1sailor said:
And to NateHevens, regarding to elephants dying squeals, many years ago, an arrogant Democratic Party split and put up two presidential candidates allowing the new Republican Party to get their candidate elected (A. Lincoln). Do you also wish that never happened? We should always have a multi party system.
this is a remarkably simplistic and factually devoid description of a major event in American history. i might actually know LESS about history for having read that.
the party didn't split out of hubris, it split over slavery.
from wikipedia:
The Democratic Party was divided over the issue of slavery. At the convention in Charleston in April 1860, 51 Southern Democrats walked out over a platform dispute, led by William Lowndes Yancey. Yancey and the Alabama delegation left the hall and they were followed by the delegates of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, three of the four delegates from Arkansas, and one of the three delegates from Delaware.
essentially, the democrats split and the people that split went on to secede from the union. if you're going to whrbgl about history at least do everyone a favor and make it interesting or entertaining because there's nothing sadder than someone just being stupid.
and don't worry, there won't be a single party election in this country. if the republican party splits (ohnoez, just like the democrats did 150 years ago) then there will be THREE parties running. one of the split parties will gain popularity become the second major party and things will continue. the green party split off from the democrats recently, and hopefully the christian conservatives will split off from the republican party and we can get back to having sane arguments.
OK, I shouldn't have called them arrogant. My bad. I am aware of what wikipedia says, however, if you research it further, the split at the convention was over the subject of slavery in the new territories. I think this getting off the thread a little. There have been academic arguments over the causes of the civil war. We are taught today that it was fought over slavery( Popular History), and it was an issue ,but most southern writings of the time were more concerned with export taxes and States Rights.
I think you are right about the current state of the republican party.
I need another beer...
Otoki said:
This makes me so, so happy that we have Pat Buchanan on record saying this shit:
Posted before, but I think it's worth posting again.
My brain exploded at 1:32 ... that was enough.
If I where Rachel I would make a big silence, excuse myself, vomit on camera and end the interview right there.
MrCrisp
I'm lost
August 2004
AUG 06, 2009 07:14 PM