Previous 21 - 30 Next
Good post. But where do you get some of your stuff? Seriously. Johnson did not oppose the CRA of '64. Lord ... got to his speech before a joint session of Congress ... to paraphrase ... "nothing would be more fitting than to pass the Civil Rights Act for which he fought so long." Lord ... I'll post an article in which a transcript from a dictabelt from LBJ talking to Ted Sorenson ... LBJ lays out the strategy for passing the CRA of 64. In his words ... no intermediaries ... LBJ talking. Where did you get the idea that he was against ... cite a source. He might have been against the timing ... but there are histories based on archives, recorded conversations .. verbatim transcripts ... LBJ, upon taking over the presidency, made the CRA 64 a priority. I'm humble enough to concede counter-evidence. If you have it, cite it here and we'll talk. With all due respect. We've talked before.
I answered you above. Same stuff. Call a person ... with whom you disagree ... names. Really, shall we say, impotent. No substance ... kinda/sorta like a playground 12 year old. Bravo. You win the 12 year old vote on the basis of name calling.
Oh that was a really, really good post. You told me off didn't you. What most impresses me is the historical knowledge your post displays ... and the deep understanding of the history of politics. (laughs) When push comes to shove, your armory consists of nothing but "name calling." You do your side a disservice in that regard. Name calling is your last refuge. That is all you have. That is your right ... to say what you want. But it is rather ... shall we say ... impotent ... in terms of making a argument.
Do you mean the Constitutional Republic where Madison, Jefferson and Washington "cut a deal" to give Hamilton his finance plan in return for the territory of DC becoming the seat of government? Hamilton's plan ... big government ... assumes debts, work a deficit. You knew that, right? Sheesh. There have been compromises since the 1st Congress. You folk would have called Madison, Jefferson and Washington ... RINOs ... and read them out of the party. That is your argument. In its full essence.
You are here to fight, not discuss. So be it ... God bless you, good journeys .... but do learn to address the substance of posts ... why did Goldwater losei in '64? Why did lose in '72 ... both were extreme and supported by the purist elements in their party. The worst two defeats in the history of American presidential elections. Refute that ... if you will. But I'll clue you in, you can't. Purism leads to defeat.
(laughs). I post the same stuff on Dem web sites ... which, I imagine, you never bother to read. So be it. American has been and always will be ... a moderate ... country. It swings left at times and right and other times. Never to the extremes. When extremes get nominated ... they lose. And lose big time. Goldwater '64 and McGovern '72 are cases in point. The purists loved Goldwater and argued there was a "hidden majority" in agreement with him. Guess what the largest defeat of a presidential candidate in the history of US presidential elections. Then, guess what? The Dems, not learning the lesson of '64, nominated McGovern in '72. The 2nd largest defeat of a presidential candidate in the history of US elections. I challenge you to refute that. Here and now. Goldwater and McGovern were "twin" illustrations of extremism in American politics. Once you've done that I suggest you make amends and remove the silliness of your Howard Dean comment. There has no been no Republican to compare to Howard Dean ... which, again, illustrates my point. Dean was "too left" and did not WIN. Get it? Politics is about the ideological distance from moderate-left to moderate-right?
The good people of South Carolina ... in primary elections ... and general elections ... endorsed him. He won. What is so hard to fathom about that? That is democracy. Or do you dislike democracy when you don't love the outcome ... and love it when the outcome meets your approval. Think about that. Are you a conditional advocate of democracy? Of elections? Of nominations? I love it so long as it works to satisfy my preferences. Otherwise, it is corrupt. That ... bottom line .. is your argument. "I love democracy IF."
You simply assume I am a liberal .. .WHY? Because I disagree with you on this issue? Great logic. You don't like what a person says ... so automatically they are liberal ... because ... simply because ... that person disagrees with me. Great logic (look of irony).
The "purists" in the Republican Party have been arguing the "fix is in" ever since 1952. Eisenhower beat Taft and that was it. Purists arose again in 1964 and we know that story. Again, in 1980, and Republicans had a helluva candidate in Reagan. Reagan turned out to be a good negotiator and a good at compromise. A helluva president. Do remember, he signed a "revenue enhancement bill," he carried on relations with China, he made peace with "Gorbachev." He signed an immigration bill advocated by another staunch conservative ... Alan Simpson. Reagan was conservative ... but pragmatic ... and, again, a helluva president. Which of the field of preferred purists matches the "big guy" -- Cruz? Walker? Palin? Santorum? Others? Reagan conquered the media and made them "purr" like kittens. Tell me which purist can duplicate that?
The key here is "home state." Maybe you are right but the good people of South Carolina have elected and re-elected him. And, I think, Lindsay COULD be elected dog catcher in a number of constituencies throughout the country. And a member of the state legislature and the Congress. You don't like him. Fair enough. Why do you generalize your dislike to call names and denigrate him. Think about it. You called names like a school yard 12-year-old. While it is protected speech, do you honestly think that kind of dialogue is what the esteemed Framers of the Constitution ... the Founding Fathers ... had in mind? Sheesh. Suck buddy? Elections are conducted in public polling places not in adolescent locker rooms.
Ahhhh, the key is Lindsay Graham is he wins vs. Hillary if she wins. What do you do? Stay home and help Hillary? Vote 3rd party and dilute the Republican vote?
Previous 21 - 30 Next