Senator Byrd dies.

[Purge]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37959947/ns/politics-capitol_hill?GT1=43001

[AcesandEights]

Hmmm, I logged on specifically to reply to this thread, but I'm not sure what to say about this man. He lived a long life, saw a lot of social upheavals, supposedly changed his tune in his later years, but who knows.

Anyway, it's weird when these old graybeards who have been in power for literally ages pass on. I remember at one point about 10 years ago I was surprised to find out he was still alive, much less in office.

[thxleo]

I wonder what would happen if a conservative senator, who had been a member of the KKK, died? Would he be lionized? The left has lost some true "heroes" of their party recently, a drunken murderer last year and a klansman this year.

[Purge]

I wonder what would happen if a conservative senator, who had been a member of the KKK, died? Would he be lionized? The left has lost some true "heroes" of their party recently, a drunken murderer last year and a klansman this year.

Yeah, definitely double standards at play.

[AcesandEights]

I haven't paid attention to the news this weekend, is he getting a free pass for his membership in the KKK etc.?

[thxleo]

I haven't paid attention to the news this weekend, is he getting a free pass for his membership in the KKK etc.?

Aces, my point is that the guy has always gotten a pass from the mainstream media on that because he became a "liberal". If he had been a conservative, they would have ripped him for it.

[darth los]

Being as what both party brands stand for you bet your ass dems get a pass.

If more explanation than that is required you've probably been in a coma for the past 50 years or illiterate.

Because when a party votes for your issues 90% of the time I can overlook racist things that happened before i was born.

Now, when a party shows utter comtemp for issues that affect mainly brown, people, poor people, etc. they don't get as much tolerance on issues such as these.

:cool:

[AcesandEights]

But Darth, you kind of have to admit that historically Southern Democrats are a bit of a different breed and Byrd had a mixed past (and that is putting it mildly).

I know he spoke out about a lot of things he had done earlier in his life as he got older and I can't say whether it was the winds of change that made him rethink his ideals or made him politically rethink his positioning, but the dude was a politician and that will make most people somewhat skeptical.

Gotta remember, a lot of Southern Dems held onto their party, as historically it was the pro-slavery, anti-unionist camp and a lot of post-war carpetbaggers were Republicans and the traditionalist camps swayed more towards the Dems down South after the Civil War. It's a lot more complicated than that, and my apologies to any Southerners who feel I glossed over/simplified it a bit too much, but just something to keep in mind when it comes to thinking about the history of the Democratic party and possible parallels to the present realities of the party's place in the South.

[darth los]

Oh there's no doubt. Unlike alot of people I'm paying attention and know my history.

Up until about the 60's the dems were the racist party, with them supporting in droves the segragationist platform that Strom Thurmond ran on in 48'. The dems dominated the south during the 1850's and beyond and we know what was going on in the south in those days. The party of lincoln were the ones who abolished slavery and hey it doesn't get any more pro-minority than that.

When dem Presidents, most notably Kennedy and Johnson championed equal rights for blacks it was too much for the racist dems to bear and they defected to the republican party.

Fast forward to present day. Some role reversal, huh?

:cool:

[Mr.G]

No one should be in the senate or the house of representatives for 50+ years. What the US needs is term limits for everyone with the exception of the Supreme Court. Too often people get to Washington and get addicted to the power.

[darth los]

No one should be in the senate or the house of representatives for 50+ years. What the US needs is term limits for everyone with the exception of the Supreme Court. Too often people get to Washington and get addicted to the power.

I don't fee the supreme court should exempt from term limits either. That way consensus assholes like Antonin Scalia can get voted the hell out of there by the senate.

What? You don't think the Justices are Immune to the effects of absolute power do you?

:cool:

[JDFP]

I don't fee the supreme court should exempt from term limits either. That way consensus assholes like Antonin Scalia can get voted the hell out of there by the senate.

What? You don't think the Justices are Immune to the effects of absolute power do you?

:cool:

If by "consensus asshole" you mean a Conservative who believes the Constitution should be followed then yeah, I guess you're right. I have no greater respect for any Supreme Court justice than Scalia. The man is brilliant and one of the finest examples of an individual to wear the robe.

I'm completely against term limits when it comes to the Supreme Court though (whether it be in predominently Conservative or Liberal hands) as justices should not be concerned over their "legacy" before their term ends and attempt to hear cases based upon attempting to become re-elected to the office of Supreme Court justice. It's a terrible idea.

I do agree there should be age restrictions on the office though. After a certain age (just like in the military) you should be honorably dismissed from the office.

j.p.

[darth los]

If by "consensus asshole" you mean a Conservative who believes the Constitution should be followed then yeah, I guess you're right. I have no greater respect for any Supreme Court justice than Scalia. The man is brilliant and one of the finest examples of an individual to wear the robe.

I'm completely against term limits when it comes to the Supreme Court though (whether it be in predominently Conservative or Liberal hands) as justices should not be concerned over their "legacy" before their term ends and attempt to hear cases based upon attempting to become re-elected to the office of Supreme Court justice. It's a terrible idea.

I do agree there should be age restrictions on the office though. After a certain age (just like in the military) you should be honorably dismissed from the office.

j.p.


Fair enough on your last 2 paragraphs. But here's where i have a problem.

We are all entitled to our own beliefs and philosophies, that's a given. However, I just wish conservatives would be just as tolerant as the opposite point of view, which would be liberalism.

Everytime a reublican president nominates a Justice, they purposely look for a conservative and no one makes any apologies for it.

Yet when a Dem Prez wants to nominate a Liberal it's like WW3, like Liberal is a dirty word or something. They have obfuscate their records and run from the label.

Hell yes a liberal.

"A person who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions...someone who cares about the welfare of the people"

What the hell is wrong with that?

The court has with too many justices with one point of view. There's no counter to the justices that are unabashedly conservative and that's not healthy for anyone.

:cool:

[krakenslayer]

I wonder what would happen if a conservative senator, who had been a member of the KKK, died? Would he be lionized? The left has lost some true "heroes" of their party recently, a drunken murderer last year and a klansman this year.

My knowledge of American politics isn't very strong, but was the Democrat Party of Byrds time not actually further to the right of the Republicans?

[darth los]

My knowledge of American politics isn't very strong, but was the Democrat Party of Byrds time not actually further to the right of the Republicans?


Exactamundo brotha!

Don't feel bad though. Most Americans' knowledge of American politics isn't very strong either and you can really trace most of the problem in this country back to that.

:cool:

[thxleo]

My knowledge of American politics isn't very strong, but was the Democrat Party of Byrds time not actually further to the right of the Republicans?

Kraken, being conservative has nothing to do with race. I don't know of any former klansman from the Republican party. No matter how some lefties here want to spin it, their party is the one that celebrated Byrd.

In the early 90's David Duke, the former grand wizard of the KKK, attempted to run for the presidency as a Republican. Republican officials attempted to block him from doing it and he ended up with no delegates. However, in the late 80's he attempted the same thing under the Democratic party and they did nothing to stop him.

I don't think folks like Darth Los, for example, understand that Democrats use minorities. And if they do understand that, then they obviously are okay with being "the victim" in society instead of doing something on their own to change their lives. How many times do we need to hear that Darth Los has brown skin? We all know you are not white and you have a chip on your shoulder. We get it.

[JDFP]

Fair enough on your last 2 paragraphs. But here's where i have a problem.

We are all entitled to our own beliefs and philosophies, that's a given. However, I just wish conservatives would be just as tolerant as the opposite point of view, which would be liberalism.

Everytime a reublican president nominates a Justice, they purposely look for a conservative and no one makes any apologies for it.

Yet when a Dem Prez wants to nominate a Liberal it's like WW3, like Liberal is a dirty word or something. They have obfuscate their records and run from the label.

Hell yes a liberal.

"A person who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions...someone who cares about the welfare of the people"

What the hell is wrong with that?

The court has with too many justices with one point of view. There's no counter to the justices that are unabashedly conservative and that's not healthy for anyone.

:cool:

I'm going to have to call you out if you think liberal Supreme Court justice nominees have had an easier time of it than Republican nominees. Case in point:

G. Harrold Carswell and Clement Haynsworth (under Nixon): The first two nominees to be rejected since THE 1920's.

Robert Bork -- SHREDDED by liberals. Ted "drunk murderer" Kennedy led the charge against Bork and the man was ripped apart.

Clarence Thomas -- need anything be said here? An embarrassing fiasco resulting from insane allegations that proved to be unfounded and an attack on this man's character.

Samuel Alito: An attempting filibuster by John "flip flop" Kerry and a tight vote of 58-42 to get into office.

Harriet Miers -- Eh, I'm not going there...

As far as Democrats...

Let's look at Clinton's appointments...

Ruth Bader Ginsburg by 96-3 (almost freakin' unanimous!)

Stephen Breyer had a 87-9 nomination.

I'll give you a little lee-way as the last appointment by a Democrat was made by LBJ -- I'll give you that Abe Fortras was a fiasco.

I'll also say the whole issue with Sotomayor was a mess -- but when you factor in Bork, Alito, Thomas, etc. etc. mentioned above -- it's one out of how many nominees that there have been an issue with on the Republican side of the fence?

Ironic to note, Antonin Scalia was voted into office by a unanimous majority of 98-0 (minus two votes from absentia). As he should have been -- the man is a legacy unto himself.

As far as this definition of liberal...


"A person who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions...someone who cares about the welfare of the people"

I'd argue that any Republican I know looks forward to the future as well (especially November of this year, okay, that's a little tongue-in-cheek). We want to benefit the nation through the betterment of our country. But there are core principles that have developed our nation, and if we lose these core principles then we've lost what has made us who we are as a nation.

I think it's silly to say that liberals care about the welfare of the people but Republicans don't. At least you didn't go so far as saying Republicans only care about people with money and Democrats the poor minorities (because this is not true). The Republican principle is to help benefit free-enterprise and individuals who strive to better themselves. Through the success of industry everyone benefits from it -- jobs are created for thousands based on the development of new private industries.

Los, I don't disagree that there are some very well-meaning liberals out there. I enjoy helping people too (I get to do it daily in my job) but I think there's a difference between responsibly helping someone and being irresponsible about it. Are you really helping someone by not motivating them to better themselves? I see every day people that are making more on unemployment then they would receive by working full-time so just stay on unemployment as long as the gov't will allow them because it's more money. This is irresponsible on behalf of society to allow this to take place -- when there's no motivation to better yourself -- a great number of lazy people just won't attempt to do it for their own sake.

Ultimately, I think the major distinction in the two parties can be summed up by stating that the conservative side of the fence believes that it is the responsibility of the individual to better him/herself and the liberal the responsibility of the government to better the individual.

Anyway, always a pleasure to hear your perspective, Los.

j.p.