Senator Byrd dies.

[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. 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.