Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

277 | 278 | 279

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Mike11

Mike11

Titusville, FL
OLD SKOOL

FEB 08, 2004 03:48 PM

In a NY Times editorial, Todd Purdum asks the question "Can John Kerry win the presidency without the South?" (requires login) Kerry, now the leading Democratic hopeful in the presidential primaries, has often been painted as a Massachussetts liberal by RNC chair and only living Neanderthal Ed Gillespie, in an attempt to estrange him from voters in key Southern states. Kerry took the controversial position in a New Hampshire speech that he might not need the support below the Mason-Dixon line, citing Al Gore's razor-thin electoral minority in 2000 as proof that a Democrat could win without taking the South.

This is a radical shift from the view politicians have taken over the last 60 years that the South is essential to winning the presidency. With the exception of JFK, every US president since Roosevelt has come from a Southern or Western state, making one question the political importance of the Northeast in modern America. Kerry hopes to defy that trend by sweeping New England, California and the Great Lakes states, and winning key mid-Atlantic and Western states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Oregon) to garner enough electoral votes to win the presidency. With Southern politics seemingly so essential to running the country, the increasing popularity of traditionally Southern sports like NASCAR and the rising influence of Southern evangelical Christian religions, it would seem that while the North won the civil war in name - the South is the de facto victor. Kerry seeks to challenge that notion, and if successful could change the direction of national politics for years to come.

legionnaire

legionnaire

Belgium
November 2003

FEB 07, 2004 11:10 AM

In a NY Times editorial, Todd Purdum asks the question "Can John Kerry win the presidency without the South?" (requires login) Kerry, now the leading Democratic hopeful in the presidential primaries, has often been painted as a Massachussetts liberal by RNC chair and only living Neanderthal Ed Gillespie, in an attempt to estrange him from voters in key Southern states. Kerry took the controversial position in a New Hampshire speech that he might not need the support below the Mason-Dixon line, citing Al Gore's razor-thin electoral minority in 2000 as proof that a Democrat could win without taking the South.

This is a radical shift from the view politicians have taken over the last 60 years that the South is essential to winning the presidency. With the exception of JFK, every US president since Roosevelt has come from a Southern or Western state, making one question the political importance of the Northeast in modern America. Kerry hopes to defy that trend by sweeping New England, California and the Great Lakes states, and winning key mid-Atlantic and Western states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Oregon) to garner enough electoral votes to win the presidency. With Southern politics seemingly so essential to running the country, the increasing popularity of traditionally Southern sports like NASCAR and the rising influence of Southern evangelical Christian religions, it would seem that while the North won the civil war in name - the South is the de facto victor. Kerry seeks to challenge that notion, and if successful could change the direction of national politics for years to come.

DaGhost

DaGhost

USA
December 2003

FEB 11, 2005 08:31 PM

Umm south park taught us that the Smores Schnapps Company won the civil war!





Thanks Crispy!

Keith

Keith

Oklahoma City, OK
August 2002

FEB 11, 2005 08:35 PM

eeek surreal

stockula

stockula

Anchorage, AK
May 2003

FEB 11, 2005 08:41 PM

In 1980, there were 20 Democrat senators from the South. Today there are 4.

Pwn3d.

[Edited on Feb 11, 2005 by stockula]

One_Pure_Thought

One_Pure_Thought

East Greenwich, RI
October 2003

FEB 11, 2005 09:55 PM

This is sort of funny in a "I can't believe how fucked up my political party is" way.

Sheesh, democrates need some goddamn spring cleanings, or maybe just be halfway in touch with america.

HenryTMensch

HenryTMensch

New York, NY
December 2004

FEB 12, 2005 01:51 AM

We won the war but lost the peace.

I just said thi s on another thread but...

Worst mistake in American history = allowing rebel states back into the Union after we crushed the rebellion.

Jeff_Fries

Jeff_Fries

Humptulips, WA
September 2003

FEB 12, 2005 01:55 AM

HenryTMensch said:
Worst mistake in American history = allowing rebel states back into the Union after we crushed the rebellion.


haha i am ANGRY

stockula

stockula

Anchorage, AK
May 2003

FEB 12, 2005 01:56 AM

HenryTMensch said:
We won the war but lost the peace.

I just said thi s on another thread but...

Worst mistake in American history = allowing rebel states back into the Union after we crushed the rebellion.



So instead of just cutting them loose from the get go, we should have beaten the tar out of them, killed hundreds of thousands of men, and then said "Oh, we'll grant you sovergnty, the whole war was over nothing."

That's insane.

Aaron

Aaron

Shakopee, MN
July 2004

FEB 12, 2005 02:00 AM

stockula said:

HenryTMensch said:
We won the war but lost the peace.

I just said thi s on another thread but...

Worst mistake in American history = allowing rebel states back into the Union after we crushed the rebellion.



So instead of just cutting them loose from the get go, we should have beaten the tar out of them, killed hundreds of thousands of men, and then said "Oh, we'll grant you sovergnty, the whole war was over nothing."

That's insane.



It feels like a seperate country anyway, we should have just let them do their own thing to begin with.

HenryTMensch

HenryTMensch

New York, NY
December 2004

FEB 12, 2005 02:01 AM

stockula said:

HenryTMensch said:
We won the war but lost the peace.

I just said thi s on another thread but...

Worst mistake in American history = allowing rebel states back into the Union after we crushed the rebellion.



So instead of just cutting them loose from the get go, we should have beaten the tar out of them, killed hundreds of thousands of men, and then said "Oh, we'll grant you sovergnty, the whole war was over nothing."

That's insane.



No. We should have kept them as military districts under martial law. Maybe eventually they could have become protectorates with limited federal rights, like Puerto Rico.

xgenehawk

xgenehawk

USA
December 2004

FEB 12, 2005 02:01 AM

Democrats can't win without South. Not President can't win without carrying at some states in the South. In the last two elections, both Democrats could not carry any state in the South, I believe. Gore even lost in own home state. The South has shifted toward the right , socially and religiously. The North won the war but the South is still fighting the battle against Northern influence .

HenryTMensch

HenryTMensch

New York, NY
December 2004

FEB 12, 2005 02:02 AM

AaronB said:

stockula said:

HenryTMensch said:
We won the war but lost the peace.

I just said thi s on another thread but...

Worst mistake in American history = allowing rebel states back into the Union after we crushed the rebellion.



So instead of just cutting them loose from the get go, we should have beaten the tar out of them, killed hundreds of thousands of men, and then said "Oh, we'll grant you sovergnty, the whole war was over nothing."

That's insane.



It feels like a seperate country anyway, we should have just let them do their own thing to begin with.



No. We should have crushed them as we did and then refused to allow them back into the Union while keeping them as our territory.

stockula

stockula

Anchorage, AK
May 2003

FEB 12, 2005 02:06 AM

Support for a police state is interesting coming from a New York wannabe lawyer. I can then extrapolate with confidence that after 9/11, you support the Patriot Act and circumscribing the civil rights of Muslims and Americans of middle eastern heritage?

googused

googused

Portland, OR
OLD SKOOL

FEB 12, 2005 02:06 AM

stockula said:
In 1980, there were 20 Democrat senators from the South. Today there are 4.

Pwn3d.



Up until the 80s most southern democrats were equivalent to today's republicans. Assholes like Walter George, Richard Russell, Herman Talmadge, and Sam Nunn (edit: How could I forget Lester Maddox!) fit right in with your ilk.

At least traitors like Bo Callaway and Strom Thurmond had the decency to leave the party, unlike Zell Miller.

[Edited on Feb 12, 2005 by googuse]

xgenehawk

xgenehawk

USA
December 2004

FEB 12, 2005 02:06 AM

AaronB said:

stockula said:

HenryTMensch said:
We won the war but lost the peace.

I just said thi s on another thread but...

Worst mistake in American history = allowing rebel states back into the Union after we crushed the rebellion.



So instead of just cutting them loose from the get go, we should have beaten the tar out of them, killed hundreds of thousands of men, and then said "Oh, we'll grant you sovergnty, the whole war was over nothing."

That's insane.



It feels like a seperate country anyway, we should have just let them do their own thing to begin with.



If we had let them do their own thing, I wouldn't be surprised if slavery would be still legal today in the South . We should have limited their rights in the Union until they can be proven to be rational people. Yes, I think the South are irrational people that don't the share the beliefs of social freedom that the North has championed.

HenryTMensch

HenryTMensch

New York, NY
December 2004

FEB 12, 2005 02:10 AM

stockula said:
Support for a police state is interesting coming from a New York wannabe lawyer. I can then extrapolate with confidence that after 9/11, you support the Patriot Act and circumscribing the civil rights of Muslims and Americans of middle eastern heritage?



No. The difference is that the south was filled with rebel scum. They decided to become traitors. Simply being a Muslim is not a good analogy to being a traitorous rebel. Martial law would have been in occupied enemy territory, not NY, so why would I have a problem with that?

stockula

stockula

Anchorage, AK
May 2003

FEB 12, 2005 02:19 AM

HenryTMensch said:

stockula said:
Support for a police state is interesting coming from a New York wannabe lawyer. I can then extrapolate with confidence that after 9/11, you support the Patriot Act and circumscribing the civil rights of Muslims and Americans of middle eastern heritage?



No. The difference is that the south was filled with rebel scum. They decided to become traitors. Simply being a Muslim is not a good analogy to being a traitorous rebel. Martial law would have been in occupied enemy territory, not NY, so why would I have a problem with that?



Rebel scum. You sound like that guy from The Return of the Jedi

Not that I entirely disagree about the faults of the Rebellion in Star Wars http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp






[Edited on Feb 12, 2005 by stockula]

HenryTMensch

HenryTMensch

New York, NY
December 2004

FEB 12, 2005 02:27 AM

stockula said:

HenryTMensch said:

stockula said:
Support for a police state is interesting coming from a New York wannabe lawyer. I can then extrapolate with confidence that after 9/11, you support the Patriot Act and circumscribing the civil rights of Muslims and Americans of middle eastern heritage?



No. The difference is that the south was filled with rebel scum. They decided to become traitors. Simply being a Muslim is not a good analogy to being a traitorous rebel. Martial law would have been in occupied enemy territory, not NY, so why would I have a problem with that?



Rebel scum. You sound like that guy from The Return of the Jedi

Not that I entirely disagree about the Rebellion in Star Wars http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp



Yeah. Jedi are geigh. When I was bored last semester (third year of law school is esentially a big waste of time and money) I played knights of the old republic as, like, a superdark sith and delighted in torturing pretty much everyone who crossed my path.

But the Jedi number only in the thousands--they cannot protect everyone.



we could combine this absurd twist in this thread with the 2nd amendment thread and then Helter can browbeat me about how everyone should be allowed to carry a lightsaber for personal protection.

This weekly standard thing reminds me of a joke thing I saw years ago about the poor imperials killed when insane terrorists blew up the death star...

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

FEB 12, 2005 02:32 AM

stockula said:
[Not that I entirely disagree about the faults of the Rebellion in Star Wars http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp



ha ha

only the weekly standard could argue in favor of the empire.

what's next from the standard, "sauron: actually cute and cuddly"?

llouys

llouys

Brazil
August 2003

FEB 12, 2005 02:33 AM

HenryTMensch said:
We won the war but lost the peace.

I just said thi s on another thread but...

Worst mistake in American history = allowing rebel states back into the Union after we crushed the rebellion.



Oh please.

HenryTMensch

HenryTMensch

New York, NY
December 2004

FEB 12, 2005 02:38 AM

louys said:

HenryTMensch said:
We won the war but lost the peace.

I just said thi s on another thread but...

Worst mistake in American history = allowing rebel states back into the Union after we crushed the rebellion.



Oh please.



How can I be of service?

stockula

stockula

Anchorage, AK
May 2003

FEB 12, 2005 02:51 AM

s5 said:

stockula said:
[Not that I entirely disagree about the faults of the Rebellion in Star Wars http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp



ha ha

only the weekly standard could argue in favor of the empire.



But it's a pretty good argument! Even regarding Alderaan.

The destruction of Alderaan is often cited as ipso facto proof of the Empire's "evilness" because it seems like mass murder--planeticide, even. As Tarkin prepares to fire the Death Star, Princess Leia implores him to spare the planet, saying, "Alderaan is peaceful. We have no weapons." Her plea is important, if true.

But the audience has no reason to believe that Leia is telling the truth. In Episode IV, every bit of information she gives the Empire is willfully untrue. In the opening, she tells Darth Vader that she is on a diplomatic mission of mercy, when in fact she is on a spy mission, trying to deliver schematics of the Death Star to the Rebel Alliance. When asked where the Alliance is headquartered, she lies again.

Leia's lies are perfectly defensible--she thinks she's serving the greater good--but they make her wholly unreliable on the question of whether or not Alderaan really is peaceful and defenseless. If anything, since Leia is a high-ranking member of the rebellion and the princess of Alderaan, it would be reasonable to suspect that Alderaan is a front for Rebel activity or at least home to many more spies and insurgents like Leia.

Whatever the case, the important thing to recognize is that the Empire is not committing random acts of terror. It is engaged in a fight for the survival of its regime against a violent group of rebels who are committed to its destruction.



[Edited on Feb 12, 2005 by stockula]

[Edited on Feb 12, 2005 by stockula]

llouys

llouys

Brazil
August 2003

FEB 12, 2005 03:02 AM

I kind of want to Godwin this thread.

HenryTMensch

HenryTMensch

New York, NY
December 2004

FEB 12, 2005 03:03 AM

I thought one of the rules of godwin is that if you intentionally godwin then you lose automatically.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next