Remember, this Republican party controls all three branches of our government, executive, legislative, and judicial. This is the kind of people they are...

VOTING RIGHTS ACT NAILED TO BURNING CROSS

Behind the

Truely stunning.  I'm not even sure what to say really. 

I just hope that the Democrats win the Congress this fall, so this does not happen.

^ I hope you're right. I really do. But I'm afraid Unca Karl and the boys have '06 sewn up too. I'll wager we're in for major civil violence within the next five years.

I remember some bubba rednecks threatening civil war if in 2000 if Gore was allowed to assume the office of President of the United States, an office he rightfully won!

I guess liberals have a much longer fuse...and fewer guns!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/xyxgun.gif

I don't really see why you think the Repugs have a chance of winning, Max. Everything seems to indicate otherwise.  I hope you're wrong.

^ All the exit polls on Election Day, 2004, indicated Kerry won, and yet....

You can thank Diebold and voter disenfranchisement akin to the 2000 election for that, my friend.^

But the thing is, the 2000 and 2004 elections were close.  The Repugs have become so unpopular in certain circles I don't think a lot of the races where Democrats win will even be close.

[quote author=

I don't think a democrat will win in '08. If Bush can still win in '04, then a republican who's probably going to be better than him, can certainly win in '08.

I don't think a democrat will win in '08. If Bush can still win in '04, then a republican who's probably going to be better than him, can certainly win in '08.

How many bleedin' times do we have to tell you? Bush did not win the 2004 election, he stole it. The proof is out there. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, Greg Palast...go find out if you want to know.
As we speak, crooked Republican strategists are fixing to steal the not just the presidential election, but the next legislative elections in '06 and '08 as well. As Mr. Palast points out, the Republican Party violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in both 2000 and 2004. Now they are gunning to do away with the Voting Rights Act altogether...and that's just the tip of sewer!

Welcome to our new fascist nightmare. The Bush crime family has American democracy in its sites!

Of course, this is all in reply to an opinion piece.

You really can't argue with an opinion, because it is just that, an opinion.

I prefer to debate with facts then to argue over opinion.

Mushroom, I would say that the Republicans' delay of renewing the Voting Act constitutes as a fact.  The articles an op-ed but we can still discuss the issue.

[quote author=

Of course, this is all in reply to an opinion piece.

You really can't argue with an opinion, because it is just that, an opinion.

I prefer to debate with facts then to argue over opinion.

It is not an opinion that the Republicans stole the last two presidential elections. It is fact. Of course it was the opposition that took them to task for their crimes of election fraud and the violation of the civil rights of Americans. Who do you think is going to chase the story, Fred Barnes? Brit Hume? No, it is going to be liberal activists, people who DON'T want to see this country turn into a dictatorship of corporate chieftens and their high priests of the Christian Right!
I did not prove it. Greg Palast, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (among others) proved it. If you have facts to disprove what these investigators have concluded, take it up with them. Make them retract what they have said. I mean, you should, by all means, you should. The mainstream media will not take these guys on. You won't see Palast, Kennedy, or Fitrakis and Wasserman on the panel on FOX News. Even the commie-traitor New York Times phoned Palast just to call him a conspiracy theorist nut and a sore loser. BUT...they did not disprove the conclusions of Palast, et al.

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/995
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won.php

I don't want you, Mushroom, or any Republican voter on this board, to take your case to me. It is not my case. I wish just as much as you do that the Republicans are winning elections fair and square. That would mean we have a functioning democracy and an elections nobody is tampering with. I wish Greg Palast was a sore loser. I would rather have the voting majority disagree with the way I vote than to have criminals rigging elections. Trust once lost is hard to restore.

This is not about political philosophy--conservative theory versus liberal theory. This is not about getting people who want to vote Republican to vote Democrat instead. It is about very dangerous and terrifying crimes being commited against the American people.

This is not about political philosophy--conservative theory versus liberal theory. This is not about getting people who want to vote Republican to vote Democrat instead. It is about very dangerous and terrifying crimes being commited against the American people.


Oh yes, you are so right.

That is why I am endorsing a plan put forward by Rep Jessie Jackson Jr.!!!!  And we all know what a Right-wing Conservative racest he is.  :D

I just do not see the need to set aside certain regions for "Special Treatment".  Instead, I would much rather see an all-encompassing law to cover the entire country.  Not a civil rights era dinosaur that does nothing but restrict the rights of certain areas...  and ignoring any rights violations in the rest of the country.

Maxwell, how about removing this old law, and making a low that covers the entire country?  Is that such a bad thing?  Of course, being from the NE, I am sure that you think that those of us in the South are nothing but a bunch of ignorant rednecks in the first place.

Basically, rich Southern white men have a history of believing their vote should count more than everybody else's. They still do. The voting rights act put special requirements on Southern states because Southern white men were murdering African Americans who wanted to exercise their Constitutional rights to vote. This was not happening in Connecticut, much to the frustration of Ann Coulter's dad.

However, Ohio is not the heart of Jim Crow country. Neither is California. In California, GOP crooks just stole a Congressional election from Democrat Francine Busby and handed it to Republican Brian Bilbray (San Diego, 50th Congressional District). The GOP already had one of their own in that seat, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who just received an eight-year prison sentence for  conspiracy, bribery, fraud, and tax evasion.

It is time to get rid of the 1965 voting rights act and replace it with the 2006 voting rights act!!!
The American Right has not spent the past forty years learning to appreciate equal rights for all Americans. They have spent four decades gnashing their teeth at the loss of white male supremacy and scheming to get it back. Now that we've caught them red-handed several times trying to covertly restore Jim Crow, we now need to apply nation-wide similar provisions required of the Southern states in the 1965
act, and for chrissakes no more Diebold machines!

The GOP thinks it's just a grand old party to send scary white guys to the polls to "challenge" the ballots of minority voters. What, ladies and gentlemen, do you suppose would happen if the New Black Panther Party sent watchmen to the polls in Florida and Ohio to make sure no people of color got hassled? Hmmmm? What would Fred Barnes and Brit Hume have to say about that? I just wonder!

Oh yes, you are so right.

That is why I am endorsing a plan put forward by Rep Jessie Jackson Jr.!!!!  And we all know what a Right-wing Conservative racest he is.   :D

I just do not see the need to set aside certain regions for "Special Treatment".  Instead, I would much rather see an all-encompassing law to cover the entire country.  Not a civil rights era dinosaur that does nothing but restrict the rights of certain areas...  and ignoring any rights violations in the rest of the country.

Maxwell, how about removing this old law, and making a low that covers the entire country?  Is that such a bad thing?  Of course, being from the NE, I am sure that you think that those of us in the South are nothing but a bunch of ignorant rednecks in the first place.

I do not think you are a redneck, but you know who does? Your fellow Southern whites who happen to be rich! Do you think Jeb Bush or Katherine Harris has any respect for you? No way! They regard you as "trailer trash." Those rich politicos just want your vote, that's all. The issue is now and always has been more about class than race.
So if you think there should be a "voting rights act" for the entire country, we are in agreement. However, that's not what the rich Southern white men who dominate the GOP want. They want to return as much of the Jim Crow era as they possibly can.
BTW, there is no "i" in the masculine given name "Jesse."

I do not think you are a redneck, but you know who does? Your fellow Southern whites who happen to be rich! Do you think Jeb Bush or Katherine Harris has any respect for you? No way! They regard you as "trailer trash." Those rich politicos just want your vote, that's all. The issue is now and always has been more about class than race.


Do you really think that is how it is in the South today?  And looking through that list, I see a great number of Western, and Norhtern states and communities in that list as well.  Strange, I must have missed all the cross burnings in the liberal haven of Monterey, California.  Are there a lot of Southern Dixicrats in New Hampshire?  How about Alaska?  I never realized that Alaska is still suffering from Jim Crowe and reconstruction.

By the way, most of the "Good Old Boys" down here happen to be Democrats!  They belong to the same party as their fathers, and grandfathers, and great-great grandfathers.  In the South today, the Republican party is often the party that is used by outsiders who are trying to break that system.

Here in Houston County, we had 2 Democrats and 1 Republican running for County Sheriff.  The Incumbant (a Democrat) won the run-off election, against an opponent who is the son of a former Sheriff.  The only person who ran under the Republican ticket was running under a platform of change.  He was a former Deputy, who was tired of the "Good Old Boy" network, and vowed to put an end to it and make large reforms.  He also pledged to make it easier for citizens to obtain concealed carry permits.

To bad, he died a week before the primary.  He was 55, but was in poor health.  However, his life had been threatened several times in the months leading up to the primaries.  Even though his death has been declaired to be of "Natural Causes", members of his family are claiming that he was murdered.

The County GOP recently named somebody to take his place.  Even though he was dead, I voted for Edward Charles Gibson because I felt a change was needed.

http://216.87.159.52/news/default.asp?mode=shownews&id=2592

And by the way, Mr. Gibson was an African-American.  The first ever to run for Houston County Sheriff.  Myself, I do not believe it was foul play, just poor health.  In the year before, he was treated for prostate cancer.  In addition he suffered from high blood pressure and diabetes.

Are there a lot of Southern Dixicrats in New Hampshire? 



Yes, as a matter of fact( I say that as a person of color who spends as little time in that neighboring state as
possible) They call themselves Libertarians.  New Hampshire is the only place I ever saw a guy parading around at a flea market dressed to the nines as Herman Goering. I guess he and his friends thought it would intimidate me if he stood next to me, I directed him to the booth with the naughty lingerie.  Since I was with a few people who caught what was going on, a couple of which were gruff looking guys, they decided to keep walking.

Do you really think that is how it is in the South today?  And looking through that list, I see a great number of Western, and Norhtern states and communities in that list as well.  Strange, I must have missed all the cross burnings in the liberal haven of Monterey, California.  Are there a lot of Southern Dixicrats in New Hampshire?  How about Alaska?  I never realized that Alaska is still suffering from Jim Crowe and reconstruction.

By the way, most of the "Good Old Boys" down here happen to be Democrats!  They belong to the same party as their fathers, and grandfathers, and great-great grandfathers.  In the South today, the Republican party is often the party that is used by outsiders who are trying to break that system.

Here in Houston County, we had 2 Democrats and 1 Republican running for County Sheriff.  The Incumbant (a Democrat) won the run-off election, against an opponent who is the son of a former Sheriff.  The only person who ran under the Republican ticket was running under a platform of change.  He was a former Deputy, who was tired of the "Good Old Boy" network, and vowed to put an end to it and make large reforms.  He also pledged to make it easier for citizens to obtain concealed carry permits.

To bad, he died a week before the primary.  He was 55, but was in poor health.  However, his life had been threatened several times in the months leading up to the primaries.  Even though his death has been declaired to be of "Natural Causes", members of his family are claiming that he was murdered.

The County GOP recently named somebody to take his place.  Even though he was dead, I voted for Edward Charles Gibson because I felt a change was needed.

http://216.87.159.52/news/default.asp?mode=shownews&id=2592

And by the way, Mr. Gibson was an African-American.  The first ever to run for Houston County Sheriff.  Myself, I do not believe it was foul play, just poor health.  In the year before, he was treated for prostate cancer.  In addition he suffered from high blood pressure and diabetes.

Lyndon Johnson knew he was killing the Democratic party when he signed the Civil Rights act. That's when the South went Republican. I don't live in the South, so I cannot attest to how many local elected "good old boys" are still Democrats. The Democratic party began to lose Southern populist favor when FDR came in. You know, Strom Thurmond and the "Dixiecrats."  It was Johnson, however, who really signed the death warrant for the Democrats in the South. Nixon used a racially divisive "Southern strategy."  However, it was the Reagan campaign of 1980 that made the Southern racist a figure of reverence in the Republican party.
I am not making that up. I did not make it so. I wish it were not so...but it is.
Ronald Reagan kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, on a "states' rights" platform. States' rights was and is a code name for the counter-Civil Rights movement. Slavery was still legal in Mississippi in 1980, but the state law was nullified by the pesky 13th Amendment! However, the "Dixiecrat" wing of the Democratic party dies hard. Zell Miller was screaming at the GOP clavern, uh, convention in 2004 like his parents had converted to Satanism!  Who did Zell used to work for? Lester Maddox!
The money and power in Southern politics resides firmly in the GOP.

Don't get me wrong. I do not scapegoat the South for racism. If you want to see some of the ugliest racism in American history, just read up on dear old Boston! The most popular Boston talk radio host today, Howie Carr, is just a Klansman without the sheets. Plenty of liberal peaceniks get murder on their minds if they listen to Howie's show! It makes 'em want to get a gun just to shoot him dead. That's how atrocious Howie is!

I'm afraid America is still choc-full o'racists from the Florida keys to the Aleutian Islands. However, if you could get them to identify themselves as "racist" and take a poll, I'll bet you'd find 90% or better vote Republican. Just the way it is.

I spent half my life in New Hampshire. In the '70s we had a governor named Meldrim Thompson who was in the John Birch Society. Mel Thompson would make Bush look like a flaming liberal! Then we had John Sununu in the '80s, you know who he is.
North of Manchester in NH is an awfully lonely and unfriendly place for an African American. At least in the deep South blacks have plenty of fellow blacks as neighbors. Southern whites are at least accustomed to seeing black people. Up there in northern New England, the yokels just gawk!
It's not just ignorant right-wingers either. There are a whole lot of liberals in Vermont who will champion on the causes of African-Americans, but put one of them alone in an elevator car with a black man and watch a liberal cringe! It would be funny if it weren't so damn sad!
::)

Of course, this is all in reply to an opinion piece.



I thought of this thread tonight when Stephen Colbert declared, "I am not a fan of facts, sir!"
An attitude that dominates the Right on the subjects of the theft of the past two Presidential elections AND human activity-induced global warming!
:P

I spent half my life in New Hampshire. In the '70s we had a governor named Meldrim Thompson who was in the John Birch Society. Mel Thompson would make Bush look like a flaming liberal! Then we had John Sununu in the '80s, you know who he is.
North of Manchester in NH is an awfully lonely and unfriendly place for an African American. At least in the deep South blacks have plenty of fellow blacks as neighbors. Southern whites are at least accustomed to seeing black people. Up there in northern New England, the yokels just gawk!
It's not just ignorant right-wingers either. There are a whole lot of liberals in Vermont who will champion on the causes of African-Americans, but put one of them alone in an elevator car with a black man and watch a liberal cringe! It would be funny if it weren't so damn sad!
::)




And all the while whites will tell me it's just my imagination.  ::)

Yes, as a matter of fact( I say that as a person of color who spends as little time in that neighboring state as
possible) They call themselves Libertarians. 


They are actually everywhere.  Myself, I call them "Loosertarians".  And they are not all Conservative.  I know an awful lot of "Liberal Libertarians".  In fact, most of them tend to be some kind of weird Frankenstein mixture of Conservative and Liberal beliefs, with the main focus being "No government - do what you want to do".  I never take them seriously, and most are nutcases.


Lyndon Johnson knew he was killing the Democratic party when he signed the Civil Rights act. That's when the South went Republican. I don't live in the South, so I cannot attest to how many local elected "good old boys" are still Democrats. The Democratic party began to lose Southern populist favor when FDR came in. You know, Strom Thurmond and the "Dixiecrats."  It was Johnson, however, who really signed the death warrant for the Democrats in the South. Nixon used a racially divisive "Southern strategy."  However, it was the Reagan campaign of 1980 that made the Southern racist a figure of reverence in the Republican party.


You really don't understand Southern politics, do you?

The South has been Democratic since the 1860's.  It was only 20 years ago when they started to vote tor Republicans, and that was mostly in Presidential elections.  The state and local politics are still consistantly Democrat.

The South has historically been the home of "Conservative Democrats".  This is an area of the country that most people would not understand.  Where Church is still an important part of life, and people often live their entire lives in the same small town.  This is the region that benefited most from FDR's programs, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, and a great number of Public WOrks programs during his administration.

What turned the region away from the Democrats in Presidential elections was the increasing power of the radical liberal wing of the Democratic Party.  This was first noticed strongly in the region when George McGOvern won the nomination in 1972.  The last time a Democrat has wone any measureable share of Southern votes was in 1976, with President Carter.

In the 30 years since, the Democrats became more and more Liberal, and alienating the region more and more.  The result has been a split electoral base.  They most often vote Republican for President, and Democrat for state and local issues.  Our current Governor in Alabama is only the thrid Republican since the end of Reconstruction.  And of those three, the 2 prior only held office for one term.  One of them was a former Governor, who switched parties after loosing the Democratic Primary.  He served one more term before being replaced by another Democrat.

In many cases, the Republican Party in the South is mostly a place for disgruntled Democrats to run against other Democrats.  George Wallace Jr. is no Republican, and has switched parties constantly during his political career.  However, he is running as Lt. Governor as a Republican because his name is more widely known then the other Republican in the race.  Both Democrats are popular, and he would be quickly eliminated if he ran against them.

The South moving to the Republicans for national elections in the last 3 decades is mostly from alienation.  They feel that the Democrats have abandoned them, so they vote for President for candidates who are more likely to share their values.  If a more Conservative Democrat ran for President, they would likely win the South.  However, over the years the Democratic party has moved more and more Liberal, and continues to alienate the South (and areas of the North-West and Mid-West).  But if you look at Local politics, you will see that the region is still firmly entrenched with the Democratic party.

They are actually everywhere.  Myself, I call them "Loosertarians".  And they are not all Conservative.  I know an awful lot of "Liberal Libertarians".  In fact, most of them tend to be some kind of weird Frankenstein mixture of Conservative and Liberal beliefs, with the main focus being "No government - do what you want to do".  I never take them seriously, and most are nutcases.
I think a lot of hardcore Libertarians don't have a good grasp on the dynamics of political power. Government is bad because it can impose taxes and take away your gun, but corporate power is a beautiful thing. They deny the connection between corporate and government power. Big business serves big government and big government serves big business. Then there are the conservative Libertarians whose philosophy boils down to: "we can do what we want, but you've got to to what we say." The corporatists poisoned the Libertarian philosophy just like they poisoned Southern baptism.

You really don't understand Southern politics, do you?
Possibly not.

The South has been Democratic since the 1860's.  It was only 20 years ago when they started to vote tor Republicans, and that was mostly in Presidential elections.  The state and local politics are still consistantly Democrat.
I did observe this in a previous post.

The South has historically been the home of "Conservative Democrats".  This is an area of the country that most people would not understand.  Where Church is still an important part of life, and people often live their entire lives in the same small town.  This is the region that benefited most from FDR's programs, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, and a great number of Public WOrks programs during his administration.
Good point. I think, though, the New Deal affirmed the Republican party as the party of big business. Of course, big business benefited from the New Deal even more than the average Joe, but your J.P Morgan types will never admit government knows better than they!

What turned the region away from the Democrats in Presidential elections was the increasing power of the radical liberal wing of the Democratic Party.  This was first noticed strongly in the region when George McGOvern won the nomination in 1972.  The last time a Democrat has wone any measureable share of Southern votes was in 1976, with President Carter.
Wait a sec, what made McGovern "radical"? I mean, beyond the finger-pointing of partisan politics, what was it that McGovern wanted to do that was so "radical"? The way conservatives talk about JC these days, you'd think he was a godlesss commie-hippie. Short memories. Carter was a big business Southern Dem and a born-again Christian. Still is a born again. Carter didn't go farther left since he left office, the Republicans went waaaay farther right. Carter is a Christian who actually does things Jesus would have Christians do. No wonder the Republican holy-rollers hate him so much. The right-wing Evangelicals do everything Jesus said NOT today. They're all about greed and hurting other people!

In the 30 years since, the Democrats became more and more Liberal, and alienating the region more and more.  The result has been a split electoral base.  They most often vote Republican for President, and Democrat for state and local issues.  Our current Governor in Alabama is only the thrid Republican since the end of Reconstruction.  And of those three, the 2 prior only held office for one term.  One of them was a former Governor, who switched parties after loosing the Democratic Primary.  He served one more term before being replaced by another Democrat.
I must disagree. Bill Clinton was what I'd call a "Republicrat." I liked him the least of all the candidates in '92. I voted for him desperate to keep the Bush crime family out of the White House. Clinton was another big business Southern Dem. Clinton was less into God than Carter and more into bangin' beaver, but Clinton did give the Republicans about 90% of what they wanted. He signed NAFTA and so-called  "Welfare Reform," which drove my protoest vote for Nader in '96.
The big hang up is abortion, and now "gay marriage." Economically, however, the Dems have moved much farther to the Right in the past 30 years. However, they can't possibly keep rightward pace with the Republicans who have turned fascist plain and simple. You'll notice Hillary is still trying to get people who will always hate her to like her.

In many cases, the Republican Party in the South is mostly a place for disgruntled Democrats to run against other Democrats.  George Wallace Jr. is no Republican, and has switched parties constantly during his political career.  However, he is running as Lt. Governor as a Republican because his name is more widely known then the other Republican in the race.  Both Democrats are popular, and he would be quickly eliminated if he ran against them.
Oh yeah, I agree with you here.

The South moving to the Republicans for national elections in the last 3 decades is mostly from alienation.  They feel that the Democrats have abandoned them, so they vote for President for candidates who are more likely to share their values.  If a more Conservative Democrat ran for President, they would likely win the South.  However, over the years the Democratic party has moved more and more Liberal, and continues to alienate the South (and areas of the North-West and Mid-West).  But if you look at Local politics, you will see that the region is still firmly entrenched with the Democratic party.

What have the Democrats abandoned? I'm sorry to phrase it this way, but the Dems abandoned white supremecy. The Dems don't believe in letting poor people rot away on a diet of cornbread and coffee. They would like everybody to have adequate healthcare. They don't think schools should be racially segregated. They don't want holy-roller preachers calling the shots for everybody. They don't want minority voters excluded from the franchise. The Dems also don't want the government meddling in people's reproductive choices. The Republicans, on the other hand, love all these ideas. Zell Miller in the South and Joe Lieberman in the north stayed in the Democratic party as agents of sabotage. Miller has retired up holler to his moonshine still and his incestuous clan or whatever, and Joe Lieberman is fighting for his senate seat like a cornered ferret. We're all sick of sanctimonious Joe up here. His days are numbered. Good riddance to both.

And all the while whites will tell me it's just my imagination.   ::)

Believe you me, it ain't!
There used to be a saying, "In the South they don't care how close the black man gets, just as long as he doesn't got too big. In the North they don't care how big the black man gets, just as long as he doesn't get too close."
In other words, Southern whites are accustomed to the presence of blacks. Rich Southern white kids had black nannies and black butlers. Back in the day there were black people in the room where you were born, and there were black people in the room where you died. The reason these Southern whites were so comfortable with black people back before the middle of the 20th century is blacks were absolutely subjugated by law. There was no question what the black man's roll was.  If they stepped out of line, they died. Everybody knew it. Poor Southern whites had more of a chip on their shoulder than the rich ones. The upper classes pitted them against each other. They would tell the black field hands, in essence, you may be a n***er, but at least you're not a filthy redneck! It served to sever any potential allegiance. However, even the poor Southern whites saw black people and black culture everywhere they went.

The North did not have official Jim Crow laws, but blacks didn't get treated much better up here until the political climate changed in the mid-20th century. The black population migrated from the South to the northern cities. Northerners never had the same complacent cultural subjugation, so there was a great deal more political fear and uncertainty. At the same time as northern liberals idealized success for blacks in business and politics (they thought it was great if blacks made it BIG). Yet they were nervous about having the average black family move into their neighborhood. Northern whites were much more awkward relating to blacks on a one-to-one level. It was the fear of the unfamiliar. In a lot of the rural North, it still is.

This is not to say there wasn't the dirtiest racist practices up North. Remember the disaster of "busing"? Boston remains one of the most racially segregated cities in the country. My eldest sister told an anectdote recently I had never heard before. This was about the same time I was born and my family was still living in Dorchester while my dad worked on his PhD at Harvard. My sister was taking ballet lessons at some stuffy old lady's studio in Boston. One day one of the other mothers mentioned Mrs. So-and-So did not admit black students into her classes. My mother flew into a rage and confronted the old lady, dressed her down pretty good. Then she grabbed my sister and left. That was the end of that. The teacher just sort of tossed her head like, "Oh god, some hippie chick throwing a fit about the negroes." Again this was Boston in 1969, not Charleston or Savannah! If you ran a private school or club, you were free to practice racial discrimination and nobody said boo about it. Ten years later, a lady like that ballet teacher would be in hot water. She would get taken to court and severely sanctioned. Not in 1969. My mother did not even file a complaint against the woman, too big a hassle, City Hall wouldn't care.
This anectdote helped me understand why "busing" in Boston was such a disaster when it was imposed in the early '70s. Boston was as racist a city as you could find!

I think a lot of hardcore Libertarians don't have a good grasp on the dynamics of political power. Government is bad because it can impose taxes and take away your gun, but corporate power is a beautiful thing. They deny the connection between corporate and government power. Big business serves big government and big government serves big business. Then there are the conservative Libertarians whose philosophy boils down to: "we can do what we want, but you've got to to what we say." The corporatists poisoned the Libertarian philosophy just like they poisoned Southern baptism.


The Loosertarians seem to have devolved into a party of anarchy.  I have talked to some, and it always gives me a headache.  

The core belief od the radical conservative loosertarians seems to be "No Government - no taxes".  They want to stop school taxes, road taxes, yet still benefit from the ability to have free schools and roads, paid for from some magic fount of money.  Every time I talk to one about this issue, it reminds me of the scene from "The Life Of Brian", where the "Judean Peoples Front" want to eliminate everything that Rome stands for, except for "sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health".

You also have the radical liberal side of the loosertarians.  These are the ones that want to disband the military, all law enforcement, legalize all drugs, and turn the US into an isolationist agrarian society.  These people give me just as big a headache as the radical conservative loosertarians.


What have the Democrats abandoned? I'm sorry to phrase it this way, but the Dems abandoned white supremecy.


Actually, race has almost nothing to do with the politics of the region anymore.  The hard-core racists are increasingly marginolized, and are rejected at almost every turn.  And you have them in both parties.  George Wallace was a life-long Democrat, and never really gave up his racist views, he simply stopped talking about them in public.  His son is just as bad as he was, he often gives talks at groups that support white supremacy.  He will run onder whichever party he thinks gives him the best chance to win.

Where the Democrats are loosing the South is in things that many call "Family Values".  When it comes to Religion, Abortion, Drugs, Gun Controll, Crime, Flag Burning, and issues along these lines, the Democrats tend to be the opposite of where most Southerners stand.  This is a region where you can drive down the street, and see a sign in front of a business that has a Bible quote on it.  I know a lot of hard-core Democrats that are upset about 50 year old monuments being removed because some court made a decision that it is now "violation of the seperation of Church and State".  They are tired of seeing drug dealers, child molestors, and murderers let go because of some technicality.  Both Democrat and Republican Southerners tend to be fiercely patriotic, and object to the treatment that is put on the military and the country as a whole.

The stance with the military goes back well over 150 years.  West Point was often called a "Southern Gentlemans University in New York" before the Civil War.  Even though the South had the minority in population, it composed the majority of Officer Candidates and Officers in the US Army.  When the Civil War broke out, the best officers left to join the Confederacy.  And once the country was reunified, the region has become what you may call "Born again patriotic".  Tennessee is not called the "Volunteer State" for nothing, and several communities enacted laws that made it an infraction to beat a flag burner, since they could not punish people who burned the flag.

This is a region that still has a lot of people who own firearms.  For some families, hunting is a way of life, and a way to put food on the table.  There are more family owned farms then any other area of the country.  And percentage wise, more people live in towns under 10,000 people then any other area of the country.

The old race based beliefs are quickly dying out.  The younger generation (40 and under) finds the racial history of the region disgusting, and is trying hard to put it behind them.  When it comes to music, the region is now evenly split among the youth between Country and Rap.  Even the Klukkers are having it rough.  Where once a Klan rally would bring in tens of thousands, it now brings in only a few dozen people, most of them protestors.

Last year there was a "Recruitment Drive" for the Klan in Mobile, Alabama.  The police had to step in, because the kinds they were trying to recruit attacked the Klan members.  The same thing was repeated in Montgommery and Birmingham.  People down here of my generation and younger simply can't stand the attitude that some of our fathers and grandfathers had.  We will not stand for it, and know that it is a matter of time before the last of them is retired.  And they know it, and have to act accordingly or they will be removed from office.

There will always be nuts and idiots who agree with groups like the Klan though.  And the same thing happens all across the country.  And all over the country, they are marginalized and treated like the morons that they are.  The Klukkers in Alabama are no more welcome then the Aryan Nation in Idaho and the Christian Identity groups in California.  They are ignorant inbreeds, who are dying and want to fight progress.  Please do not make the assumption that these jackasses speak for the rest of us.

Patriotism as miltary jingoism and Second Amendment ra-ra is to me not "patriotism" so much as obedience to the military-industrial complex. Flag-waving and Bible-thumping are just as dangerous. We are living under an illegitimate federal government that only seeks to divide us. I also think it is premature to call racism a fading institution. The fact that the this partisan Republican supreme court up-held Tom DeLays's racist gerrymandering in Texas and further allowed states to redraw districts any damn time they wanted is scary enough. It is even scarier the way it was expressed as vindictive partisan payback citing claims the Democrats did the same thing. This is the same states' rights Supreme Court that invalidated Vermont's campaign finance laws because the laws were not friendly enough to big business lobbyists.

The flag desecration amendment will pass into law under this Supreme Court. They've got all the military-jingoistic yahoos rallying behind "flag desecration." It's a non-issue has taken up because it is incapable of governing. However, once the Constitutional amendment passes, it will be a death warrent for the First Amendment.
Will it be considered "flag desecration" if anti-war demonstrators carry Old Glory? It will under this Supreme Court. Just watch. John McCaine voted for the amendment. Yeah, he's turned out to be nothing more than a soft-spoken fascist.

The Right uses "patriotism" the way it uses "religion," to stanch free and rational thought. I know it has become cliche on the Left to say "dissent is patriotic," but it has only become cliche because the Left has to keep repeating it. It is true that our Founding Fathers were slavemasters who viewed black people as subhuman. However, on principle, if we are all now equal citizens under the law, then the Founding Fathers would say we all should be accorded the same rights they granted themselves upon founding this country. A citizen should be able to petition, protest, and dissent against his government without fear of reprisal and without fear of his liberties being denied. Name one Founding Father who would advocate a climate of fear of the government by dissenting citizens.

I don't care how many "Southern gentlemen" went to West Point. I don't care if Southern whites want to wave their flags, preach their Biblical sermons, and follow Bush's extralegal military ventures with canine servility. None of that makes them more or less patriotic than I. What will make them less patriotic, what will make anybody less patriotic than I, is support of a "flag desecration" amendment to the Constitution, support of electoral practices that deny citizens their civil rights, and belief that the government has the right to spy on you. Those things are treasonous to the United States Constitution and anathema to patriotism. I don't want to tell everybody else how to express their patriotism, and I don't want anybody else telling me how to express mine.
If I think the United States' foreign policy is so atrocious I must incinerate the flag of this country on the town commons in protest, that is my Constitutional right. The Republican party, however, wants to imbue the flag, and only the American flag, with quasi-religious sanction. This is extremely dangerous to the liberty of all.

The flag desecration amendment will pass into law under this Supreme Court. They've got all the military-jingoistic yahoos rallying behind "flag desecration." It's a non-issue has taken up because it is incapable of governing. However, once the Constitutional amendment passes, it will be a death warrent for the First Amendment.
Will it be considered "flag desecration" if anti-war demonstrators carry Old Glory? It will under this Supreme Court. Just watch. John McCaine voted for the amendment. Yeah, he's turned out to be nothing more than a soft-spoken fascist.

It was defeated by a single vote, a defeat that I agreed with although I don't condone flag-burning.  The Supreme Court has no bearing on whether an amendment passes or not, it's based on the federal and state legislatures' votes in order for ratification. 



If I think the United States' foreign policy is so atrocious I must incinerate the flag of this country on the town commons in protest, that is my Constitutional right. The Republican party, however, wants to imbue the flag, and only the American flag, with quasi-religious sanction. This is extremely dangerous to the liberty of all.


I will agree that the outright banning of flag-burning is wrong, but I don't go so extreme as to say that to ban it would be dangerous.  There are many other ways of protesting, y'know.  Protecting a national symbol that has existed since the inception of this country (give or take 37 stars :D ) isn't radical or illogical, but to persecute someone for expressing an opinion is.  I will defend your right to toast the flag, but being that this is a double-edged sword, you have to contend with me calling you a doodoohead because of your actions.

It was defeated by a single vote, a defeat that I agreed with although I don't condone flag-burning.  The Supreme Court has no bearing on whether an amendment passes or not, it's based on the federal and state legislatures' votes in order for ratification. 
To clarify...If the Republicans gain more power, they will try again. It will pass. Civil rights groups will immediately file suit against the legislation as unconstitutional. The neo-con Supreme Court will uphold the amendment.

I will agree that the outright banning of flag-burning is wrong, but I don't go so extreme as to say that to ban it would be dangerous.  There are many other ways of protesting, y'know.  Protecting a national symbol that has existed since the inception of this country (give or take 37 stars :D ) isn't radical or illogical, but to persecute someone for expressing an opinion is.  I will defend your right to toast the flag, but being that this is a double-edged sword, you have to contend with me calling you a doodoohead because of your actions.

Remember, it is not just "burning" per se, it is "desecration." Who gets to say what is "desecration," and how can this NOT be extremely dangerous to free expression?

To clarify...If the Republicans gain more power, they will try again. It will pass. Civil rights groups will immediately file suit against the legislation as unconstitutional. The neo-con Supreme Court will uphold the amendment.

To clarify...the Supreme Court can't declare an amendment unconstitutional after it has been ratified.  Civil rights groups have no power to say that the Constitution is unconstitutional after it has been amended, HOWEVER, they can vote for new legislators who will repeal said amendment.


Remember, it is not just "burning" per se, it is "desecration." Who gets to say what is "desecration," and how can this NOT be extremely dangerous to free expression?


Because you're over-reacting. 

To clarify...If the Republicans gain more power, they will try again. It will pass. Civil rights groups will immediately file suit against the legislation as unconstitutional. The neo-con Supreme Court will uphold the amendment.


Maxwell, you are forgetting a basic point here:

If an Ammendment passes, the Supreme Court has no say in the manner.  The Supreme Court can't toss out an Ammendment to the Constitution.  That is because they can only judge a case based on the Constitution, and an Ammendment makes a change to the Constitution itself.  A Constitutional Ammendment to make flag burning illegal makes it a law under the Constitution itself.  The Supreme Court (and every other court) would have no choice but to go along with it.

And I doubt this would ever become an Ammendment anyways.  For one, it would have to pass both houses of Congress.  Then it would have to be approved by 3/4 of the States.  I simply do not see this happening, not over something as trivial as this.

Ammendments are almost impossible to pass.  Since 1951 there have only been 6 Ammendments, the last in 1992 (limiting Congressional pay raises).  Among those Ammendments that have failed over the years, we have the Equal Rights Ammendment, Balanced Budged Ammendment, the Child Labor Ammendment, the Titles of Nobility Ammendment, and several others.  These all got as far as the State Ratification step, but died there for one reason or another.

But the issue if this (or any) Supreme Court would throw it out or not is irrelevant.  Because an Ammendment by nature makes a change to the Constitution itself, the Supreme Court can not interefere in the process at all.  They can not throw out an Ammendment, nor even disallow an ammendment from going forward.

If an Ammendment somehow was approved that stated that cattle were people and eating them was cannibalism, the Supreme Court would have no choice but to follow the Ammendment.  They could not declair it invalid, period.

Rice_Cube I don't think its an over reaction on Max's part at all.  Any infringement upon the First Ammendment should be taken seriously don't you think?

Besides, its been proven time and time again that vague laws can and will be abused.

[quote author=

[quote author=

Its not arson.  If you pay your own hard-earned money to purchase a flag, you can do what you please with it.

The ONLY time something doesn't fall under free speech is if its something that can cause harm, such as the example you gave of yelling fire in a crowded theater.

So is somebody gonna die or get injured because you burn a flag? ::)

Because thats the only time your 1st ammendment rights are not valid. 

To clarify...the Supreme Court can't declare an amendment unconstitutional after it has been ratified.  Civil rights groups have no power to say that the Constitution is unconstitutional after it has been amended, HOWEVER, they can vote for new legislators who will repeal said amendment.

Because you're over-reacting. 

Ah, you're right, I'm confused on my civics here. It does take an act of Congress to amend the Constitution. How could I forget? That's the whole reason the Republican-dominated legislature wants a gay marriage ban amendment and a flag desecration prohibition amendment. Once amendments are there, they're tough to overturn

Where I don't think I'm over-reacting is regarding the extremist ways in which the Supreme Court might interpret an "flag desecration" amendment. One more monarchist neo-con on the court, like Alito or Roberts, and the Supreme Court becomes a weapon of rights destruction!