Way to go, Bush supporters

[Scrith]

Heh.

www.fuckthesouth.com

[Vinilaa]

Either way, the friendly fire thing was Afghanistan.

Homer is quite correct! (as usual).

[Vidmer]

Heh.

Its really not a north/south thing as much as an urban/rural thing. This becomes plainly clear when you look at who won each county. Even New York is mostly red. This also is a monkey wrench in the whole secesion plan =p.

[Eomer]

(as usual).

I was wrong once. I really learned my lesson though. Now I shove my hand down the front of a hot girls pants BEFORE I take her home.

[Vinilaa]

I was wrong once. I really learned my lesson though. Now I shove my hand down the front of a hot girls pants BEFORE I take her home.

rofl! Oh My!

[Eomer]

That was sarcasm. I've never been wrong.

[Forty]

And Forty is right, Iraq did have approximately 120 planes that they moved to Iran, so there was always a threat.

*WHISTLE BLOWS*
*Announcer: Jim, I think we have a flag on the play*
*Referee:

We have illegal use of the quote on Kaneis. Not including all the quote and selective quote usage is a 15-yard penalty from the spot of the foul. Down resets.


Iraq had 125 fighter jets from the FIRST Gulf War (1990), not this one. While ownership might have been in question there is no evidence to suggest they had any aircraft at their disposal this time around.

Based on my readings of the Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld et al.. website New American Century, I am more convinced that our current involvement in Iraq was nothing more than a training exercise to provide our military live combat training and that democracy and terrorism was used as an excuse to invade Iraq.

I invite you to READ (not skim or read the headlines, but fricken READ) the website to come to your own conclusions.

Thank you.

[Myztlee]

There's something about the phrase "American world leadership" that really, really scares me.

[Eomer]

Make no mistake, the PNAC wants to make the US the Rome of the 3rd millenium, just without the ugly fall. And a good number of the current administration have written papers for it, including Rumsfeld, Cheney, and especially Wolfowitz. There are other lesser known names that are no less influential that also have access to the President. They've basically hijacked the government.

And before someone pulls out the "conspiracy theorist" label, let me remind you that conspiracies generally don't have websites laying out their plans. No, this is much more brazen than a conspiracy.

[Lothbah]

As usual, the onion hits it right on the head.

http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4045

[Gryfalia]

I'm not in Pullman anymore~ I got accepted to Illinois at URbana Champaign for graduate study in Elec / Computer Engineering so I'm there for a while. I quit EQ when I moved here.. and left pullman /cry. I had a wiz on rallos and stuff but my accnt is just sitting there boo.

Oh holy crap, Mcpickle is coming to my state.

Time to hide the booze and women... (cept my brother-in-laws ex-wife...you can have her and if you throw some money her way, she'll sleep with you too...)

Gryfalia

[Gryfalia]

The south is mainly about God, Guns and Gays. Democrats have done poorly in the south in federal elections ever since LBJ gave civil rights to the blacks. How dare those federals free our blacks again!

A little history lesson here..

LBJ did, of course, introduce the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Well, you could say Kennedy did, but he was killed before it could be acted on).

In the House there were 3 power blocks (just like in the Senate):
All Republicans: 138 to 34 for the bill
Northern Democrats: 141 to 4 in support
Southern Democrats: 92 to 11 AGAINST

And in the Senate:
The filibuster against the bill was run by 18 Southern Democrats and 1 Republican.
The cloture (ending of open-ended discussion) for the bill occured when some modifications were made to the Act to make it seem like less of an expansion of Federal Government, bringing some 'swing republicans' from northern states into the fold to end debate. (amazingly enough, the filibuster went from April to May, 8 hours a day, 57 days total. Totally nuts..)
After debate ended, of course, it was a blow-out.

Final Vote: 73 to 27
6 Republicans against, 21 Democrats

(there's a really interesting web site about the history of this important Act:
http://www.congresslink.org/print_ba...ghts64text.htm)

Anyway, my point for bringing this up is that the Democratic Party has done a stupendous job of trying to claim credit for the CRA of 1964, when it in the end it was only the Democrats who were really trying to beat it. To quote the website above (it's talking about the history of the various civil rights acts and such):

'The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. 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 website is part of the Dirksen Congressional Center, which is actually something good to come out of Pekin Illinois (not too far from me..;-) Seriously, it's very informative, look it up..

Gryfalia

[Forty]

A little history lesson here..

LBJ did, of course, introduce the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Well, you could say Kennedy did, but he was killed before it could be acted on).

In the House there were 3 power blocks (just like in the Senate):
All Republicans: 138 to 34 for the bill
Northern Democrats: 141 to 4 in support
Southern Democrats: 92 to 11 AGAINST

Yep, and what did LBJ say as he signed the Act? To paraphrase, "I have given the Republicans the South."

The 1964 Southern Democrat is todays Southern Republican.
So, yes, while on paper it seems odd in reality the Dems making those claims were the 1964 Republicans. That should help explain most of the Republicans having the better records...

[Lothbah]

dixiecrats aren't democrats

[Forty]

dixiecrats aren't democrats

Umm, right. That's what I said. I'm confused I guess.

They started out as Dems and, as the link below shows started a slower movement away from the Democrats. When LBJ signed the act, the fencers reacted moving to seperate parties or "the opposition party" and eventually to the Republican party.

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/Dixiecrats.htm

In 1948 some Southern Democrats decided to bolt the Democratic party because of its Civil Rights policies and have a separate State's Rights Democratic national ticket. They were called Dixiecrats. Strom Thurmond was their presidential candidate. They had a convention in Birmingham, Alabama. Newspaper accounts of the events, along with the photos of the convention show the thoroughly Confederate nature of their movement. Ironically, all the campaign literature used national symbols, including the Statue of Liberty. So even though they were Confederate and sectional, they were conscious of the need to project a different image to the nation. This information comes from a microfilm from the University of Mississippi called the States Rights Scrapbook.

You remember Senator Lott's comments on Thurmond's 100th birthday don't you?

Here's another interesting read from the same site:

Click Here

[Forty]

Anyway, my point for bringing this up is that the Democratic Party has done a stupendous job of trying to claim credit for the CRA of 1964

This could also have been because Kennedy and LBJ were democrats.

'The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. 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.'

Your statements from the website seems to suggest that they are forgetting to realize that the definition of a Republican and Democrat have changed several times over the last 150 or so years.

A Republican at the start of the 20th-Century would more likely fit the description of a Democrat at the start of the 21st-Century.

[Gryfalia]

Umm, right. That's what I said. I'm confused I guess.

Yeah, I had to read Lothaines comment several times to figure out what the heck he was saying..;-)

They started out as Dems and, as the link below shows started a slower movement away from the Democrats. When LBJ signed the act, the fencers reacted moving to seperate parties or "the opposition party" and eventually to the Republican party.

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/Dixiecrats.htm

In 1948 some Southern Democrats decided to bolt the Democratic party because of its Civil Rights policies and have a separate State's Rights Democratic national ticket. They were called Dixiecrats. Strom Thurmond was their presidential candidate. They had a convention in Birmingham, Alabama. Newspaper accounts of the events, along with the photos of the convention show the thoroughly Confederate nature of their movement. Ironically, all the campaign literature used national symbols, including the Statue of Liberty. So even though they were Confederate and sectional, they were conscious of the need to project a different image to the nation. This information comes from a microfilm from the University of Mississippi called the States Rights Scrapbook.

You remember Senator Lott's comments on Thurmond's 100th birthday don't you?

Here's another interesting read from the same site:

Click Here

Interesting website (templeofdemocracy that is). Has to lose the lime green tho.

My point wasn't that the Republicans were the ones who made the CRA of 1964 fly (indeed, they were the minority in both houses at the time, unless my math skills have failed), but that they weren't the problem either. Most states that the Republicans represented at the time didn't have much of a racial problem either way and I doubt they cared much, really. Which is why most of the Republicans who did vote against it in the end did so because of 'increasing government power' and all, not for any racial reasons.

Part of what I ponder on this issue is...why let Strom and the like switch to your party if they don't hold to some of the basic ideals of the majority of your party? Power I suppose, no party is going to turn someone down who is 1) already in office and 2) stunningly popular in their state when they come along. I think that at some point they could have transferred his brain to a cat and people would have voted in the cat (not 100% sure they didn't).

But aside from the Democrats who 'moved over', I still think that the Republican party gets a bad rap on racial issues. There are, of course, racists in both parties (not naming any names, but historically we know some of them...), both as elected members and simple voters.

Should be interesting. In 50 years I expect the first openly gay president will be a Republican woman and Ralph Nader will still be getting 1% of the vote..

Gryfalia

[Ktul]

Should be interesting. In 50 years I expect the first openly gay president will be a Republican woman and Ralph Nader will still be getting 1% of the vote..

Gryfalia

hah