. It is a shame that he lacked the gumption to tell us why.
http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/16614.html
Still a tolerant ignorant bigot I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by chefmike
Helms hasn`t been in the Senate since 2003.
Rober,KKK,Byrd is the longest sitting demorat senator of all time,and considered the "conscience of the senate". And,STILL THERE !
The 770-page book is the latest in a long series of attempts by the 87-year-old Democratic patriarch to try to explain an event early in his life that threatens to define him nearly as much as his achievements in the Senate. In it, Byrd says he viewed the Klan as a useful platform from which to launch his political career. He described it essentially as a fraternal group of elites -- doctors, lawyers, clergy, judges and other "upstanding people" who at no time engaged in or preached violence against blacks, Jews or Catholics, who historically were targets of the Klan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061801105.html
Robert KKK Byrd,"the Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union."
Comparing an ex-senator to the longest sitting senator,who`s still there !
:) What a Loser ! :)
I'll give you an E for effort :wink: ... and you aren't fooling anyone here in regards to your repugnant agenda...nice try though, skippy... 8)
What About Byrd?
Unlike Thurmond, he renounced his racist past.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2002, at 2:28 PM ET
Since posting an item pointing out that, contrary to Washington legend, Strom Thurmond never renounced his segregationist past, Chatterbox has been inundated with rude e-mails. The theme of these e-mails is: What about former Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd? Byrd, a Democrat who still represents West Virginia, belonged to the Ku Klux Klan when he was a young man. Past membership in the Klan is heavier moral baggage than past advocacy of segregation. But Byrd, unlike Thurmond, renounced his youthful participation in a racist cause. See, for example, this exchange with CNN's Bernard Shaw in Dec. 1993:
Q: What has been your biggest mistake and your biggest success?
A: Well, it's easy to state what has been my biggest mistake. The greatest mistake I ever made was joining the Ku Klux Klan. And I've said that many times. But one cannot erase what he has done. He can only change his ways and his thoughts. That was an albatross around my neck that I will always wear. You will read it in my obituary that I was a member of the Ku Klux Klan
Contrast that with an interview Thurmond gave Joseph Stroud of the Charlotte Observer in July 1998 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of his presidential bid on the segregationist Dixiecrat ticket. Asked if he wanted to apologize, Thurmond said, "I don't have anything to apologize for," and "I don't have any regrets." Asked if he thought the Dixiecrats were right, Thurmond said, "Yes, I do." Thurmond said this four years ago!
Chatterbox has not yet received any rude e-mails asking: What about Senate Democrat Ernest Hollings? Hollings ran for governor of South Carolina in 1958 pledging to protect "the Southern way of life," which in those days meant segregation. Once in office, though, Hollings switched sides and supported integration. When Howell Raines of the New York Times asked Hollings in 1983 about his brief career as a segregationist, Hollings didn't just say he knew it was wrong now. He said, "I knew it was wrong" then.
Have Byrd and Hollings atoned sufficiently for their previous views and policies? Probably not. But they have renounced them. Thurmond never will.
http://www.slate.com/id/2075662/
Takes a real ignoramous like you to step on my land mines.Quote:
Originally Posted by chefmike
Took a Republican,Abraham Lincoln,to free blacks.As the Democrats ran opposition. Strom renounced his past after he joined the Republican party.Where`d ya get such drivel.
"[the proposition ’all men are created equal’] as now understood, has become the most false and dangerous of all political errors....We now begin to experience the danger of admitting so great an error to have a place in the declaration of independence." Calhoun turned the Democratic Party of Jefferson into the party of slavery.William Fulbright of Arkansas, Sam Ervin of North Carolina, and Albert Gore, father of Al, of Tennessee,all racists.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pushed by more Republicans than demorats.Check the vote count.
You`re a demorat ? Pathetic Loser
Not that I care anymore about Byrd than the swine that you defend, but that quote is from the 1940's...and on a personal note, do you send your "olive-skinned GF" out for oxy... you know... like the way that your hero rush the junkie sent his maid to procure it? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by white male in a little white sheet
The qoute was accurate. Using a dead man (Thurmond) to criticize is just plain vulgar,as you plainly expose yourself to be when frustrated for a cogent response.Quote:
Originally Posted by chefmike
YourCanadianDaddy, you are misstating the facts, but since Hannity always does, its understandable you would too.
More Democrats than Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights act.
Here is the actual vote count. I checked, you should have.
The Senate Version:
Democratic Party: 46-22
Republican Party: 27-6
The Senate Version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91
Republican Party: 136-35
A greater percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil rights act than the percentage of Democrats, but that was because it was opposed by the Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) who were Democrat in name only and Republican in action with their segregationist agenda.
Even the Republican right acknowlege that segregation was ended by liberal Democrats:
"It was the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that ended Segregation"
Newt Gingrich
Byrd renounced his ties to racism over 60 years ago and has worked tirelessly for equality his entire public life . Strom ran as a segregationist 20 years after Byrd had abandoned the Klan and Strom never really apologized. He may be dead, but the illegitimate daughter he had with a black mother, who was concealed in the shadows all her life until his death is still alive. His ongoing shameful actions towards her speak to his racism even louder than the absence of his words apologising for his past.
I'll give you a C- in history and a D- in math LOL
FK
lol @ them kkk pictures
You`re as bold in your BS as you are in your pancake-makeup.Sourcing Wikipedia for truth is akin to asking Kerry for an honest answer as to why he shot rice in his ass,then put himself in for a purple heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Felicia Katt
The 1964 Civil Rights Act was an update of Republican Senator Charles Sumners 1875 Civil Rights Act. Democrat opposition had forced the Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, so Johnson warned Democrats in Congress that this time it was all or nothing. To ensure support from Republicans, he had to promise them that he would not accept any weakening of the bill and also that he would publicly credit the Party for its role in securing congressional approval. Johnson himself played no direct role in the legislative fight.
In the Senate, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen had little trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon also lobbied hard for the bill. Senate Majority Leader Michael Mansfield and Senator Hubert Humphrey led the Democrat drive for passage, while the chief opponents were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, of later Watergate fame, Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, the Klansman whom Democrats still call "the conscience of the Senate", filibustered against the civil rights bill for fourteen straight hours before the final vote.23 Democrats and 6 Republicans opposed cloture in regards to the senate debate.
By your own numbers you`ve proven the democrats were more split than Republicans. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.
The democrats were the majority in congress at the time therefore although more voted for the Republican 64 Act,more voted against it.More Republicans supported their own measure.
Newt was indeed correct,part of the democrat party had to be dragged into supporting and agreeing with Republicans to pass the 64 Act.You are correct.You`re party helped the Republicans.
http://www.congresslink.org/print_ba...ghts64text.htm
The Republicans were the minority party,fighting your racist democrats.
That qoute,priceless in it`s insanity.It`s a keeper. Republican measures and efforts to pass the 64 CRA, were segregationist. From Lincoln to now,all were/are segregationist and the likes of Byrd,Wallace,Gore sr. were the party of equal rights.It`s official,you`re a moonbat.Quote:
...who were Democrat in name only and Republican in action with their segregationist agenda.
Next time,try a little more research and true diligence at picking your words.
Talk about picking your words carefully. You didn't talk splits or percentages or past history. You said, simply:
NO BS. More Democrats than Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act.Quote:
Originally Posted by yourcanadiandaddy
You either misstated or misrepresented what the reality was.
Then, scrambling to cover being called on it, you start namecalling with insults, try to impugn my source (which wasn't Wikipedia, for your information) without addressing its accuracy, start flinging irrelevant and incorrect crap about Kerry, and post a mean,and demeaning but meaningless picture of Hillary.
From your reference
In addition to picking your words more carefully, you should take more care in picking your herosQuote:
The specific source of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the President of the United States. John Kennedy
I'm sure you have no problem with THAT source LOLQuote:
Fortified with a good rest, a steam bath and a sirloin steak, Sen. Strom Thurmond (search) talked against a 1957 civil rights bill for 24 hours and 18 minutes — longer than anyone has ever talked about anything in Congress.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90552,00.html
George H.W. "Poppy" Bush, running for the Senate in Texas in 1964, opposed the Civil Rights Act. The Republican party under his son is presently against gay rights.
Coretta Scott King: "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King's dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."
W's executive order set fire to the crosses of "faith based" organizations which can accept public funds and then refuse to employ persons because they are Jewish, Catholic, unmarried, gay or lesbian. W started his Presidential campaign at Bob Jones University, which bans interracial dating.
Ralph Reed owned up to the "sad record of religious conservatives on race.." saying "the greatest spark of the movement" was triggered by trying to cling to seggregation, admitting that his "faith community" was "on the wrong side of the most central cause of social justice in this century", namely racism. "The white evangelical community allowed our black brothers and sisters to be held in bondage and treated as second-class citizens for four centuries and we quoted scripture to justify it,"
"The right wing of the Republican Party has a long-standing record of using fear and bigotry to set Americans against each other for its own gain," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "It is supremely ironic and profoundly sad that this is the party of Lincoln, a party that once sought to unify a nation. It was a party in which 'freedom' was a principle, not an empty platitude espoused purely for political gain as is done so often by present-day Republican leaders."
Rheta Grimsley Johnso Northeast Mississippi Daily JournalQuote:
It's not just a wild coincidence that the white voters of the South - once staunchly, unanimously Democrats - became Republicans when blacks were given the vote. Just like whites deserted the public schools after they were integrated; just like whites deserted the cities for the suburbs when blacks were guaranteed decent housing. The whites fled the Democratic Party when blacks joined
The Republican party used to be- "the party of Abraham Lincoln" but has become what Robert Scheer has called "the refuge of eternally aggrieved Southern racists"
FK
Quote:
From your reference
In addition to picking your words more carefully, you should take more care in picking your herosQuote:
The specific source of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the President of the United States. John Kennedy
I'm sure you have no problem with THAT source LOLQuote:
Fortified with a good rest, a steam bath and a sirloin steak, Sen. Strom Thurmond (search) talked against a 1957 civil rights bill for 24 hours and 18 minutes — longer than anyone has ever talked about anything in Congress.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90552,00.html
It's not just a wild coincidence that the white voters of the South - once staunchly, unanimously Democrats - became Republicans
The 64 CVA was was an update of Republican Senator Charles Sumners 1875 Civil Rights Act.Rewritten to conform with the interstate commerce clause.
Fox ? Only when you employ the lie by omission. Like Paul Harvey says," here`s the rest of the story",
"... The South Carolina (search) senator, then a Democrat…Republican leader Sen. William Knowland (search) of California retorted that Thurmond's endless speech was cruel and unusual punishment to his colleagues….Thurmond succeeded in shattering the previous record set by Sen. Wayne Morse, D-Ore..."http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90552,00.html
So it`s only the south that is racist.Well,let`s take a look see at the county map on who voted for whom.You`ll notice the red counties are the Republican ones.
Why so many? Because the leftists,socialists,neo-marxists employ the Lie by Omission,the Big Lie and of course,Dan Rather`s favorite,the Noble Lie.This plus the fact that most americans prefer less government,not more.Certainly not what the socialist/neo-marxist democrat party wish on every citizen.
Now,wonder why socialists/neo-marxists such as yourself are now the permanent minority?
Thank you for helping to prove my point. Strom was a Democrat. He was a racist/seggregationist. Those views were not acceptable to the Democrats, so he took them and all of his racist supporters over to the Republicans, who welcomed them all with open arms. You are the one holding up Strom here as someone heroic. I think he was a disgrace.
I'm not a marxist or a socialist. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am not even a Democrat. I'm a registered independent, but if I was pressed to claim a party affiliation, I would say Libertarian. But its a two party system, and I'm not wasting my vote on a candidate with no chance to win an election. The Democrats are far from perfect. But I agree with them way more on most issues, especially those that involve my rights and freedoms. Republicans don't really think I should have any.
As far as being in the "permanent minority", Bush won by the smallest margin ever for a sitting president, and Kerry got the second most votes for any candidate ever. The latest polls show Bush's approval ratiing is just 36 percent, and just 30 percent of the public approves of the GOP-led Congress' job performance. By a 49-33 margin, the public favors Democrats over Republicans when asked which party should control Congress
since you seem to like maps, I thought I'd post this one LOL
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/...nd_liberty.gif
FK
I'm glad you mentioned that oft-overlooked fact, Felicia. Both Kerry and Bush passed Reagan's previous record for the most popular votes ever cast for a Presidential candidate. Unfortunately, the Dems don't like to send up "a loser" twice in a row; the last time they did so was in the 1950s with Adlai Stevenson (who, incidentally, in his 1956 second bid for the Presidency against incumbent Eisenhower won the most popular votes ever cast for a losing Presidential candidate - until Kerry), so it seems unlikely that the Dems will re-nominate him this time around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Felicia Katt
Better update your map.Canada is Conservative now. The gun registry is being disbanded,concealed carry permits not far behind,mandatory sentencing for criminals not ' it`s societies fault ' probation.Taxes are being cut,terrorists are being fought on the battlefield side by side with US forces,Hamas and Tamil tigers have been branded as terrorist organizations and made illegal,etc. You`re way out of date with your information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Felicia Katt
Bush is at 36% !? How deadfull,that means he won`t be able to run for re-election now does it ! :wink:
Polls show unfavorably for Congress in terms of approval rates? Big deal,only one poll counts,that`s in November.And we all know who wins those.
You`re libertarian? LOL Come on. Never met one who`s in favor of bigger government and conferring rights based on the type of sex one has in the bedroom.True libertarians do not acknowledge patriachal constructs or confer special rights there upon.We are individuals,dog eat dog best man win ideology.You`re no liberatrian.
Bush has the record for most votes ever,topping 62 million. To you it may mean something,to the Constitution,totally meaningless. He won the Electoral College.Read about it in the Constitution. If you`re a libertarian then the Constitution means exactly what is written.Or does the law say whatever falls from your mouth,ala the King of England.
Your parrotting of the dominant media`s and DNC`s talking points "party of corruption" ,which falls on deaf ears to the majority,this inside the beltway 'gotcha` game'. No one cares about the disgraced Dan Rather or the new parrott,Katie Couric.Only the facts matter.Over the last 30 years about 70 different members of the House have been investigated for serious offenses. Of those only 15 involved Republicans, with the remaining 55 involving Democrats.
Why should you believe the media and DNC IF you call yourself a libertarian.Go to the source,always. Try the records at the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,read their own historical documents.
That map of yours, I just can`t stop laughing at it.It`s an antiquity,Hilarious.
No one cares about the popular vote,certainly not the US Constitution itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecstatic
You are aware of that pesky thing called the Electoral College aren`t you?
Specifically designed to deny large city centers to dominate.
Yeah,that damn Constitution.Let`s ignore it and pretend it means whatever we say it means/sarcasm off.
Amend it,don`t ignore it.
White_Male_Canada wrote:
Devout republicans favor denying rights on exactly those basis, which is tantamount to conferring rights to others on the same basis.Quote:
You`re libertarian? LOL Come on. Never met one who`s in favor of bigger government and conferring rights based on the type of sex one has in the bedroom.
Democrats favor conferring rights based on specific types of sexual intercourse. Republicans chose the patriarchal standard. Libertarians,neither,none.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
I choose to make my own decisions and not allow big brother to choose for me. You`re obviously biased, in your support of democrats to choose for the individual what is best for him.
No one cares about the popular vote? Ah, except maybe those who voted?!Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
I made no reference to the Constitution or the Electoral College. I merely made two observations: one, that Kerry received more popular votes than any other candidate in history except Bush (implying that very nearly half the electorate favored him), and two, that the Democrats would likely not nominate him again simply because he lost last time (regardless of whether he's the best candidate for the job or not). You're reading into my comment intentions that were not there.
For the record, I think the Electoral College is outmoded and has been so for at least the last half century. But that is not the point I was making.
White_Canadian_Male says:
It seems that by so vorciforously supporting the Republican view, you're allowing big pappa to decide what goes or doesn't go in your bedroom. At the same time you seem to support the suppression of other private intimate practices. As far a bedroom philosophies go, liberal principles allow individuals to chose their own course.Quote:
Republicans chose the patriarchal standard ... I choose to make my own decisions and not allow big brother to choose for me.
Not in any Democratic platform I've seen. That's patently absurd. There is a strong, though hardly universal, tendency amongst Democrats not to confer, but to recognize as already valid rights for all minorities, including gender-based rights. I doubt we'll see same sex marriage recognized on a national level in this country any time soon (unlike many other countries), as even here in Massachusetts there is a strong (though minority) stance oppsing it. But the Massachusetts Superior Court did not "legalize" same sex marriage so much as declare that such marriages were already and had always been legal according to the laws of the Commonwealth and should be recognized as such. And that's just one example.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
News flash: that is by definition "conferring rights based on specific types of sexual intercourse" and I'll have none of it, thank you very much. Nor is it simply patriarchal, but mainstream Christian. The US, unlike most countries, was founded in part on the principle of the separation of church and state. While a significant majority of Americans may be Christian, they have no right to legistate their morality on other citizens. Among those religious groups who in whole or in part reject the definition of marriage as between "one man and one woman" you can count Unitarians, Friends, UCC, Reform Jews, Buddhists, Wiccans, and Taoists.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Does the democrat party allow muslims to practice polygamy,including marriage to 9 year olds? No? Why how intolerant of you. Mohammed married Aisha at the age of 9.
So much for majority rule.Damn that fuckin` democracy/sarc off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecstatic
Define "separation of church and state" in regards to a church,IE;Church of England ?
White_Canadian_Male writes:
Does the republican party?????? My, Goodness! Wait 'til this hits the news!!!Quote:
Does the democrat party allow muslims to practice polygamy,including marriage to 9 year olds? No? Why how intolerant of you.
The democrats preach a good game but are found wanting. So if the sheep likes,what`s wrong with that?Plenty of sites on the net for it,what`s wrong with marriage. Why not 3 people getting married? Why not mom marrying her son? Sez who,Ted Kennedy? Bahh Waaa LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Being neither Republican nor democrat myself the dems love the divide and conquer routine,piting one group against another. The Republicans stick to the original nuclear family. Not an alien concept since it`s been practiced for centuries by the majority of the world. Majority rules whether you like it or not.Don`t,move to Cuba.They`re so progressive they just throw your ass in jail for it.
WhiteCanadianMale, for your information, since you apparently need some on this topic:
A Libertarian is one who:
Believes in the principles of freedom our founding fathers fought for.
Believes that you have the sole right to run your life the way you see fit.
Believes that you are the master and government is the servant.
Believes that government gets its rights from you, not the other way around.
Believes in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, without compromise.
From the Libertarian Party Platform
Sweetie, by their definition and mine, I'm a libertarian, and while I don't agree with all their positions (some of which are a little extreme), I do with many and the ones most important to me. But what are you? It sounds like you are opposed to equal rights and marriage for gays and transgenders? But here you are on a shemale board? is your philosophy that as long as you can screw a t-girl, who cares if her government does too?Quote:
We advocate an end to all government attempts to dictate, prohibit, control or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship. We would repeal existing laws and policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or deny sexual lifestyles, or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles...
we advocate the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women, that they, at last, be accorded their full rights as individuals; the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material, independent of "socially redeeming value" or compliance with "community standards"
FK
my dear little White_Canadian_Male, you may not considered yourself a republican but you sure are their most ardent supporter. So in light of that obvious bias I'll repeat the question you never answered:
Does the Republican Party allow muslims to practice polygamy,including marriage to 9 year olds?
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
When you try to pass a law based on a religious viewpoint, ie gay marriage, or when you try to pass one to advance religion ie school prayer, you are supposed to be stopped by the wall separating Church and State. Too many on the right think the wall should be more like a speed bump, but the right is just wrong about that.
FK
Yes, so much for majority rule. With regard to the free exercise of religious beliefs, the very point of the separation of church and state is to prevent the "tyranny of the majority" whereby the few are oppressed by the many. (qv Tocqueville, ""If the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the omnipotence of the majority, which may at some future time urge the minorities to desperation and oblige them to have recourse to physical force," Democracy in America; and Mill, "Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism," On Liberty.)Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
Thanks, Felicia. You saved me having to unravel this for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Felicia Katt
Typical buffet table self professed "libertarian".Quote:
Originally Posted by Felicia Katt
You admit you`re not a true libertarian and only agree with certain ideological points that suit yourself.
Government cannot create marriage any more than it can create jobs. If you WERE a libertarian you would understand the difference between the legal and organic.
You`re caught in a self-contradiction.Not wanting government to define marriage,but wanting it to define marriage,only as you see fit.
Felicia saved your skin by pasting the 1st and not delving into the historical aspects? Hardly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecstatic
The establisment clause of the 1st amendment does not require government neutrality between religion and atheism. Do you know why?
You`re avoiding and deflecting from my question,
"seperation of church and state", what was the "church" as defined by Jefferson and others?
As far as De Tocqueville and Chapter 16, he also recognized this as far from an actuality, because of the careful system of checks and balances. Tocqueville used the term “providential” when describing the spread of democracy . He was trying to convey a sense of prehistorical determination and Divine triumph.
Still sticking to him ?