Birthers - Born Again?

[JD Barleycorn]

The KKK was an invention of Southern democrats. Things didn't change much in the next 100 years. Where do you think segregationist Dixiecrats came from in 1948? Do you know you sound like that fellow CDN?

[thorough9]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The KKK was an invention of Southern democrats. Things didn't change much in the next 100 years. Where do you think segregationist Dixiecrats came from in 1948? Do you know you sound like that fellow CDN?

And those same Dixiecrats were/are the core of the Conservative Republican "movement"....

[CuteOldGuy]

Are they? Maybe there's a blog somewhere. I'll check.

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Are they? Maybe there's a blog somewhere. I'll check.

LOL. Now that was funny COG.

[JD Barleycorn]

I can prove what I said (and everyone should already know it) but you can't prove what you say (because it isn't true). So why do you say it?

Lets look at the GOP conservative movement. The Dixiecrats split from the Democratic Party in 1948 and ran Strom Thurmond as their candidate for president. They lost but almost cost the election for the democrats. Truman won. Afterwards the Dixiecrats had to find a home. Some like Strom Thurmond became Republicans in the 1960s and other like the infamous Bull Connors continued to run as Democrats and win. You may ask what does this have to do with GOP conservatism and here is your answer. In 1964 the watershed Civil Rights Act was passed by both the house and senate with a great percentage of Republicans than Democrats. All the Southern Democrats (of 21 votes) save one voted against the act. That exception was Richard Byrd of West Virginia. So we have an example of Southern democratic solidarity against Civil Rights. How about the GOP? Six Republican Senators voted against the Civil Rights act. Barry Goldwater (yes, the father of conservatism) of Arizona, Hickenlooper of Iowa, Cotton of New Hampshire, Mechem of New Mexico, Simpson (not Alan) of Wyoming, and Tower of Texas. So only one Southern Republican voted against the Civil Rights act and the reason given was that the federal government should not be dictating to the states what should be a state issue.
So far we have a solid block of Southern democrats voting against black civil rights and one Texan republican voting against. Sounds like a Southern Democrat problem.
Lets move on. Actually there is no real need to move as that one vote demostrates where the parties stood in 1964. You did say Southern Republicans though. Goldwater was from Arizona, Buckley was from New York, Irving Kristol was from New York, Reagan was from Illinois. Nope, not one Southerner in the bunch. By the way, the afore mentioned Strom Thurmond voted against the Civil Rights Act and then became a Republican later in the year. He then appointed the first black man as a staffer in the South Carolina delegation and voted for the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. It was also revealed that he had a bi-racial daughter who he supported through college and showed great affection for her though not admitting that he was her father.

To conclude; The GOP conservative movement has roots from all across the United States but the deepest roots are in New York and the shallowest roots are in the South. Whereas the liberal, racist roots in the Democratic Party are definitely in the South just ask Albert Gore Senior who tried to stop the 64 Civil Rights Act with a filibuster.
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/gene.../big/0619.html

[thorough9]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Are they? Maybe there's a blog somewhere. I'll check.

You should already know. Your membership dues are current. You're a card carrying member.

[CuteOldGuy]

I'm a card-carrying member of what? Wait, let me check my wallet. Hmmm . . . There's my Dillon's card, Blockbuster, Notary Public license (yes, I am a genuine Notary Public!), and there's my Best Buy rewards card, and my Trojan Magnum frequent, uh, "flyer" card (Yes, they are a little small, but they give a better bulk discount than Lifestyles), my driver's license with photo (suitable for voting) and there it is! My membership card in the Freedom Loving Americans Institute, welcoming all regardless of race, gender, color, creed or sexual orientation. The only requirement is a general distrust of Democrats and Republicans.

[catnipdipper]

COG that Freedom Loving American's Card............regardless of race, creed or color...................so Sharia is ok? I thought you said it should not be practiced here?

Is Sharia as bad as a misguided Christian zealot, right wing nut, falsely interpreting a book literally and using it to take away individual freedoms of choice?

For the record I want neither of them in my life but to posture against one and to wink at the other is hypocrisy.

[JD Barleycorn]

The difference CND is that a christian religious zealot is going against the teaching of the bible and the concept of free will. They are expected to testify but not to compel someone to follow their religion.
If a muslim follows the precepts of their religion then they are compelling someone to follow the practices of islam and sharia law.

This country was founded on the idea that free men could better govern themselves than a government or a religion. If someone practices true christianity then they respect free will and can coincide with American freedom. Anyone who practices islam cannot truly believe in the American ideal of liberty when their very idea of religion is one of forced submission.

CND would you make the same complaints if someone wanted to force you to be a Nazi or you had the free choice to be a slimy bag of anti-semitic piece of crap. The US guarantees you a right to be stupid, or racist, or hateful but it didn't used to be that way. The Marshall court (early 19th century) declared that fighting words were not protected speech. Our early leaders understood that a line had to be drawn to defend the country and that included speech. Charges of treason could and were pressed against individuals. 200 years ago a person advocating sharia law would have probably been brought up on those charges. They may not have been convicted but at least the line would be bright and apparent.

Shakespeare was right when he wrote, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

[catnipdipper]

Galt if as you say this country was founded by men who felt they could govern themselves better than a government or a religion then I think you are talking anarchy? How do you govern without a government.

Also Galt if the founders did not want religion to be involved with government then are you not at odds with most of your postings of conservativism and litmus tests of right wing zealots that you worship?

Pretty conflicted thinking Galt but then this is from a guy that I call $60(sixty bucks) and a quarter tip.

[JD Barleycorn]

Why bother with a fool who can't even get my name right. All bow before Bishop CDN.

With very little respect to you I have to disagree with you about the founding fathers. Religion or faith pervaded everything they did but the langauge has changed in the last 200 odd years. When Thomas Jefferson spoke of nature, he was referring to god. Same thing for the natural state of man. These men were given classical educations which included logic, philosophy, and critical thinking. They were not as obvious as you would like criticize because they thought that a faith in god was universal and infinite. In the Declaration of Independence it took the Reverend Witherspoon to point out that god should be mentioned specifically though Adams and Franklin thought that was impliciate. I point out that Franklin was a committed Deist with a belief in god but a low key belief.


I don't get this thing you harp on about 60 dollars. I have limited reviews and they are just about all spas so what is your problem. That is the going rate. Do you believe in paying someone twice what the going rate is just to look good? Do you have any other mental defects we should know about? If I were to meet Silly Girl and Sins of the Flesh would that make you happy? Of course, you would have to admit that you were wrong (again).

I might have time this weekend.

[thorough9]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

This country was founded on the idea that free men could better govern themselves than a government or a religion.

Really? Then why did they form a government?

[thorough9]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

200 years ago a person advocating sharia law would have probably been brought up on those charges. They may not have been convicted but at least the line would be bright and apparent.

200 years ago, a person advocating sharia law would have been tarred and feathered or chained to a stake, doused with gasoline, and burned alive. That's a pretty clear line....

[CuteOldGuy]

Religious zealots of any stripe, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, even Taoist, are by definition NOT freedom loving, therefore their application would be denied.

Maybe a Wiccan theocracy would work, their motto is "Do as you will, but hurt no one."

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by thorough9

Really? Then why did they form a government?

If you really want to know, they wanted an effective military defense, and a favorable business climate. Other than that, they wanted to be left alone to say what they want, worship who they want, and not be arrested arbitrarily.