I don't know if it is an oversimplification as much as it is me not going into expanded details. I assume what you are referring to with dixiecrats, Scoop Jackson, and so forth has more to do with race politics which is an entirely different ball of wax.

The anti-Republican legacy of the South has a lot more to do with the Reconstruction period. People of my grandfather's generation were the grandchildren of those who lived during reconstruction. Between those three generations (civil war to great depression) it was passed along from father to son that the Republicans were not to ever be trusted. The South got to see upfront and personal the real face of the Republican party (greedy east coast financial interests looting and micromanaging them) for close to four decades. It has taken over a century for this distrust to subside, but it is still the same people running the show in the GOP - mercantalists, monopoly men, and financial establishment types looking to gain control of the wealth of others by hook or by crook.

They manipulate petty things like homosexual issues, race issues, flag burning, "the threat of Islamofacists," etc... to establish some kind of link of superficial commonality with the traditional values of rural peoples, but no it is indeed the same krewe of carpetbaggers, market manipulators, and theives from Wall Street.

I wouldn't count on it.

What is up with the people on this website and crucifying people for common grammatical errors ?

I am not writing a doctoral dissertation for peer revue, Karl. I write the way I speak. Deal with it. Its just a message board not the front page of the NYT.

And yet the end results of either "plan" carries the same absolute value - total amnesty.

That is precisely what I am saying. This president has a de facto position that he self determines what the laws are.

Only by degree, but not by methodology and approach to the Constitution. There is a saying about being "a nation of laws and not men." Maybe you should familiarize yourself with it. You'll likely experience less intellectual discordance regarding civics.

^ Winner.

Hey, what about me? I said, "at least he got something right"

I assumed you were referring to Pat Buchanon.

I, regretfully, am incapable of getting anything right.

I brought up the errors to emphasize that you - like the rest of us - aren't badass/smart/whatever enough to warrant being unnecessarily rude to other people in threads.

I can deal with people writing the way they speak. What I will not deal with, however, is people being condescending and arrogant while clumsily wielding the English language. Either exemplify the high standards by which you are judging the people with which you disagree, or don't be so condescending and rude.

Out of the two available options, I would prefer that you treat the SG community members with more respect. In your defense, though, I am happy to concede that you haven't called anyone idiots in this thread recently. Keep that up and I won't even object if you compose sentences as poorly as our President does.

Yeah, I am bombastic, confrontational, and overbearing. Deal with it. We live in what an ancient chinese curse refers to as "interesting times." Smelling salts are not known for their subtleties.

Whatever the hell that means...

Smelling salts wake people up. Generally they use ammonia gas to irritate membranes, but I guess misspelling "fascism" and offering insight like "We live in what an ancient chinese curse refers to as 'interesting times'" is supposed to do the trick as well.

No - it was two things - the "Southern Democrat" was a social conservative who generally voted with the Repulicans on social issues - and frequently on foreign policy as well (to the degree that Congress did that). Sam Nunn and Scoop Jackson were cases in point.

The Dixiecrats were as much about State's rights as they were about race and States rights - the "whithering" of the federal government - is what hooked many Southerners into the Republican party

I grew up in the South, and I don't think that the distrust of Republicans has subsided - the distrust is actually in the Federal government and Southerners side with Republicans because they are (or were before the Neocon fringe took over) anti-Federalist.

Reconstruction was about a lot more than "greedy east coast" manipulators. Again you are simplifying.

I make these points because you have a tendency to throw around rather complex ideas in support of the things you say, when in fact the ideas you are using as support may not and certainly may not fully support your points.

As for the whole "greedy east coast" stuff, it begins to sound like the Protocols of Zion after a while. Wealth and power are not as concentrated as you seem to belive.

I do count on it, and if you don't see the trend, then you are not paying attention.

The social issues will always be a problem but even the far right is beginning to get how much they have been betrayed by this administration. There is a "throw the bums" out sentiment that is brewing. It may or may not show itself in 2006, but I think 2008 is a given - unless Bush pulls another terror attack out of his hat.

Wow what riveting conversations there are to be had on this board !!!! Rather than address vital issues, petty critiques of the use of ellipses, oxford commas, placement of punctuation, and typos are the order of the day.

What's next, spicing things up by discussing future perfect progressive tense conjugation of verbs ? How exciting and utterly unimportant. Are you going to contribute anything of significance anytime soon Mr. Trotsky ?

No wonder you support the president on this issue. The neocon intellectual braintrust who craft the platform now employed across the board by this presidency (Kristol, Burnham, Shactman, Wolfowitz, Glazer, Hook, Hitchens, Kirkpatrick, Kendall, Schwartz) are themselves "former" Trotskyite socialists.

I don't know how any legitimate conservative can associate themselves with these kinds of people, the intellectuals actually crafting and promoting "the shrub's" policies. No wonder we have such an unprecendented growth of government, cramming shit like new freedom initiative, no child left behind, medicare drug benefit, Washington holding close ties to the fucking Chinese commnunists, a police state that is eviscerating liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, a collaborated across the board effort to consolidate power into an all powerful executive, a de facto position of violent militarism when dealing with others abroad, demonizing speech that is critical of the State, etc...

^ This is who these fuckers are. Power hungry crush your face statists determined to remake the entire world according to their value system. You should be praising them.

Here's hoping that racist piece of shit, Pat "I hate brown people" Buchanan, dies soon so I can piss on his grave.

Feel free to refer to the first page of this thread, where I addressed all of your points. On this page, I am just addressing the fact that you were being a jerk to members of this community. If you are upset that people aren't listening to your message on vital issues, it may be because your method of presentation is inappropriate.

I don't agree with Bush on the issue of immigration. If you refer to my posts that describe "vital issues," you will see that I am objecting to your claims that liberals cannot critique the President due to their stance on Bush's alleged failure to enforce immigration laws.

When you are done with your straw men and red herrings, please refer to the first page to actually address my responses to your ranting.

I also disagree that the Bush administration are statists because that is an incomplete analysis. For every encroachment on our civil liberties (which are numerous), the administration doles out wealth and privilege to corporations. Describing the administration as "statist" fails to account for half of its behavior.

Your claims about the Trotskyist identity and roots of the intellectual braintrust informing the administration are simply misleading. Many of those individuals were only committed to Socialism and not its Trotskyist variety (such as Kirkpatrick), while others were only superficially involved in Trotskyist organizations and politics.
source. Christopher Hitchens, Sidney Hook, James Burnham, Willmoore Kendall, and Max Shachtman are not employed by the Bush administration in any capacity (indeed, the latter four are deceased, making any appointments by Bush impractical at least).

True, but these are the people who have influenced those who are. That was a pretty nifty read but the zero sum value is that these are not people who are organically conservative and believe in a restrained State and individual liberty.

They have an extremely ambitious view of the role of the State and see a servile, utilitarian role for the citizenry.

The intellectuals behind the Bush administration, many prominent Republicans in Congress (as well as a few Democrats,) the pompous fake conservative talking heads on radio and TV, the members of the thinktanks, publishers and regular contributors to certain publications like National Review and others, lust for an extremely liberal application of State power, primarily via its executive determining and dictating all policy to ceremonial bodies (Congress and SCOTUS.) The focus of such is abroad in geo-politics and foreign policy, but a tremendous amount is also focused domestically.

None of that crap above is "conservatism." You are also correct that it is not necessarily "trotskyism," "marxism," socialism, or "communism." That is just the intellectual background of those who are crafting this load, people who see the necessity of a centralized, powerful, planning State trying to wrangle specific results into being. Even nations other than their own. Its sort of like Woodrow Wilson on steroids.

IF anything what the neocons are attempting to resurrect is a slightly modified version of 17th and 18th century neo-mercantalism where the State utilizes its military to secure resources and its regulatory powers to manipulate markets, to subsidize certain industries connected to those in power through publicly gathered funds, to grant exclusive market access to specific enterprises that the State blesses, and establish something akin to "enlightened despotism."

Again, ^ not conservatism.