A Lost Civilization

[57Coastie]

"If, however, the fact that white Democrats behaved like this in the past 'justifies another political party behaving like this in the present,' I do not buy that. I am certain you do not mean to imply that, but I have seen and heard others imply it."

...and there it is.

If you're not a Democrat, you're a Jim Crow Republican cuz there ain't any other kind...

Surely, they can all be lumped into one big, hate filled, arrogant group, who if they had their way would step on the necks of every minority.

How then do you explain: Many of my fellow conservative friends/acquaintances are minorities, i.e., brown, black, Asian, etc.?

I would think that the burden is on you here, not me. I do not know your "friends/acquaintances."

Wait, maybe I do. Justice Clarence Thomas? Ex-Florida Congressman and ex-cashiered army officer, Allen West?

Jim

[Moby]

The bottomline is math.

62 million Americans are on food stamps or welfare
27 million Americans work for the government.
89 million getting tax dollars.

109 million Americans in the private sector and not all paying taxes.
Mathmatically we cannot survive.

[Abraham]

57Coastie,

A simple explanation: They're minorities who happen to be conservatives. They aren't bigots who strive to keep down their fellow minorities. Quite the opposite. True enough, they're mostly college graduates, but you shouldn't hold that against them.

They're made up of small business owners and corporate management. They're successful. They worked hard to be so. They're saddened and embarrassed by those with their hands out, begging for so-called entitlements. You know, the stuff limousine liberals are only to happy to hand out as it helps assuage their group guilt. And why not, it's not their money...

[tarkus]

If I had the oppritunity, I would basically share this bit of history:
"It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s."
- http://www.humanevents.com/2006/08/16/w ... epublican/

You are so right, Thomas. Then in 1965 we saw a Texan, LBJ, demonstrating the turnaround. True Democrats are terribly ashamed of their history, particularly down here in the south. I lived in Texas during the '30s and the '40s, as a child. I saw it myself, and I never want to see it again, regardless of political party.

Thank you for the reminder. It does Democrats like me good to get a reminder now and then.

If, however, the fact that white Democrats behaved like this in the past justifies another political party behaving like this in the present, I do not buy that.

I don't buy it either. Nor do I buy the argument it justifies Democrats of any color behaving like that in the present.

[Abraham]

57Coastie,

I hope you haven't been put off by the tenor of the arguing? You seem to have dropped off the radar...

I hold no rancor, even when I think the other party is off course. I think you're probably a fun guy to know, even if you're politically wrong. (I couldn't help it)

It's all in good fun and I enjoy debating, even if my skills are highly suspect.

Where are you?

[57Coastie]

57Coastie,

I hope you haven't been put off by the tenor of the arguing? You seem to have dropped off the radar...

I hold no rancor, even when I think the other party is off course. I think you're probably a fun guy to know, even if you're politically wrong. (I couldn't help it)

It's all in good fun and I enjoy debating, even if my skills are highly suspect.

Where are you?

For a guy who made his living by the sweat of his tongue, this is the first time in a long life that I have been accused of not talking enough. I had to go out and buy a new flak jacket.

Actually, Abraham, I took a nap with my cats. I really didn't think I would be missed. I am an old man, you know.

And I had a dream. I dreamed I was your son Isaac, time and again on my way to become a burnt offering on this forum.

Jim

[Abraham]

Jim,

Pppfffft, old man, you're not that much older than me. You're no burnt offering either, you can't get off that easy...

At the risk of being accused of thread napping, I too am a cat fancier. Well, that's a bit of a stretch, I found two of them on the road (one, squashed by a car, but still alive) and the third at a rescue shelter. How can they be ignored and let die?

When you feel energized, lets argue some more, even if my arguing is meager...

[JALLEN]

I would think that the burden is on you here, not me. I do not know your "friends/acquaintances."

Wait, maybe I do. Justice Clarence Thomas? Ex-Florida Congressman and ex-cashiered army officer, Allen West?

Jim

Well as long as we're name dropping, there is William Jefferson, Alcee Hastings and all the Democrats caught in Abscam years ago.

Alcee Hastings is an interesting case. Hastings had distinguished himself sufficiently to be nominated and confirmed as a US District court Judge, for life during good behavior. This is pretty big deal for those of us in my profession. Wikipedia continues the rest of the sordid details:

In 1981, Judge Hastings was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient sentence and a return of seized assets for 21 counts of racketeering by Frank and Thomas Romano, and of perjury in his testimony about the case. He was acquitted by a jury after his alleged co-conspirator, William Borders, refused to testify in court (resulting in a jail sentence for Borders).

On March 23, 1987,Rep James Sensenbrenner introduced an impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 128, againstJudge Hastings. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee.[195] On March 31, 1987, the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Criminal Justice met in executive session to discuss Judge Hastings' impeachment inquiry.[196]

In the summer of 1988, the full House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate [emphasis added]. The vote on the first article was 69 for and 26 opposed, providing five votes more than the two-thirds of those present that were needed to convict. The first article accused the judge of conspiracy. Conviction on any single article was enough to remove the judge from office. The Senate vote cut across party lines, with U.S. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont voting to convict his fellow party member, and U.S. Senator Arlen Specter voting to acquit.[197]

The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator, attorney William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by President Bill Clinton on his last day in office.[198]

Hastings filed suit in federal court claiming that his impeachment trial was invalid because he was tried by a Senate committee, not in front of the full Senate, and that he had been acquitted in a criminal trial. Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled in favor of Hastings, remanding the case back to the Senate, but stayed his ruling pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court in a similar case regarding Judge Walter Nixon, who had also been impeached and removed.[199]

Sporkin found some "crucial distinctions"[200] between Nixon's case and Hastings', specifically, that Nixon had been convicted criminally, and that Hastings was not found guilty by two-thirds of the committee who actually "tried" his impeachment in the Senate. He further added that Hastings had a right to trial by the full Senate.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled in Nixon v. United States that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over Senate impeachment matters, so Sporkin's ruling was vacated and Hastings' conviction and removal were upheld.

Apparently on the theory that if you can beat 'em, join 'em, he ran for Congress and was recently elected to his 11th term as a good Democrat. I don't understand how respectable people sit in the same room with this crook, let along vote for him to hold public office.

[The Annoyed Man]

I don't understand how respectable people sit in the same room with this crook, let along vote for him to hold public office.

There are two possible explanations:

One is that those voters who elect him are crooks themselves....birds of a feather, and all that. The other is that they're stupid. Broken moral compasses, or congenitally brain dead. No other alternatives really available. Since we are now the United States of Free Stuff, I'd say a little of both. To the topic of this thread, cretins like Maureen Dowd help to get them elected by telling favorable lies about them.

William Jefferson (D, LA) was caught with $90,000 in dirty money hidden in his freezer: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1 ... 1109230256

And then there's the Honorable Gov. Blogo.....

[VMI77]

A humorous read, with a lot of truth in it. Before you shout this is off-topic, get down to the penultimate paragraph.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/opini ... neral&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

Humorous? Really? I'm curious what you think makes it even worth reading? Between the article and the comments, it's an endless tirade about how all Republicans are: stupid, greedy, hate women, hate minorities, evil, dark (versus the "light" shed by Democrats), reptilian, deluded, selfish, ruthless, unAmerican extremists, barbaric, decadent, racist, Nazis, unenlightened, retrogressive evil lying white people who should be "wiped from the earth." And the vast majority of commenters share this hatred and intolerance (every descriptor used here came from either the article or was repeated in the comment section). What's funny about that?

[The Annoyed Man]

A humorous read, with a lot of truth in it. Before you shout this is off-topic, get down to the penultimate paragraph.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/opini ... neral&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

Humorous? Really? I'm curious what you think makes it even worth reading? Between the article and the comments, it's an endless tirade about how all Republicans are: stupid, greedy, hate women, hate minorities, evil, dark (versus the "light" shed by Democrats), reptilian, deluded, selfish, ruthless, unAmerican extremists, barbaric, decadent, racist, Nazis, unenlightened, retrogressive evil lying white people who should be "wiped from the earth." And the vast majority of commenters share this hatred and intolerance (every descriptor used here came from either the article or was repeated in the comment section). What's funny about that?

There's nothing funny about it. It is beyond comprehension that these people believe themselves to be thinkers, and it is terrifying that they vote. We truly are at the "bread and circuses" phase in the decline of the Founders' immaculate vision. It only required a virtuous people to sustain us. The left, by having co-opted the educational system, information media, and entertainment, have completely and successfully marginalized virtue, and with that will come the end of the experiment begun in 1776.

There is one single remaining tactic available to us, and that is for all conservative/libertarians in Congress to vote "present" on all bills EXCEPT anything affecting the 2nd Amendment. Make that the single flagpole around which ALL conservatives can unite. During the debates on the floor, let republicans speak out against the bills brought forth by democrats, but when it comes time to vote... vote "present." Let the democrats OWN every. single. blow. that will fall on the American taxpayer AND the American parasite alike. Let them own it. Let things get SO bad, and SO painful, that when people complain, conservatives will be able to legitimately say, "I TOLD you so, but you wouldn't listen."

The only way to make a witch like Maureen Dowd shut up is to let her keep spewing her black-hearted crap until the barnyard product hits the oscillating ventilation device. At that point, people will willingly stop reading her editorial vomit, and with any luck at all, the NYT will finally give up the ghost. I wonder if Rupert Murdoch will still be around to buy it when that happens? It would be poetic justice if he wound up being her boss and had the chance to fire her himself.

[Heartland Patriot]

"If, however, the fact that white Democrats behaved like this in the past 'justifies another political party behaving like this in the present,' I do not buy that. I am certain you do not mean to imply that, but I have seen and heard others imply it."

...and there it is.

If you're not a Democrat, you're a Jim Crow Republican cuz there ain't any other kind...

Surely, they can all be lumped into one big, hate filled, arrogant group, who if they had their way would step on the necks of every minority.

How then do you explain: Many of my fellow conservative friends/acquaintances are minorities, i.e., brown, black, Asian, etc.?

I would think that the burden is on you here, not me. I do not know your "friends/acquaintances."

Wait, maybe I do. Justice Clarence Thomas? Ex-Florida Congressman and ex-cashiered army officer, Allen West?

Jim

I'd follow a commander like Lt. Col. West, USA, Retired, who did his best job to protect his troops, any day. He scared a poor little precious "insurgent" (terrorist) who had been instrumental in planting IEDs and other deadly attacks within Col. West's unit AOR. And for that, if nothing else, he has my respect.

[57Coastie]

Yes, I thought it was funny. But I have a great deal of difficulty trying to find a sense of humor in this group other than when either a "good shoot" is proclaimed, or when an LEO is reported by a member to not know what the Constitution says.

Since it has now been invited, I will tell those who know who they are that I could be no more satisfied than when I read the advice here and elsewhere as to how the right wing is going to turn things around. So long as the Republican party refuses to recognize what happened, look to the new electorate, and only whines and cries, blaming the wrong things for their loss of the last two general elections, I can be certain that they will lose the next one.

Anyone read what Newt Gingrich, not the most liberal politician in the world, said lately: 2016 is Hillary's if she wants it. She has not yet said she wants it, but she sure has been making noises I enjoy hearing. Give her a little rest and who knows what might happen. Anyone read the latest polls of both Democrats and Republicans who are registered to vote? Yours truly has not seen poll numbers like that since Eisenhower's -- for someone who, just like Ike, has not even declared herself to be a candidate. One of my greatest regrets was for supporting Obama rather than Hillary in 2008. I thought, and was led to believe, that he was a true progressive.

I will not be surprised, but will be pleased, for the reasons mentioned above, when comments here downplay the reliability of a properly conducted poll of registered voters. I thought it was hilariously funny, too, when Ann Coulter suggested recently that Republicans wake up and realize that they lost the election.

It will be no secret that I prefer Dowd to Coulter, but now I must credit Ann with having a bit of intelligence. Again, I remain satisfied if Republicans ignore her advice.

So long as the right wing gets all its "news" from the Fox News propaganda machine, which clearly made a huge contribution to Obama's victory, I still remain satisfied.

That is the good news. The bad news is that the result of Republican blindness, unreality and self-delusion could lead us nearer having a one-party government. That could become tyranny overnight.

Have at it! But for goodness sakes, can you come up with something new other than foolishness like secession, revolution, or treason? As long as you take your long black guns out into the woods and play cowboys and Indians I will, once again, remain satisfied.

Jim

[G26ster]

Yes, I thought it was funny. But I have a great deal of difficulty trying to find a sense of humor in this group other than when either a "good shoot" is proclaimed, or when an LEO is reported by a member to not know what the Constitution says.

You are correct Jim. The majority of the forum members appear to be on the right, like myself, and I believe we have a hard time finding the humor in rapid demise of the principles that made this country great, especially the self reliance, personal responsibility, and the principle of what we can do for our country, rather than what it can do for us. Like yourself, many of us put on a uniform to defend those ideals and swore to protect and defend the constitution. I don't believe folks like those in "the greatest generation" fought for the principles of gov't handouts, safety nets, birth control, and freebies, nor did they liberate Europe to become Europe. Both parties, in recent times, are responsible, but I believe at least the Republicans are trying to put the brakes on, but the Democrats are hitting the gas every chance they get. If we want a future, we have to use real accounting, not gov't accounting where a "budget cut" means a decrease in the annual increase.

Since it has now been invited, I will tell those who know who they are that I could be no more satisfied than when I read the advice here and elsewhere as to how the right wing is going to turn things around. So long as the Republican party refuses to recognize what happened, look to the new electorate, and only whines and cries, blaming the wrong things for their loss of the last two general elections, I can be certain that they will lose the next one.

I thought I saw the same thing in 2004 with the Democrats. As for the "new electorate," maybe so. Soon the takers will outnumber the makers. Elections are won by the party whose supporters actually show up at the polls. Uninspiring candidates make for a poor showing. I guess the trouncing that the Dems took in the House in 2010 was due to the "old electorate" showing up, when the rubber met the road. And, most of those sent to congress in 2010 were sent back in 2012. The folks that voted for Obama identified with him more than the "old white, boring rich guy." If that changes, and it will, your "new electorate" might respond favorably. But, it's hard to tell the truth, that we can't afford all the benefits, we can't afford to have cradle to grave care if you choose not to help yourself. It's much easier to promise and deliver the benefits and win the votes. It's simple, and that is what is happening. The City Council woman in Detroit said it best the other day. We voted for you so you owe us. Bring home the bacon! You want free this and that, vote Democrat. That's hard to beat. The only problem is, it is bankrupting the nation, and you know it.

I will not be surprised, but will be pleased, for the reasons mentioned above, when comments here downplay the reliability of a properly conducted poll of registered voters. I thought it was hilariously funny, too, when Ann Coulter suggested recently that Republicans wake up and realize that they lost the election.
It will be no secret that I prefer Dowd to Coulter, but now I must credit Ann with having a bit of intelligence. Again, I remain satisfied if Republicans ignore her advice.

Yeah, she sounds just like James Carville in 2004, when he told the Democrats to quit whining and fix what's broken. Funny how that works.

So long as the right wing gets all its "news" from the Fox News propaganda machine, which clearly made a huge contribution to Obama's victory, I still remain satisfied.

How dare Fox News highlight the views of the right. They need to get with the program. I'm sure that the MSM (MSNBC, NBC, CNN, NYT, etc.) had nothing to do with trashing Romney and the right, while promoting the Obama agenda and ignoring every negative aspect of the Obama administration and it's scandals, mistakes, and the massive debt it is building. Probably didn't cost Romney a single vote, eh?

That is the good news. The bad news is that the result of Republican blindness, unreality and self-delusion could lead us nearer having a one-party government. That could become tyranny overnight.

Hmmm. I thought we already had one party gov't with Obamacare rammed through without a single Republican vote, and all the Executive Orders and new regulations written by unelected officials, the President's pledge to work around congress if he can't get what he wants from them, and Harry Reid's promise to change the Senate rules, etc. Silly me.

In the end, nothing I have to say will mean anything to you. I'm sure you will lump me into the "knuckle dragging" "obsolete" "mean spirited" "unenlightened" "extremist" and "ruthless" category. I'm quite sure Hillary has an excellent chance to be elected in 2016 if she chooses to run, but it won't matter, as there's also an excellent chance that the country will be forever changed by then, to your delight, but not mine.

[57Coastie]

Yeah, she sounds just like James Carville in 2004, when he told the Democrats to quit whining and fix what's broken. Funny how that works.

There may be a difference. We listened to Carville, and fixed it.

Jim