The_Dunedan

Is there truly a need for an automobile wherever it is you are?
BTW, "teflon bullets" are a myth. They don't exist. Moly-coated bullets exist, but moly-coating simply reduce fouling in the bore. The "teflon bullet" byth is a creation of hollywood.

bingle

The statement was originally saying that the vast majority of the white population of the south was racist. This is not a racist statement, any more than "Hispanics are 50% more likely to vote Republican". It's also true - look at the civil rights battles in the south, and the patterns of discrimination in the south after Reconstruction. That's not to say that a lot of Northerners weren't racist, too, but it was certainly more institutionalized in the south.

Read some history of the time, or some works by black authors on the post-war South.

Bingle

Locobot

It's funny that everyone is agreeing that the Democrats need to become more centrist and nominate a candidate who will appeal to rural voters. Kerry WAS the moderate candidate picked largely by Iowa voters. It's clear this model for success is flawed.

I actually think that the Democrats need to go left of where they are now to actually differentiate themselves. If this means remaining a permanent minority then so be it, Americans deserve real alternatives, not lighter shades of pale.

The Republicans are able to label progressive agendas as "the failed policies of the past" and there's some truth in that. What worked in the 1930s is not always the best plan for today. In four more years the Democrats will either be able to attack the "failed policies of Bush" or they may as well concede defeat now.

First Democrats need to stop feeding at the corporate trough, even if this means a huge loss of money. Corporate donations to Democrats need to be seen for what they are: hedge funds for big business in case the Dems win.

Dems need to focus on their strengths that are still applicable to today's world: worker's rights, universal healthcare, social security, social equality, limits on corporate monopoly, a libertarian sensibility for women's rights (abortion) and drug control (medical marijuana), and a sensible foreign policy. Five years ago Republicans were tearing their hair out at the prospect of American interventionism in Bosnia. Democrats need to have a foreign policy that allows for intervention based on facts, support from our allies, feasiblity, and a clear exit strategy. Iraq and Afghanistan need nation building, like it or not, Democrats are the only party willing to admit it.

People who voted Republican need to take a sober look at what they voted for: drilling in ANWAR, a conservative Supreme Court (read: repeal of Rowe v. Wade, prayer in school, harsh constraints on amendments 4,5,6: Search and Seizure, Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process, Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel), a regime too afraid to pass even the most lenient of gun control laws, tax cuts for the top 10% of earners, HMOs, rewarded outsourcing of American jobs, a blank check for the military-industrial complex, a rejection of equality for gays and lesbians let alone civil unions or gay marriage, and willing consent for the preemptive invasion of Iraq.

And a draft. Campaign rhetoric aside, unless we see a sudden change in Iraq there will be a draft. This is something I was biting my nails about concerning a possible Kerry presidency. Recruitment is low, the Reserves are already over-extended, and our allies are leaving not joining (Hungary is now withdrawing their troops). A draft seems inevitable.

Ustwo

Woooah there, hold them horses.

Kerry had the MOST liberal voting record in the Senate.

Yes he won first in Iowa, and there ARE liberals in Iowa. The caucus system leans to the more extreme type of supporters and who can get the most people mobalized all over the state. Its not like you had independent Iowians picking the dem nominee.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Locobot

yeah I heard he voted like ten million times to raise taxes , dude the campaign is over stop being a sore winner. The fact is that he was he had one of the most conservative platforms and records of all the primary candidates besides Lieberman. The choice at that time was down to Dean, Kerry, and Gephardt. Kerry was the definitely the moderate alternative to Dean.

Ustwo

Calling Kerry the most liberal member of the senate isn't just a political smear, its the TRUTH, and when you have a liberal saying he will be moderate, do you trust what he says or do you trust 20 years of liberal voting?

Kerry wasn't the moderate to Dean, Kerry was the 'electable' one, Dean at least could take a stand.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

tspikes51

I'm pretty dismayed at the fact that people would stand by a party so strongly. We should really do away with the party shit, just let the best guy win.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

Flyguy

Tool for your way of life?!?! So, how often do you subsistance hunt in Anchorage? As a lifelong Alaskan myself, I can honestly tell you that the only things that urban residents use guns for are to pleasure hunt and that's a fact. They are weapons/toys. And it won't matter if ANWR is opened or not. It won't bail us ouf of middle east dependence like Bush & co. want's you to think.

Locobot

You have to realize that even the concept of "most liberal Senator" is so subjective and tainted by campaign rhetoric that it becomes irrelevant in a discussion of facts or history. When it comes to writing the history of something like the Democratic primaries, something you didn't partake in and had nothing to do with, I'd kindly invite you to butt out. You people are like pit bulls sniffing the crowd for dirty and uncouth LIBERALS and once you get your teeth in them you can't even release your jaw willingly. If you feel the need to continue the campaign against Kerry, or Clinton, or whomever then I've got a prediction for you. It's going to wear thin. With solid control of the of all three branches of government you'd better learn to start thinking constructively and stop playing the blame game.

You don't have any qualms with my predictions for the next four years ustwo?

Flyguy

You know what the party needs to do? We need to re-define ourselves. Define what being a Democrat really means. One of he main problems with this party is that we're all over the place on a lot of issues. We need to define where we stand and stick with our beliefs. Someone said that's what the Republicans did when they were in this boat 10 some odd years ago. Dems can take a lesson from this defeat. We need to do the same. I think that we should stick to our base, stick to our beliefs, define our issues and work to bring people to our side. Why should we be the ones to always come to the middle? Make the other side either come to us or we both meet halfway to find common ground. Bush sure as hell won't do this for the next 4 years. Why does he have to?

trickyy

yeah, i talked to another alaskan and he said he had no problem with the drilling.

this is funny because i know a lot of montanans. seems like a similar outdoorsy rural red state, but montanans must be environmentalists in comparison. the land is deeply respected, the government is not. bush wanted to do some exploratory drilling on the rocky mountain front, not even in a particularly special location, and the public outcry was significant enough for the administration to scrap plans completely.

also, there was a ballot initiative to relax regulations to allow a mining company to set up shop -- soundly defeated.

scout

Everything on that list already is illegal for the masses to own. Perhaps you should do a little research. You might find out when the AWB was passed the very next election the Dems lost control of the House and Senate. Polls may say one thing, but voters are telling you something else. Much like the pre Nov. 2 polls or the exit polls from the election itself. This is also why when it came up for renewal, noone in the House or Senate wanted anything to do with it. I couldn't understand why Kerry didn't just leave it alone. Maybe he thought having his picture taken with a few shotguns, with one of which would have been illegal under the AWB btw, would shake his voting record in the Senate and his promotion the same on the campaign trail.
It even cost Al Gore the election last time around. Someday, hopefully soon, the Democrats will realize polls are misleading at best. I predict as soon as the Democrats leave these and other extremist views behind they will become a viable alternative to voting Republican once again. Shoot, even some of the old Democrats don't believe in their party anymore, Zel Miller is a perfect example.

pan6467

You know what I'm tired of always being attacked on here about guns because the second I say it should be illegal to be more armed than the police I have gun enthusiasts who ignore the entire post I posted just to focus on that.

And you are right, I don't know fucking gun laws because I don't fucking care. As long as my neighbor doesn't have a fucking arsenal I could care less. And that's what I say..... but then I am attacked and told I need to justify w3hy people should not be armed better than cops.

Screw it you want me to change my mind fine.

IF BEING ARMED BETTER THEN THE POLICE IS SO IMPORTANT THAT YOU TAKE 1 LINE OUT OF A LONG POST AND TURN A GREAT THREAD INTO A GUN CONTROL THREAD.... THEN FUCK IT........ MY STANCE IS MAKE ALL FUCKING GUNS, AND FLATWARE ILLEGAL GO INTO PEOPLE'S HOUSES WITH THE MILITARY AND TAKE EVERYTHING... LEAVE PLASTIC KNIVES AND SPORKS AND FUCK IT...

Simple enough now? As a matter of fact from now on when I am posting and I have the urge to mention gun control because now I am a fucking freak and want them all taken........ I"ll simply refer to PAN'S SPORK LAW of 11/04....

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

cthulu23

Well, let's just see what factcheck.org has to say about the "most liberal senator" bs:
You know, I'm sick of being a Kerry apologist....I'm not even a registered Democrat. Unfortunately, until the same old bullshit sound bites stop getting flung around, I guess I'm stuck in this role. I just can't stand to see blatant dishonesty masquerading as truth.

scout

Alrighty. It was merely a suggestion to research a bit, that's all.

alansmithee

You know what the problem with the Democratic party is? They claim to be a party of the people, but the party elite dislikes the average person. They don't listen to them on issues, and their "discourse" is just talking at, not with, people. Alot cannot see any other opinion than there own, and they leave no room for compromise. Even after the election, instead of seeing where they might have gone wrong, many liberals are simply saying how stupid people were for electing Bush, and predicting DOOM and GLOOM as much as the most fundamentalist Christian predicting Armageddon. And they seem to relish this, like they hope that bad things happen. Look at history, the US has gotten through one massive depression, 2 world wars, the Vietnam war and civil protesting, an energy crisis in the 1970's, and a direct terrorist attack. Why do so many think that the country will all of a sudden crumble now? If the same Democratic mindset is present in 2008, they will lose that election as well.

aliali

This is a late response, sorry. Mr. M., I try to be objective on a lot of these issues and its usually wrong to paint with such a broad brush, but I think that the whole--the other side is an idiot--thing is a democratic trait. Look at how they treated Reagan and Bush compared to Carter and Clinton. Republicans have their own bad traits, even some forms of smugness, but nothing compared to the claimed intellectual superiority of the left

cthulu23

The two examples that you give just don't hold up. Clinton was castigated mightily all of his years in office (and still is) and Carter became synonomous with failure. Have you ever listened to talk radio, read any Republican blogs or payed any attention to the American conservative media juggernaut? Any casual examination would reveal that demonization is a bipartisan trait.

Booboo

Thanks for diong that... I really didn't feel like looking it up right now.

Really people... wtf. If your going to post something like "Kerry is the most Liberal Senator" back it up with something, ANYTHING, and do some research.

I've seen soo many arguments on these forums, and even in this thread, about things that have been shown to not be true or to be half truths. And continually people will add comments that are half turths. Sometimes I feel like I'm watching the campaign ads from the candidates this year. Dont post information based on anything you saw in an ad.

Edit: Oh, and teflon bullets do exist. The teflon just isn't what makes them pierce armor. Teflon protects the bore from the ill effects of the hard bullet core. Google is your friend.

__________________
"Your life is yours to live, go out and live it" - Richard Rahl

SecretMethod70

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

adam

What mythical "average person" are you talking about? Surely you don't think the 51% that voted for Bush were all that much more "average" than the 48% who voted for Kerry?

You are right, though, that I see less and less room for compromise. The Republicans have drifted so far to the right that their "middle ground" is mostly as unappealing to me as their original proposals... I just don't see much point in bothering to try to work with them any more; either way, I get an unpalatable solution.

If we lose in 2008, so be it. I'd rather lose than be the homophobic party of fundamentalists and Enron executives. Winning isn't everything.

sob

Yes, but I'd certainly accept the boredom, considering that the welfare rolls would shrink to almost nothing.

sob

Drop us a line when you get the chance to experience Canadian health care. Oh, and let us know your opinion of the taxes they hit you with, too.

Bon voyage.

Rodney

Lot of attitude here, sorry to see it.

In my opinion, because both candidates ignored or glossed over the most looming issues in the campaign -- budget deficit, massive increases in public debt and its effect on the dollar, whether the tax cuts were working, the coming collapse of Medicare and the health care system when the mass of boomers crosses the big 60 (all the long-term, structural issues, in other words) -- all a lot of voters really had to go by was style and symbolism. A few more people like Bush's symbolism better. He won.

As a liberal -- and you can be a liberal without being a Democrat or thinking that big government is _always_ the answer -- I wasn't really pleased with either candidate. I voted Kerry because I thought he might eventually be more realistic in facing the domestic problems to come, the ones that George Bush will now face.

So George Bush won reelection on symbolism -- Christianity, a "moral outlook," opposition to abortion and gay marriage (real issues to some, but not to the big-money powerbrokers who aim to make billions by backing the right candidate). According to the pundits, terror wasn't the deciding issue. In any case, Bush has about a year before the glow of that symbolism starts to fade, less if we lose another thousand or two people in Iraq with no results, or if we sink into another recession.

At that point, many of the people who voted for a Christian, moral man will begin to think more with their pocketbooks. CNN polls on election day showed that 45 percent of Kerry voters had family members who'd lost jobs in the last two years, and only 22 percent of Bush voters had. If Bush voters begin to feel the heat more, through job loss or health insurance woes, Bush will have to step up to the plate with something that provides immediate relief. Health savings accounts won't do it, not for the many low-income Republican voters who have little income to save. More tax cuts won't do it, not with the results of the current ones being so slow and lackluster (he'd have been better off to target mainly the middle and lower class with his tax cuts, but his political ties didn't allow him to do that).

What do the Democrats do? For a start, find themselves another southern or border-state governor who can talk the evangelical talk. Charges that high-level Demos look down on the religious working class of the heartland are probably quite justified. The New Deal is not dead -- people now expect government help in hard times, in a way that they never did before the '30s (my mom was alive then, and poor -- she told me what the score used to be). The Demos just need the right mouthpiece to invoke it.

Personally, I'd like the two-party system to self-destruct. I'd love to see some kind of legislative system in which coalitions of parties could hold control instead of one monolithic party. If they are stable, such systems tend to encourage moderate government. And as a liberal, moderation is more than good enough for me. It gets there in the end. That's my major quibble with Bush -- he doesn't know about moderation or compromise. I read a quote from him today in which he said he'd be willing to reach out to people on the other side of the ideological divide if they could embrace his goals. A statement like that characterizes Bush as, at best, unclear on the concept of what "reaching out" means.

sob

We're certainly branching out from the original thread, but here goes.

Yours is a bad analogy. A more comparable statement to yours would be "Blacks like watermelon." It's insulting, and may have been true at one time, but no more.


Thanks for the (unnecessary) advice. Here's some reading for you:

"White carpenters, white bricklayers and white painters will not work side by side with the blacks in the North but do it in almost every Southern State."

Alexis de Tocqueville, 1907, as cited in Truths of History, p. 92

Non-resident blacks were forbidden to attend public schools in Connecticut because "... it would tend to the great increase of the colored people of the state."

William Lloyd Garrison, as cited in Virginia's Attitude Toward Slavery and Succession

New Jersey prohibited free blacks from settling in the state.

Massachusetts passed a law that allowed the flogging of blacks who came into the state and remained for longer than two months.

Indiana's constitution stated that "...no negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in the state..."

Illinois in 1853 enacted a law "...to prevent the immigration of free negroes into this state."

Oregon's 1857 constitution provided that "...No free negro or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of adoption [of the constitution of the state of Oregon] ... shall come,reside, or be within this state..."

Beverly B. Munford, Virginia's Attitude Toward Slavery and Succession

"But why should emancipation South send free people North? ... And in any event cannot the North decide for itself whether to receive them?"

Abraham Lincoln, in a message to Congress, December, 1862

State /Year Blacks Barred from Voting
New Jersey 1807
Connecticut 1814
Rhode Island 1822
Pennsylvania 1838

Edgar J. McManus, Black Bondage in the North

You also seem to have missed the bloody race riots of the 1960s in Newark and Detroit. And the violent resistance to forced busing in Boston (right after a judge broke up my high school in Georgia with forced busing, over which there were no riots).

It is also documented that the North is more segregated than the South.

Legal Lynching, Southern Partisan, p. 44

Still want to tell me that racism was, or is, so much more institutionalized in the North?