Question 1.. Right Republican
Question 2.. Right Republicans
Question 3.. Wrong.. The South voted Democrat until the late 1980's during the 1800's they were firmly in the Democrat voting block... every politician they sent to Washington was a Democrat, but during the time of Slavery the South was firmly Democrat..
Question 4.. Wrong.. George C. Wallace was a Democrat and was one all his life..
Question 5.. Right Democrats...

I am sure you ACCIDENTLY got 3 and 4 wrong.. because I know you know the right answers..

NOW NEW QUESTION:
What Party pushed thru the 14th, 15th and 16th admendment to the Consitution...?

The 14th Admendment

The 15th Admendment

The 16th Admendment
(see reply to Davidsmom for links.. although I doubt you (jeffc) need them others probrally)
Please try to do better then "LOOK HOW THEY HAVE CHANGED" I guess you could use that argument if you are willing to admit Democrats supported Slavery.. DO YOU?

Wallace ran his first campaign under the American Independent Party and later ran as a Democrat. His defeat in Florida in 1976 effectively ended his career. Before ’76, I heard him speak at three different rallies over a number of years. He served pretty good barbeque and had a great populist speaking style but it didn’t make up for his message.

So sorry about question 3. It WAS an accident in my haste. You are correct that the south was aligned with the Democrats.

To answer your question below, the Dems. did indeed support slavery after the Party split along secessional lines. Meanwhile, the Whigs and the “Know Nothing” Parties collapsed and resurrected themselves as the Republican Party.

(Shameless plug: The Carter Center museum is now hosting an exhibit honoring Lincoln and is displaying numerous historical documents including the original document from the Georgia legislature seceding from the Union).

This ancient history is fun to reminisce about. If we’re discussing slavery then the Free Soil Party history would be fun to explore too.

BTW: Did you miss my question about why blacks support the Democratic Party? I couldn’t find your answer.

Jeff.. Been to the Carter Center.. great stuff..
I really enjoyed the Lincoln exhibit.. About your question.. I do not have an answer.. I am really curious about it.. that is why I posed the questions... 40 Years of control by the democrats and according to Minorities it has never been worse for them...
I am really trying to understand the almost fanatical devotion.. and why when some blacks go to "the dark side" they are blasted by the others..
Just wondering.. Love the discussion though.. History is a Hobby of mine and right now studying the Civil war era.. I know boring but then again.. I can't play paintball all the time..

Lindsey, I, too, am a history lover. My concentration (and thesis papers) were in antiquities though. That is why I often find myself out of league with some of the bloggers here - I simply am not as knowledgeable on modern history. Now, if anyone cares to discuss how cuneiform writing changed Sumerian art, culture, politics, etc....then I'm your girl!

I think, however, there is a larger lesson to be learned from history. Let us consider that which we were modeled after, a fellow Republic ... Rome. It makes sense to identify the cause and effect of what led to the fall of Rome and consider these lessons for our own society.

During the third century A.D., there was anarchy in Rome. One leader emerges to restore stability and control - Diocletian. Diocletian implements a political division of authority whereby Rome was quartered and authority given to four tetrarchs (governors). This division proved to be a fatal move for the Empire.

The Empire had for some time come under attack by "barbarian" factions. There were the Ostrogoths, Visogoths, Saxons, Huns, Vandals, Franks, and Angles just to name a few. Given the constant assault on the Empires borders, Diocletian's policy of further dividing the Empire was disastrous. Now, that's not to say that Rome did not do more than it's share of conquering other lands (like Gaul) therefore putting the "barbarians" on the defensive.

Constantine comes into the picture sometime around 325 A.D. and further divides the empire by moving the capital to Byzantium (Constantinople) and declaring Rome Christian.

85 years later, under the rule of Theodosius, Rome fell to Alaric of the Visogoths - a barbarian tribe. This once mighty Republic was brought to it's knees by barbarians .... or was it really a victim of it's own demise? Getting too big, conquering more than it could possibly govern, anarchy, and division .... proved fatal.

My point in all this is to say that the rift between our two political parties could divide us irreparably - all the while, the "barbarians" are wanting in! We simply MUST find a way for both parties to reconcile at least to the point of civility or we will follow Rome's fate.

There is just too important of a lesson here to ignore history.

I watch Glenn Beck and I do enjoy his commentary, but often I find the talking heads of BOTH sides a little frightening. Are anarchy, civil war, and revolution in our future? Surely, we can ALL do better than that.

Good night, Lindsey and have a great day. Talk to you soon.

Of what by who? Are you forgetting that for most of the last 40 years the gov. has been controlled by Reagan and Bush Sr. and Jr.?

If you'd really like a telling clue, look at Fred's answer below. That says more about the Republican Party's stance than I could. Fred doesn't represent the Republican Party but he reflects a big faction of it, especially in the South. His kind of thinking is why the Party is shrinking in the South and dying elsewhere. During the next election the Dems are going to be promoting people like Fred as the face of the R. Party and promoting his views on race (not really needed) and immigrants (yes!). We'd hate for the Republicans to appeal to Hispanics, a natural constituency for them if you go by the PR claims of the Party: pro-family, conservative, Catholic, pro-life, hard working, etc. All of that so easily trumped by just a few Rushs, Becks, Tancredos and, of course, Freds.

Jeff,

The selections that you provided as possible answers are very telling about how you feel about minorities.

Don't drag me into your twisted sense of how or why people vote the way they do when you are the one providing the possibilities to choose from.

A combination of A, B, and C.

To reply to your above post (Jeff's Multiple Choice), I didn't drag you into anything. I posted a question and you voluntarily, of your on accord, felt it proper to publicly identify yourself as thinking blacks are stupid, want welfare and are ignorant of history. Then when I hold you up as an example of the racist bigoted attitudes of some people you get all huffy? Next time don't reply. Why not just find some anti-Carter stuff to cut and paste and post like you usually do instead of whining?

Jimmy Carter - Terrorist Groupie and Traitor

Most of us who participate in this discussion read and/or listen to a broad spectrum of political analysis. The US probably would not be as 'hated' in the rest of the world if we had maintained communication with other world leaders - as had been the US foreign policy before Bush. The reason the world (not the terrorists) is hopeful with Obama as our President is because he has proven himself an excellent communicator - which includes LISTENING. May all former Presidents enrich the world culture, as has President Carter. Try reading/listening to some of the other media - and forming and sharing your own opinion.

Pat Caddell and Colmes were great! Hannity and Ralph Reed's listing of the preconditions they would require before talks begs the question that they never answer: what happens if the other party just ignores you? The North Koreans ignored Bush and Bolton's bluster and developed nuclear weapons. Iran ignored Bush's bluster and is on track to develop nuclear weapons. Syria ignored Bush and continues to support Hamas and Hezbollah.

Can you name a single instance where refusing to talk has proven successful? Your position is intellectually bankrupt and a proven failure.

As usual.

Mr. L. specifically set the rules:

"Test Rules: Democrats answer only please. perferably minority liberals.. I really want to know if they know the answers..."

He KNOWS that YOU have all of the answers! He wants to know what we less informed black people, who should naturally be indebted to the GOP know.

S. Lindsey, why open this can of GOP worms?

Questions 1 through 4: The same party who's president Refused to meet with the NAACP his entire first term.

The same party who, in three run-off elections for RNC chair, voted not just for Richard Steele, but also for
A candidate, Chip Saltsman (ran Huckabee's campaign) who circulated a "Barack the magic negro CD (like Rush!)".

The same party who had, in the RNC top three candidates, a candidate who
belonged to a WHITES ONLY country club through September of last year....2008!

Now, for question 5. That answer would be the same party which was first to nominate a
female candidate for VPOTUS

and the first party to nominate a Black presidential candidate; a candidate whom actually
WON election to our country's highest office.

So, S. Lindsey, my question to you here in 2009 is.......

What's your point?

ps: Hutch. You're the best, man! Always get a laugh outta me!

There you go Jeff, the Dems ruined the Republican party.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

Skewered! You got me.

Henrietta Hughes says she's not milking the system

"SOUTHWEST FLORIDA - A woman making national headlines after a tearful moment with President Obama has a new home.

Thursday morning, Chene Thompson handed Henrietta Hughes the keys to her home in Hendry County. Thompson is the wife of State Representative Nick Thompson (R-District 73). Hughes and her son will live at the home rent free.

At President Obama's town hall meeting in Fort Myers on Tuesday, Henrietta Hughes stood up and told the President she has been homeless since 2003 and can't find a job.

She also says she's reach a dead end with government assistance and none of the local charity agencies will help.

However, a local organization is coming forward saying Hughes isn't being honest about how much help she's had in the past.

The director of We Care Outreach Ministry, Tanya Johnson, says just last month she offered Henrietta Hughes permanent housing and a place to stay free for three months, but Hughes refused."

This pathetic piece of human debris the quintessential liberal "victim". The only thing that she is a victim of is her own greed. It is the American taxpayer that is the victim, and will continue to be vicimized now that barrys patisan pork spending bill has been passed.

Note the party that GAVE this woman a house after believing her tripe.

So she lied in the past and still lies about her situation and gets rewarded for not working. She has made a career out of milking the system, instead of working hard for a living.

This is the kind of person who needs to be left to sink or swim on their own. This is why we are no longer a superpower. This is why America is failing. People are rewarded for NOT working here. So of course the majority choose not to work.

That is the difference between a precious life and a parasite. A being that is a precious life is one that pulls their own weight. They work for a living.

A parasite is one who leaches off of everyone in society. They work harder at NOT WORKING than they do at working. They have turned not working for a living into an olympic sport.

I'm not refering to people who recently lost their jobs with the current recession. I'm talking about lifetime cheats who live off of welfare. Through crime and welfare they rob the people who do work hard.

Why should we work hard? Why should the 35-40% of us that work hard show up at work everyday? So we can have the priviledge of being raped by welfare scumballs? Why should we?

of sorts.

Git, do you not see how screwed up conservatism is right now? How can a movement (e.g. conservatism) on the one hand view human embryos as precious lives to be guarded, and at the same time refer to living, breathing humans as "This pathetic piece of human debris?" Git, you know where "fred" (who borrows everything) borrowed that phrase from.

But the ideology is the same one that loaned him his entry's title, "Another Leach on Taxpayers."

I've always been confused by this nature of conservatism: Ideologically respect and revere life from the moment of conception, yet use those same lives to berate over fiscal policy (e.g. taxes). One only has to look at the wacky mom who needed to protect her frozen embryos (children in her view) by having them ALL implanted into her womb.

Git, do you think liberals are the one's sending her death threats, or are they conservatives that see 15 "leaches" on the state's taxpayers? I don't know the answer to that, but I have a good idea of who would be enraged by leaches on the system. This is political schizophrenia. Value lives while berating lives. I've never understood it; don't think I ever will. I understand being angered by those we feel are getting a free pass when they could possibly support themselves. I understand respecting life at its earliest recognizable points. I guess I just don't understand a single political ideology which occupies the far ends of each of these views.

Maybe you can help me, or you can go after "fred" the counterfeit for copyright infringement.

Cheers.

Why do the liberal democrats support abortion of an unborn fetus, yet cry and snivel and march in protest when a murderer is put to death?

Why?

Why is a criminals life more important than an unborn child?

Based on example alone the octomoms kids will be wefare leaches. That is all she knows and she will raise them to be the same thing she is.

A parasite!

Why should the taxpayers pay for her choices?? Did any of us hold a gun to her head and tell her being a parasite was a good idea?

Catholics Against Capital Punishment (CACP) In the header, they state that "we can't teach that killing is wrong by killing." At least with many devout Catholics, pro life actually means pro life. And I don't believe they consider themselves liberals.

I'm all for the death penalty myself. Been a liberal all of my days, and no liberal has every asked me, "How can you support a president that believes in the death penalty?" or "How do you call yourself a Christian when you believe in the death penalty?"

Now, as to that abortion issue, I most certainly have been asked those questions. But those worried about God's judgment upon me for supporting abortion rights are very comfortable with my support of the death penalty. And I guess that's what has me confused.

ps. On your advisement, I'll add "parasite" to the list "human debris" and "leaches."

pss. Just a head's up for you: Your fellow conservatives get a bit testy when you call children "choices."

Any kid I have to pay for is a bad choice. I have been responsible and I resent having my tax dollar used to pay those who are not.

I really don't have a problem with abortion. I have a problem with infanticide. That is the practice where they let a baby who survives an abortion die.

I don't think I have the wrong group, at least not entirely when it comes to the death penalty. You are right I should have included the catholics.

Do you really think any of the 14 kids the octomom had are going to be motivated to get a job?

If we would cut off all welfare payments for people who had a second kid this kind of irresponsible behavior would stop. Is it really mean to expect people to stand on their own 2 feet, and only have the number of kids that they can afford?

Welfare was only designed to be a short term fix, until they found a job. It wasn't designed to be a way of life, but that is how it is being used in our country. The one thing Clinton did right was to attempt to put a cap on welfare. I don't think it was strong enough or went far enough to protect our tax dollar.

Have a safe trip, don't party too much.

Mrs JeffC had the best idea on the subject that I've heard yet. The fertility clinics should do financial assessment of the prospective clients and if they can't show an adequate financial plan then the clinic and doctors should pay for the kids. That way if they want to go ahead with the fertility regime for scientific or humanitarian reasons they would be welcome to do so.

I just tuned in to check the local headlines and saw my name being used in vain. LOL! I'll be glad to dig into this in a week or so. I am just unable to respond right now. I spent the entire day at the Magic Kingdom and besides feeling like my legs are about to fall off I am trying to maintain a grip because if I hear It's A Small World Afterall or another selfish jerk rudely pretends like I do not exist and steps one foot in front of me and stops I am going to grab someone by the throat and clamp down like a bulldog.

I'll be glad to have this discussion with you later and then I have got to get you to help me understand how this damned government stimulus package is justified as being called an economic stimulus package.

In the mean time I am heading to the gym to do some arms, abs, and shoulders. Won't touch the legs.... may God have mercy on them.

2 days down and 5 to go.....

Cheers!

Remember when we hit Universal Studios the same week purely by coincidence? Same day? I can't remember if you guys were Thing 1, 2, and 3, or the Incredibles. So much fades with age.

Have fun spending way too much on food and trying to keep that food down . Just the miscellaneous ramblings of someone who has grown very, very tired of drunks (not drunks on these boards... drunks in my current location.) You'd think they made an announcement that this was the last week beer would be sold! Holy smokes!!

I was just thinking about all of you today. I went to Barnes & Noble and passed by their little cafe and thought: "This would be a great place to have our next coffee meeting.".

Anyone?

That sounds good. As soon as I finish the project I'm working on, I'll need to take a break before I start the next phase.

Have a good day.

We much too rowdy for B&N.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

You found that missing "L", check your title. Be sure to tell $nit.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

I can't understand how you can equate an innocent and defenseless life to this woman that has done little to take care of herself, and, from all evidence seen, wants nothing except to be given everything. Her attitude is sickening. Sorry to butt-in---just can't see your point.

to anyone or any embryo, because I feel I have no place to assign the value of anyone else's life. My comments are exclusively relating to those who would assign the value of "precious" to an embryo and "human debris" and/or "leach" to living, breathing humans. Can you help me figure out what their "points" are? At what point does a precious embryo become human debris to a conservative?

I can tell you how I see it. I am not pro-life; I am anti-abortion. I, too, support the death penalty. I have some serious problems with how it is used in our justice system but I believe in its use. I believe in defending the innocent and the defenseless, be that a baby growing in her/his mother's womb, or a small child being abused. These others, like that woman we spoke of, decide for themselves to become "human debris". She and her son obviously decided a while back that they were incapable of contributing to our society. THEY decided their own lack of worth. And it isn't a "conservative" thing. The use of such language isn't confined to one side or the other. There's plenty of evidence of that on the web. Have a good and safe trip!

Usually it's the minute after they have to spend anything on them.

I am not going to answer I already know.. This is an object lesson some should know..
Please research yourself and you can come to your own conclusions.., but I bet you can guess the answers already.. Every Democrat here already posted immediately went into defense mode and either made excuses or started the "not same" argument..

NOW NEW QUESTION:
What Party pushed thru the 14th, 15th and 16th admendment to the Consitution...?

The 14th Admendment

The 15th Admendment

The 16th Admendment

Please try to do better then "LOOK HOW THEY HAVE CHANGED" I guess you could use that argument if you are willing to admit Democrats supported Slavery.. DO YOU?

How old are you - and where did you go to school? Who was your history teacher? Let's just look at the historical facts - instead of trying to exonerate current day Republicans - and blame Democrats for everything that is wrong in our history.

The 14th, 15th and 16th amendments were part of the Reconstruction Policy - that Republicans tried to include for ALL Americans - and the Dixie Democrats stopped all talk of equality for all Americans by instituting the Jim Crow laws after the Civil War. To make a long story short - after Democrat - Lyndon Johnson - appeared to have lost his mind - and signed the Voting Rights Act - long, long after the Civil War - the Dixie Crats of the South became Republicans; sanctioned the intimidation of groups like the KKK; founded 'Christian Academies ' to escape Public School integration. . . need I go on? No matter what label is worn - the sick policies of the past were just that - sick policies of the past. Over 50% of the country has 'overcome'. Historians do not equate current day Republicans with the party of Lincoln. Until the last 10 or 20 years they were considered the party of Wallace, Thurmond, etc., etc. Today they are considered the party of the 'right wing' of this country. Most conservatives are having difficulty identifying with the past administrations fiscal policies. You're talking to the wrong crowd in trying to make the current Republicans truly the party of Lincoln - and freeing the slaves. Please - give us some credit for being able to read and comprehend. You're entitled to your beliefs about Obama and the Democrats - but you can't change the truth!

Just wondering.. What does age have to do with anything.. DO you really believe that at whatever your age is you have a lock on wisdom?
What does location of the School have anything to do with what was learned.. again was that just you being a snob or what.. only certain Schools that teach your form of History is worthy?

Now to the main point.. The biggest issue I have with Liberals is their lack of context.. Where in any of my posting did I state or imply that I was justifing "today's" Republicans by applying a little History.. DO you read all the post or just the one you react to? I wonder.. all things taking in context would have shown you that I was curious as to the devotion of certain Minorities to certain ideologies.. (see re-post to JeffC)..
Please attempt in the future to Reign in the superior attitude you sometimes seem to radiate in these post..
Age and wisdom are not necersaryly granted.. you can be 12 and be a Genius or 70 and be an idiot..

"Over 50% of the country has 'overcome'."

Well then, if they have "overcome" as you say, then there is no need for Affirmative Action, government set-asides, the NAACP, the Black Congressional Caucus, etc. etc. etc.

Glory Hallelujah, we have Overcome!!

Trouble is, the liberal definition of overcome is nothing but fascism.

LOL! Over 50% of the country has overcome basing their decisions of leadership qualifications on the color of one's skin. We still have to overcome those who are intellectually inept and still have the opinion that blacks are stupid and actually print it!! You really make the case for the need of continued education of the principles of Gandhi and King. I hope you are posting just to get a rise out of people - and I hope that readers understand that not all residents of Fayette County are like you!

Oh give me a break dm! 92% of the black vote goes to barry and you have the audacity to say that people don't base their decisions on the color of skin.

That is absurd! If they actually based their decision on leadership qualifications then they would have voted for McCain.

barry has already proven himself to be nothing but an inept liar.

Dm said over 50% of the people don't vote based on skin color not, as you wrote, "...people don't base their decisions on the color of skin". Here is the recent black vote:

1984 Walter Mondale 90%, Ronald Reagan 9%
1988 Michael Dukakis 90%, George H.W. Bush 10%
1992 Bill Clinton 83%, George H.W. Bush 10%
1996 Bill Clinton 84%, Bob Dole 12%
2000 Al Gore 90%, George W. Bush 9%
2004 John Kerry 88%, George Bush 11%

DM is absolutely correct. Black voters gave Obama only a few percentage points more votes than the Democratic candidate would normally get. However, black voters only accounted for about 13% of the total vote in 2008 which means huge numbers of white voters voted for Obama regardless of his race.

McCain's leadership judgment, so apparent to you, was his downfall for most Americans. His erratic handling of the bailout coupled with his decision selecting the totally hapless and unqualified Palin caused his defeat; in spite of Obama's skin color.

Race, Religion, and Obama

Martin Luther King Jr. once said that he dreamed that people one day would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. On election night, with 96 percent of the black vote going to one man, we saw how far we are from achieving King's dream. A man was elected based on the color of his skin and not on the content of his character.

You think King was worried that people would clamor to vote for a black guy based on his skin color and not his character?

"A man was elected based on the color of his skin..." All of a sudden in the United States it's a huge electoral advantage in an election for President to be black?

How about an alternative scenario: the Republicans in charge screwed everything up so badly that most people were inclined to vote Democratic. That, coupled with McCain's inept campaign, scary display of leadership (like when he suspended his campaign to parachute into the bailout situation in Washington and then showed he didn't have any idea what to do), mixed with his disastrous judgment in picking the clueless Palin, convinced most Americans that Obama wasn't really that black after all.

Seems your version of history and mine were taught by differing standards. "Historians do not equate current day Republicans with the party of Lincoln", now just where would you find that other than the brain cells you have programmed to staunchly decry anything from the right? Your comment regarding the party of Wallace and Thurmond lends me to believe you are the one in need of a history lesson.

I know of no endorsement by the then senior senator from South Carolina for Mr Wallace. It was his counterpart Fritz Hollings that did the endorsing. If you really dig into what Mr Thurmond stood for you would find that it was to his constituency, not any particular agenda.

Feel free to disparage, but take in the entire picture first.

Mike
He stood for "whites are much better than any black."

Whatever his voters thought about the subject, he cetainly agged them on, pitifully.

He was an ignorant man when it came to the human race.
He did like black children anyway---some of them.

Thurmond was an avowed racist in the '40's, gained prominence with his filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and promoted the racist, segregationist platform his entire career. He epitomizes the flight of white racist from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party which he joined in 1964 to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Unless you're defining his constituency as white racist it's hard to claim that he wasn't defined by his segregationist agenda.

Are you sure you want to bring Thurmond into this argument questioning why blacks don't support the Republicans?

No denial that he was a racist, but once in a blue moon some of us just have to stir the pot. During the forties, he espoused what his state wanted just like those politicos here in Georgia, Alabama, etc-he simply lived far longer than his counterparts.

Mr Thurmond was indeed a character. Joined the Army as a sitting judge, jumped into Normandy on D-Day, governor then senator(forever), and lastly marrying a classmate of mine from college. All the while supporting a love child.

Some things about politics never change. Have a great weekend.

All the while supporting a love child.

I tried to leave this one alone - but if we're going to talk about history - and individual perspective, we might as well deal with this. Children who were born to a 'black' mother as the result of a liaison with their 'white' employer were not designated or considered 'children born out of love'. It was (and possibly still is in certain circles) considered 'the way it is' for a white man to do the 'honorable' thing and 'take care' of any progeny from his actions with the household help. Strom Thurmond's daughter was not the 'only child' in the black community who had a 'white' father. He is not held in high esteem in the 'black' community. His daughter was raised by a principled mother who saw to it that her daughter used her education to enhance the community. He is viewed as 'one of the good old boys' who felt that black women were to be 'used' when he was young. According to history - he was proud of the accomplishments of his 'black' daughter and expressed great respect and gratitude to her and her mother for maintaining their silence until after his death. Again - this is history - and not the practice of today. Just don't make light of a terrible situation by calling a child of such a practice a love child.

Now that you brought a bit of your ire into this tidbit of trivia, should I have labeled Sen Thurmond's daughter something other than I did? Or would you have favored me making the comparison to our third President? You do know which one to which I refer, don't you? Hint: He was also a Democrat and did not particularly care for one Aaron Burr.

I beg to differ as to the level of esteem that Thurmond held in his home state, even among minorities, you seem to have created yet another fantasy. Now if you have completed a scientific poll, I will retract.

Care to take on the debate concerning ethnicity among single mothers nationally? Watch youself the times have changed since the 1930's.

single mothers nationally

You mean those who couldn't afford to get an abortion? (Or whose mother is a governor and her pregnancy is considered a ‘blessing’?) You have proudly declared who and what you are. I wasn't born until 1939 - tell me about the '30's. Better yet. . .it is apparent we disagree about many things and attitudes - let's leave it 'civilly' at that.

Thank you for the civility, and, above all, input from your perspective. We certainly disagree on several fronts, but our goals for society are likely in sync.

Like you, I can only refer to what I read and garner from octagenarians regarding the 1930's(and 1940's). Can we agree that societal norms from decades ago have changed substantially? If you agree, then perhaps we can seek out why and if they are for the better.

Surely we can agree that the mother of octuplets in California, together with her doctor are not shining examples of Americana.

Thank you for your input.

Many robbers in the USA hold John Dillinger in a "sense of esteem!"

Doesn't make Dillinger any less of a bank robber and killer.

South Carolina is still "full" of people who have inherited a bad heritage concerning black people.
They put them all in one bucket when it comes to most things.

I don't deal with some blacks and some whites and some yellows and some browns, but a good one has my backing for anything he wants.

Are you implying that my home state is unique concerning its fill of people inheriting a bad heritage?

The buckets we had were used to carry things, must have had a different purpose in "Nitland."

I don't put every citizen of South Carolina in the same bucket, but it is my opinion from what I have seen and heard, that yes, they do have more citizens percentage-wise who are more of a a generalist!

We didn't put pig feed in the same bucket as horse feed on our farm.
If we were sorting potatoes or apples, we put different sizes into different buckets. We didn't gather eggs and mustard greens into the same bucket!
People are somewhat similar to a potato in that some are intelligent regardless of their color or heritage.

Seems your version of history and mine were taught by differing standards.

Very true. Your statement reminds me of an experience I had with a professor who was working on his doctorate at UCLA. He was from Oxford. He chastised me because I had identified George Washington as a hero. He was taught that George Washington was a traitor. Same history – just a different perspective.

"Historians do not equate current day Republicans with the party of Lincoln.

There was a time when there were conservative and liberal Republicans and conservative and liberal Democrats. I saw that change during my lifetime when certain attitudes regarding ‘race’ were challenged in this country. As I stated before – and I stand by that statement – the southern Democrats became Republican in mass in the ‘60’s when Johnson signed the Voting Rights act. It was then we began to see the code words used to keep the south in the Republican Party. The fear of losing gender and racial supremacy was used to keep voters in line. I – and many others KNOW that that era has passed – but it is a part of our American story.

You really can’t convince me that the past 8 years has demonstrated the fiscal conservatism of the Republican Party. The Republican Party has its good points and bad points. It’s capture by the extreme ‘right’ and the Bush policies have been destructive to the party's credibility. To try to equate the Republican Party of today with the party of Lincoln is an insult to those of us who lived through the 50’s and 60’s.

Regarding Thurmond. My family – and many other families in this country, has been aware of the two-sidedness of politicians like Thurmond, Hollings, Wallace, etc. Thurmond’s daughter is a respected retired schoolteacher in Los Angeles; a matriarch of an African-American family; and was loyal in maintaining her silence about her relationship to her father until after he died. Her relationship to Thurmond has been documented (he never denied it and was very supportive of her during her college years and after) – and she may even become a member of the Daughters of the Confederacy!

Sir – I KNOW what Thurmond stood for. . . and he changed when it became politically expedient. . .as did other southern politicians.

This is a new day. Change is here. History is just that – his story. It is interpreted based on ones perspective – and how it affected him/her.

Answer: To try and avoid today's reality, mates. None of the historical dixicrat analogies apply to 2009. Look at the White House. Look at blogs right here whenever and wherever the NAACP is mentioned, or Affirmative Action. Is it that hard to understand why minorities are not enamored by today's GOP message? Barack the Magic Negro? Whites only Country Club memberships? I thought conservatives HATED when people went back to resurrect the sins of our past. Is the future of the GOP so bleak that dixicrats are all that is left to argue?

And, on a side note: As a member of the minority party that could have been THE MOST influential Senator at Commerce, how is Judd Gregg withdrawing his nomination a good thing for Republicans? Losing influence in Washington, DC never seemed like a path to victory to me.

Hug your valentines, and I suggest a blogging moratorium tomorrow to keep us all out of the dog house!

Cheers.

WE ARE DESTINED TO REPEAT IT.. (no not physical slavery, but Financial and Psycological Slavery)... This whole post was just for study I wanted some reactions.. and thanks to all.. I was not disapointed.

Hate VDAY, but everyone have a good one... Yes JeffC.. Diva.. Sniffles and egads.. Bonkers too..

I only diverted into the segment of history that you chose to rewrite or simply misrepresent. But I digress, it is Valentines Day tomorrow and we do agree with your idea of a moratorium.

Just for the record, some of have learned valuable lessons by remembering the past. I recommend it for you-although we do not think alike, we are after the same goal.

Have a great Valentine's Day!

A crappy silly holiday promoted by Hallmarks to make you buy a card for $5.

that will die in 2 days.. and don't forget the $30 box of Chocolates that will be gone in 10 minutes but seen forever.. GOD how I hate V-Day

1. S. Lindsey: Try $60 for 4 of those Rona big Rose things

2. Happy Hallmark card day to Sky, TUG, Main, Dawn, Eodnaj, Mudcat (yes, you Mudcat:) ), David'smom, Southernbelle, Jane1, USArmybrat, and all of my blogging sparring partners, no matter what side of the argument you reside on!

Cheers

They are the best...so beautiful! Nice choice, Mr. Diva!

My hubby and I decided to go to the gun show at the Atlanta Motor Speedway today. No cards, no flowers. Now, aren't we the romantic couple!?!

It sounds like a great time to me.

..it usually ends up being a fun time, whenever we can do stuff like that with our spouses...

ever shoot from your hot tub?

I love this pic!

How did you get that pic of my hubby? LOL! Have a nice Valentine's Day , Everyone!

It sounds like the perfect day. You are spending time together. What could be better? Have a good day.

Have a great day yourself!

We should all boycott valentine's day. The whole thing is a corporate conspiracy.

but it is one of the better conspiracies that I can think of. A conspiracy celebrating love. Have a good day celebrating.

If you are lucky enough to have your special one nearby or only family and/or friends or will be alone-treat yourself to something special--after all we are all special in some way to someone---well, almost all of us! Have a great time whatever you are doing.

Venereal Disease?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Of course I meant have a Happy Valentine's Day. Naughty, naughty you!

Have never had one (veneral disease, that is) but don't think there is anything happy about it! But then, what do I know? You have given me my laugh for the day.