"Liberal" congresswoman tells Tea Party to "go straight to hell" - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Jim in CT · 08-22-2011, 02:06 PM

Here's the difference between the 2 parties...

In 2002 I believe, Trent Lott was the majority-leader of the Republican controlled Senate. At Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, Trent Lott mentioned that it was too bad Thurmond didn't get elected president (he ran as a segregationist). President Bush called Lott's comments despicable (remember, Lott was a Republican)...Lott immediately resigned as republican leader of the Senate.

THAT'S the difference. Maybe we need to split the country in 2.

Swimmer · 08-22-2011, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Here's the difference between the 2 parties...

In 2002 I believe, Trent Lott was the majority-leader of the Republican controlled Senate. At Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, Trent Lott mentioned that it was too bad Thurmond didn't get elected president (he ran as a segregationist). President Bush called Lott's comments despicable (remember, Lott was a Republican)...Lott immediately resigned as republican leader of the Senate.

THAT'S the difference. Maybe we need to split the country in 2.

Senator Thurmond was a mentor and close friend to my uncle #^&#^&#^&#^& who was an air force pilot during the early forties to the mid-seventies. My uncle previous to pressurized cockpits had blown a hole in his sinus cavity down through the roof of his mouth during a dive in a plane. While he was on the mend and thinking of not continuing in the air force he met Thurmond at the Univ. of Tennessee where my uncle was pursuing a (admiralty) law degree, which he did get.
Thurmond pursuaded uncle #^&#^&#^&#^& to stay in the service which he did. My uncle was proud of his association with Thurmond.

Jim in CT · 08-22-2011, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swimmer

My uncle was proud of his association with Thurmond.

That's a genuinely interesting story.

Thurmond was also a raicst whose views towards blacks were notarious even by the standards of the segregated South. His presidential candidacy was literally based on segregation.

Swimmer · 08-23-2011, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That's a genuinely interesting story.

Thurmond was also a raicst whose views towards blacks were notarious even by the standards of the segregated South. His presidential candidacy was literally based on segregation.

While my uncle #^&#^&#^&#^& was in law school in TN. during his hiatus from the air force while healing he started a flying school on campus there that #^&#^&#^&#^& said in 1995 still existed. I can't say my uncle believe in Thurmonds racist views. He never seemed bigoted to me. He was truly a very intelligent fellow.

spence · 08-22-2011, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Here's the difference between the 2 parties...

In 2002 I believe, Trent Lott was the majority-leader of the Republican controlled Senate. At Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, Trent Lott mentioned that it was too bad Thurmond didn't get elected president (he ran as a segregationist). President Bush called Lott's comments despicable (remember, Lott was a Republican)...Lott immediately resigned as republican leader of the Senate.

THAT'S the difference. Maybe we need to split the country in 2.

Actually what he said was "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."

It was a pretty bad gaffe, although one I don't think he intended. Actually, I thought Trent Lott was a pretty good guy.

But that's the way politics work.

-spence

Jim in CT · 08-23-2011, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence

But that's the way politics work.

-spence

OK, Spence, I see. When Republicans say offensive things, you are all over it. When Democrats say offensive things, it's just "politics as usual".

Anyway, Obama's only theme during the campaign was "change". If all he could promise was "change", then he doesn't get to defend himself by saying that's "politics as usual".

WHen a Republican said something offensive, Bush called him on it, in public, saying that stuff had no place in public service. When Democrats do the same thing, Obama is silent. That is, when he's not the one doing it, which he does often (the Cambridge police acted stupidly, Republicans have to sit in the back of the bus, conservatives are holding the economy hostage, etc...).

I yearn for November 2012...

spence · 08-23-2011, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, Spence, I see. When Republicans say offensive things, you are all over it. When Democrats say offensive things, it's just "politics as usual".

I don't think there's parity between the two comments, it has nothing to do with party.

-spence

rphud · 08-27-2011, 10:08 AM

Both/all extremes got to go now.

Time for the Silent Majority to rise again.

Who votes for these idiots anyways? I think they need a good talking to.

zimmy · 09-02-2011, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rphud

Time for the Silent Majority to rise again.

Interesting... seems that the minority is not very silent and has way too much influence during the last year or so. Especially when one considers how delusional they are. Hopefully the majority, those in the middle of both parties, will actually stand up for sanity and stop these idiots from permanently destroying the country. The only 2 sane candidates on the right don't have a chance of making it out of the primaries and that is scary. Maybe that is the silent majority you are talking about?

detbuch · 09-03-2011, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zimmy

Interesting... seems that the minority is not very silent

THE?? minority? There's only one minority? Aren't all parties coalitions of minorities? There may be a "majority" of opinion on a given topic on which minorities can coalesce, but lockstep on all issues doesn't exist.

and has way too much influence during the last year or so.

Is "too much influence" that influence that disturbs yuor particular minority? How does a minority apply that influence--by convincing a majority to vote for its candidate or policy?

Especially when one considers how delusional they are.

Are "they" delusional because they disagree with you? Do explain this delusion, otherwise you're just name-calling.

Hopefully the majority, those in the middle of both parties, will actually stand up for sanity and stop these idiots from permanently destroying the country.

Ah . . . so THE majority is the middle of both parties. The middle of both parties agree with each other? On some particular policies, perhaps, but those middles are too expansive and various to see any massive agreement on what is "sane" or what is "destroying the country." "Idiots . . .sanity" more unsubstantiated name-calling.

The only 2 sane candidates on the right don't have a chance of making it out of the primaries and that is scary. Maybe that is the silent majority you are talking about?

So in your sane, safe and temperate opinion the Republican candidate will be scary. If he/she wins the presidency, will THE majority then be insane?