<i>From ABCnews.com</i>

At the 100th birthday party of South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond last Thursday, Lott boasted that his state of Mississippi backed Thurmond for president 54 years ago.
"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him," Lott told those gathered at the Capitol Hill celebration. "We are proud of it."

To that, the jovial invitation-only crowd of Republican supporters applauded and laughed.

Then Lott continued, "If the rest of the country followed our lead we wouldn't have had all these problems."

The room went virtually silent and some in the audience gasped.

In 1948, Thurmond ran as a self-described "Dixiecrat" on a segregationist platform. In his campaign, Thurmond vowed that "all the laws of Washington and the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches ..."

Thurmond garnered the 39 electoral votes of South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. He later recanted his segregationist views.

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">The thing that suprised me the most about this is what I made bold. Good to know that some Republicans actually have a concience.

FYI: Strom Thurmond ran against Harry Truman.</font>

conscience

why the fuck is a hundred year old man a senator? vs. Truman, jesus christ!

Originally posted by ******
conscience

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Thanks John, you dick.</font>

conscience

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros


<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Good to know that some Republicans actually have a concience.

font>

wait I thought we were the ones with the conscience and the Dems were the ones with the brains.

After all, we passed the Emancipation Proclamation. And you guys countered with the Jim Crow laws. But right we have no conscience.

FYI: Thurmond was a Democrat until he did his little Dixiecrat thing. Then after that failed he was still a Democrat till the 1960s. Look up the words "political opportunist" in the dictionary and there's a picture of his racist, womanizing carcass.

before you go trotting out the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s just remember two things: (1) we passed a very similar bill in 1868 but leftist judges thought it was unconstitutional and (2) LBJ's well-documented justification for passing the Civil Rights Act was that the "Democratic Party will own the nigger vote for the next 100 years."

Originally posted by ******
conscience
Con science!? That can't be right!

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces
we

Republicans in 1868 weren't exactly the Republicans of 2002.

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Ace, I don't know who you think you're arguing with but I'm not exactly a card carrying Democrat. If you pay attention to my political posts you'd know that I'm a proud member of the Dangle All Politicians Over a Tank of Hungry Piranhas Party. I just hate the GOP slightly more than I hate the Republican Light Party.</font>

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants


Republicans in 1868 weren't exactly the Republicans of 2002.

Obviously. And it's fair to say that it probably surpises many people that the Republican party is the one responsible for ending slavery and granting women the right to vote.

But the basic beliefs of the party have not changed at all since its inception in the 1850s. The beliefs being that individuals, not government, can make the best decisions, all people are entitled to equal rights, and decisions are best made close to home.

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants


Republicans in 1868 weren't exactly the Republicans of 2002.

thank you, honey.


parties re-align every slightly more than few elections.

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros
<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Ace, I don't know who you think you're arguing with but I'm not exactly a card carrying Democrat. If you pay attention to my political posts you'd know that I'm a proud member of the Dangle All Politicians Over a Tank of Hungry Piranhas Party. I just hate the GOP slightly more than I hate the Republican Light Party.</font>

I just assumed you favor the Dems over the Republicans when the road hits the rubber.

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces
But the basic beliefs of the party have not changed at all since its inception in the 1850s. The beliefs being that individuals, not government, can make the best decisions, all people are entitled to equal rights, and decisions are best made close to home.

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Unfortunately, the party only talks about their policies rather than act on them. And I'm sorry, but allegiance with the Christian Coalition pretty much compromises all of those things. If you weren't a troll, I'd seriously tell you to use your head and stop talking about the GOP like you're a member of their party and start critically thinking about how they don't actually represent your intrests at all. No one in government does. They only represent themselves.</font>

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros


<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Unfortunately, the party only talks about their policies rather than act on them. And I'm sorry, but allegiance with the Christian Coalition pretty much compromises all of those things. If you weren't a troll, I'd seriously tell you to use your head and stop talking about the GOP like you're a member of their party and start critically thinking about how they don't actually represent your intrests at all. No one in government does. They only represent themselves.</font>

The Christian Coalition does not represent the mainstream of our party, which I am a member of, thank you. I vote straight-ticket and 2002 is the first election year since 1994 that I have not volunteered on a Republican campaign.

Tell me how they don't represent my interests.

I know. I know. The Democratic party is the party of minorities, feminists and trial lawyers and I fall into two of those categories, but I don't see how the Dems offer anything other than raw emotion to the equation. Unlike most minorities, I'm not looking for a hand-out.

Also, I'm not a troll. You guys want to believe I'm a troll because I remind you of Clint. And for a while I thought it was funny to make people think I was a former NP'hian.

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces


I just assumed you favor the Dems over the Republicans when the road hits the rubber.

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">When the road hits the rubber, I'm on the side of the road shouting "Go fuck yourself you pricks".

funny, cause the same people who gasped and went silent are probably the same people who stop random foreign-language talking people on the street to tell them to "talk american"
sad these people still exist, the day they fall off the face of the earth is the day our kingdom will become one step closer to rejoicing.

lousy right wingers.

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces
The beliefs being that individuals, not government, can make the best decisions

except when it comes to abortion or drugs, of course.

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces
But the basic beliefs of the party have not changed at all since its inception in the 1850s. The beliefs being that individuals, not government, can make the best decisions, all people are entitled to equal rights, and decisions are best made close to home.

Um, nope. Do you know why the Republican party was founded?

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces
Also, I'm not a troll. You guys want to believe I'm a troll because I remind you of Clint. And for a while I thought it was funny to make people think I was a former NP'hian.

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Right. Why should I believe that? It's not very much fun to be an admitted troll, so I'd imagine you want to cover your tracks.

I just can't imagine anyone existing that's only a hair away from being intelligent.</font>

Originally posted by sarmatianus


Um, nope. Do you know why the Republican party was founded?

Uh yeah. It was founded in my dad's hometown so the history is slightly ingrained in my brain at this point. (Although he is a left-winger so don't even break out the "your only Republican because you're daddy" bullshit).

My party was founed by anti-slavery activists and others who thought that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge. How that conflicts with the beliefs I just mentioned is beyond me.

If you even try to suggest the party was founded for other reason's you'll be exposed as a phony. But go ahead.

Actually I'm guessing you know why our party was founded, I think that our first presidential slogan was printed in about every damn American history book for middle school and high school kids.

Originally posted by Irrelevant


except when it comes to abortion or drugs, of course.

I am pro-choice. And I justify my position on the core beliefs that are supposed to guide our party. So I agree with you there.

As far as drugs, that's just a stupid statement on your part because it ignores the fact that individual use of drugs harms society in countless ways. This is of course also the Republican "moral" justification for abortion. I find it phony when applied to abortion, but common sense when applied to why drugs are illegal.

While Republicans believe that individuals can make the best decisions, we are not going to ignore the fact that they don't always make the best decisions. So if poor individual decisions affect other people in a negative way then those decisions should be criminalized.

Also, Dems are just as anti-drug as Republicans. I'm surprised you haven't read Michael Moore's new book. The part on the Clinton's adminisration's take on drugs makes you think you are reading about hardcore extreme Republicans.

you know what else harms society? sending perfectly innocent people to jail for something as stupid as drugs, when there are still hundreds of real crimes bieng commited.

we have far worse things to worry about than people making themselves feel happy for a little while.

"Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont!"

how illegal drugs harm society is up in the air when used responsibly. but it's still putting the government's decision before the individual's.

besides, i'm not a democrat, i think they suck too. but i think overall the republicans are more hypocritical. just look at the homeland security act.

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces
before you go trotting out the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s just remember two things: (1) we passed a very similar bill in 1868 but leftist judges thought it was unconstitutional

actually, i thought at the time it was actually johnson that vetoed the civil rights bill of 1868 and another bill and got away with that at the time. but then congress was just then getting enraged enough to start overriding his vetoes for every bill that was passed after that.

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">The way you talk about the party like you're in it is sickening. You're a mindless toadie, which reinforces your troll persona.</font>

do you think industrialization separated freedom from fairness?

The Toadies rock. They're playing a reunion show in your hometown around New Years. You should check it out.

So lemme see. Does that mean since Blue Star always totes the Dem party line she is just a troll? Cuz really I was thinking she was actually an intelligent person who just happened to see things from the other side.

I'm sorry that the concept of party loyalty is beyond you. But I am loyal to my party because I agree with most of its actions and beliefs.

What would make me a troll is if all this was just schtick and I was really a card-carrying member of the Green Party. Oh wait... No nevermind.

Also my brother works for the Party (actually a Conservative 501(c)(3) but it damn sure seems like the Republican Party) and like I said, I volunteer, so that's why I sound the way I do.

Originally posted by Samsa
do you think industrialization separated freedom from fairness?

I wish I was smart enough to understand and effectively answer that question but I guess I'm not. Care to elaborate on what you're asking?

well it's 4 am and i don't feel like getting into a pseudo-intellectual discussion and i'm not educated enough (yet -- *knock on wood*) but

i mean when there was all this land and things were basically hand-made....i don't know i'm just not too smart. but people tended to use the government to oppress the people. like the landed class would have a stranglehold . but then something happened and now it's the other way around. and does it have to do with labour? ie the proletariat or something? i mean i see the huge transition with the great depression and fdrs uh. it's too late for me to think of the term but you know what i'm talking about. it seems the role of government has sort of changed. maybe.

i guess some people would sayit's not the other way around and the government is still just in the realm of the elite but who knows. but these days more government tends to mean more equality and back then more government. ugh. like locke and the seizure of property. why did people tax back then? to finance wars and big stupid buildings or something. and these days the government taxes to provide public goods more or less. ughhh nevermind. i am stupid.

new deal. sorry. i remembered.

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces
So lemme see. Does that mean since Blue Star always totes the Dem party line she is just a troll? Cuz really I was thinking she was actually an intelligent person who just happened to see things from the other side.

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">There are many reasons I think you're a troll. This is just one of them.</font>

I'm sorry that the concept of party loyalty is beyond you. But I am loyal to my party because I agree with most of its actions and beliefs.

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">I'm sorry you think party loyalty is a virtue.</font>

I volunteer, so that's why I sound the way I do.

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Wow, you volunteer in elections? I couldn't even stomach being in a campaigning class. How do you lie to people on such a grand scale? Oh right. You're a mindless toadie, I forgot. :)</font>

Originally posted by Samsa


i mean when there was all this land and things were basically hand-made....i don't know i'm just not too smart. but people tended to use the government to oppress the people. like the landed class would have a stranglehold . but then something happened and now it's the other way around. and does it have to do with labour? ie the proletariat or something? i mean i see the huge transition with the great depression and fdrs uh. it's too late for me to think of the term but you know what i'm talking about. it seems the role of government has sort of changed. maybe.

the role of government has definetely changed to become what a lot of people see as this huge bueracuracy. and righfully so. and it's certainly a direct result of the industrialization.

it's said that we don't have three branches of government now, but four - the administrative branch. think of all these agencies that have sprung up from the late 1800s on and it's unreal. many were formed pre-FDR by REPUBLICANS who are supposed to be against that big government. FDR's new deal only increased the transition, but I don't think it starts with him. his influence on the way the courts looked at federal government's power to legislate seemingly intra-state activities. but part of that is just a natural response to industrialization itself. government has just adapted to a changing society.

i don't know. it is late.

eh bureaucracy has always been a huge part of government. i'm sure it's grown over the years but how is that relevant to ideology? :confused:

Originally posted by Samsa
i guess some people would sayit's not the other way around and the government is still just in the realm of the elite but who knows. but these days more government tends to mean more equality and back then more government. ugh. like locke and the seizure of property. why did people tax back then? to finance wars and big stupid buildings or something. and these days the government taxes to provide public goods more or less. ughhh nevermind. i am stupid.

no government is definetely less in the hands of the elite these days. not that the elite still don't have way too much power, but pre-industrialization, you had to be rich or a war hero to get anywhere in politics. Bill Clinton would never have made it where he has. he never would have been able to receive the education he received. so maybe that's all part of it. we live in an age where most people do truly grow up with a chance. i don't think it's so much that government is about equality as it is people believe in equality and government does things like tax for public goods to answer the people's demands. i don' what the fuck i'm talking about by the way.

although... nm i should be sleepin

sigh belle and sebastian song

IF YOU HAD SUCH A DREAM
WOULD YOU GET UP AND DO THE THINGS YOU


uhhhow does it go

Originally posted by Samsa
eh bureaucracy has always been a huge part of government. i'm sure it's grown over the years but how is that relevant to ideology? :confused:

because if you're ideology is based on the principle that the individuals make better decisions than government, then you have to have some sort of justiciation for the fact you've let government grow into the beauracracy it is today. Industrializatoin and the globalization provide two of those justifications.

As for equality.... fuck I don't know.

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros


<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">There are many reasons I think you're a troll. This is just one of them.</font>

Name some.


<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Wow, you volunteer in elections? I couldn't even stomach being in a campaigning class. How do you lie to people on such a grand scale? Oh right. You're a mindless toadie, I forgot. :)</font>

How the fuck does volunteering in attempt to influence others to vote for a party that I agree with on ideological and fiscal issues make me a motherfucking mindless toadie? If I sat at home and smoked dozier would that make me less of a mindless toadie or more?

We live in a two-party system. I support one of those parties. How on earth it makes me a mindless toadie to do everything in my measley power to make them win is far beyond this troll.

i guess this is more hobbes but if the role of government is to protect people from each other then....isn't a bureaucracy necessary or even justified?
ugh nevermind i will SHUT UP until i have a better education

brendan sweeney is just unhappy with the world in general you can't argue with a desperate man

Originally posted by Samsa
i guess this is more hobbes but if the role of government is to protect people from each other then....isn't a bureaucracy necessary or even justified?
ugh nevermind i will SHUT UP until i have a better education

A bureacuracy is justified based on that theory but, fuck I'm tyring to think of a useless govt. agency, that only applies to certain parts of the bureaucracy.

Does the DEA really protect people from each other? Maybe but we don't need a separate bureacracy just to deal with drug enforcement.

Also, I don't see lack of education as a problem. If anything some of this is going over my head and if there's one thing I have going, it's some semblence of an education.


Originally posted by Samsa

brendan sweeney is just unhappy with the world in general you can't argue with a desperate man

ok, but I'm plenty fine with being attacked on political views, but I grew up in a town that's overwhelmingly democrat so being called mindless for my views is infuriating.

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces


How the fuck does volunteering in attempt to influence others to vote for a party that I agree with on ideological and fiscal issues make me a motherfucking mindless toadie?

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Because you're endorsing propaganda.</font>

If I sat at home and smoked dozier would that make me less of a mindless toadie or more?

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">If Cheap Shots were an Olympic event, you'd get the gold medal.</font>

We live in a two-party system. I support one of those parties. How on earth it makes me a mindless toadie to do everything in my measley power to make them win is far beyond this troll.

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">The mindless toadie stuff was a joke, mostly. Don't take it so fucking seriously. However, the fact that you don't give a shit about reforming the unjust two party system is cause for concern. All you care about is if YOUR candidate wins. You're an informed voter who would rather take advantage of the ignorance of the populace because it suits your needs. People need to be informed about the candidates and not treated of mindless consumers who need to be sold a product. Representative Democracy rests on the principle that voters will be informed and responsible when choosing their representative. Without even conciously realizing it, you do everything in your power to undermine that principle. And for that, I cannot respect you or BlueStar even slightly.</font>

is democracy a market?

I don't see it the views of the party as propaganda. Especially in local and state elections. For fucks sake. Say we're talking about a state assembly race. Yeah it's Dem vs. Republican but it's not so much about the ideology as it is where do you stand on "Community Issues A, B, C, et." and where do you stand on "Referrendum XXX." Me trying to get the vote out on issues like that is not propaganda. It's about enlightening people on where my candidate stands on a issue that is vital to the people of the community.

I agree with the two-party system is a joke. But it's not going away. Even if someone comes up as an upstart third party they will either die off or replace the Dems or Republicans. That's how the Republican party started. We are third-party to the two party system of the Dems and Whigs as funny as that sounds. The Whigs died off in less than a decade though.

I would support a third-party if I agreed more with their issues. I nearly voted for Reform Party boy Jesse Ventura for governor four years ago but I did not agree with his views on prostitution, drug legalization, and many fiscal issues. But I think he helped our state by proving that if the two parties sit around pick their ass and spit out the same rhetoric, they will lose.

But it's stupid of you to attack me for not trying to fight the two-party system. I despise the Green Party and I have no respect for the Libertarian Party although I agree with some of their ideas to a certain extent. The Reform Party is done. So what am I supposed to do?

That I did not volunteer on any Republican campaign this year is a sign that I don't just go with the party line no matter what.

I am new here, so the local assembly candidates did not really seem worth heping since I did not know about the issues they were fighting over very well. And the Wisconsin Republican Incumbent Governor is a crook who apparently put this state in pretty bad debt, so I didn't see any use in campaigning for him.

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces
I agree with the two-party system is a joke. But it's not going away.

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Why the fuck not? Why don't people start organizing for constitutional reform? This isn't just fun and games. We aren't voting on who starts at quarterback on Sunday. It's not fucking right that people just throw their hands up at shit like this and just give in to the goddamn two party system. I don't give a shit about anything political anymore except for this issue. And it's the one most people are completely apathetic about.</font>

But it's stupid of you to attack me for not trying to fight the two-party system. I despise the Green Party and I have no respect for the Libertarian Party although I agree with some of their ideas to a certain extent. The Reform Party is done. So what am I supposed to do?

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">This has nothing to do with parties. This has to do with the way our elections are set up, winner take all, to the victor go the spoils. I can't understand why people don't want to change the system at the roots just a little bit. Oh, I know why. Because the Democrats and the Republicans are just fine with the system because they don't want anyone horning in on their opportunity (boy, Strom would have a heart attack if we had proportional elections. Can you imagine the darkies voting for other darkies? Good lord! That's worse than giving them the right to vote!). If politicians gave a shit about justice or equality then they would start talking about changing the way elections are run instead of the way campaigns are financed.</font>

I agree with everything you just said. If that's your one issue, that's one issue worth fighting over. Good luck. You'll motherfucking need it.

i bet Mr. Rhino was that kid in high school who was interested in politics and foreign affairs to the point of being a little too geeky for most of the other kids

let me go ahead and predict this mammal's behavioral response:

"go farm a hog you redneck hick from alabama"

it's funny how he seems to misspell at least one word in every post, but still continues to pretend like he knows how intelligent I am.

sometimes, I just want to brag to shut that fucker up. I really do.

That's my Senator.

It's so nice that he would reenforce to stereotype of racist Mississippians.. *sigh*

Originally posted by Jesse
i bet Mr. Rhino was that kid in high school who was interested in politics and foreign affairs to the point of being a little too geeky for most of the other kids

let me go ahead and predict this mammal's behavioral response:

"go farm a hog you redneck hick from alabama"

it's funny how he seems to misspell at least one word in every post, but still continues to pretend like he knows how intelligent I am.

sometimes, I just want to brag to shut that fucker up. I really do.

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">You are so incredibly pathetic.</font>

It was also reported that during the birthday party, Lott defaced a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, Strom Thurman's previous arch-nemesis

Rhino, what you've said in here is pretty hypocritical. First you insult Ace for volunteering under a party, then you go off about reform. If you ever want your voice to be heard, you should get off your ass and support something.

Originally posted by So very sad about me
Rhino, what you've said in here is pretty hypocritical. First you insult Ace for volunteering under a party, then you go off about reform. If you ever want your voice to be heard, you should get off your ass and support something.

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">It's a little difficult to volunteer for a reform movement that doesn't exist.</font>

Go <a href="http://www.theonion.com/onion3846/infograph_3846.html">here</a> and shut up, bitchez and hoz.

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros


<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">It's a little difficult to volunteer for a reform movement that doesn't exist.</font>

Maybe there's no reform movement per se but there are several third parties that you could get involved in. Now I know you're gonna be all "Fuck the Green Party," "Fuck the Reform Party," and "Fuck the Libertarians," but those are legitimate avenues through which you could channel your discontent with the two-party system. I don't anticpate any of those parties ever piercing the two-party system, but if people like you just sit on your ass and dream of reform then it definetly will never happen.

The closest thing to what you are looking for is the Committee for a Unified Indepedent Party, a group made of up two-party system dissidents like yourself. I don't know if they are active in San Antonio but on a national level they have several opportunties to get involved in attempting to change the system.

http://www.cuip.org


Anyway, like that cheesy song goes your not gonna start a revolution from your bed.

Greens of Bexar County
www.txgreens.org/bexar

Green Party of Texas
www.txgreens.org

Reform Party
www.americanreform.org

Libertarian Party of Bexar County
www.geocities.com/c2777/lpb/lpbexar.html

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">I didn't say parties, if I was going to volonteer for a campaign I'd volonteer with the Socialists. I'm talking about an non-partisan organization that specifically lobbies for this issue.</font>

Well then CUIP is the closest thing to what you're looking for. Their agenda is not specifically to lobby for a three-party system but their purpose certainly is to fight and expose the corruption of the two-party system.

I'm just offering suggestions because I can totally understand why you would feel the way you do about the political system.

The CUIP people say the same things you say about the system. If you're truly interested in lobbying for an end to the two-party system then these are the people you need to be talking to or allying yourself with. Surely some of them are interested in the same damn thing.

That's the end of my spiel. This Bucks game is getting heated.

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">The most discouraging thing about all of this is that I could put a lot of time and energy into it and not get any results. Ironically, that's the very problem I'm trying to eliminate.</font>