As I said, you are too young to remember. Before the Dixiecrat
rebellion, the Democratic party took the South for granted. Did not
take the South into consideration when drawing up the party platform,
etc. They thought the South was always going to vote Democratic
reguardless.

The Dixiecrats were a third party, and as expected lost. But after
that there was an effort to keep the South as part of the Democratic
party. As you say the Democrats were able to hold it together for a
while, but one could see that it was a matter of time before the South
would go Republican.
Dan

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:12:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 06:37:05 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

With the Dems no longer trying to bridge the gap and keep the old
northern/southern Democratic coalition together, they swung left. A lot
of
people, probably like yourself, switched parties somewhere along the
line --
not over race, but because of the excesses of '60s/'70s liberalism. In
fact,
I've been a registered Republican for a very long time, myself, after
having
been a Democrat when I was young.


So with advancing age..you decided to return to your roots?

No, I just came too late. The Republicans were just starting to be overrun
by authoritarian racists, right-wing nutbags, holy rollers, and warmongering
neocons.

However, I try to keep hope alive. d8-)


There is going to be a strong push in the very near future for a third
party based on Republitarian princibles. Something you may wish to
investigate.

Ive already got my name on the list.

Ill send you an email with the details.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

There is going to be a strong push in the very near future for a third
party based on Republitarian princibles. Something you may wish to
investigate.

Ive already got my name on the list.

Ill send you an email with the details.

If there is such a party I'm interested too.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Gunner writes on Tue, 17 Jan 2006
09:58:13 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:12:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 06:37:05 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

With the Dems no longer trying to bridge the gap and keep the old
northern/southern Democratic coalition together, they swung left. A lot
of
people, probably like yourself, switched parties somewhere along the
line --
not over race, but because of the excesses of '60s/'70s liberalism. In
fact,
I've been a registered Republican for a very long time, myself, after
having
been a Democrat when I was young.


So with advancing age..you decided to return to your roots?

No, I just came too late. The Republicans were just starting to be overrun
by authoritarian racists, right-wing nutbags, holy rollers, and warmongering
neocons.

However, I try to keep hope alive. d8-)


There is going to be a strong push in the very near future for a third
party based on Republitarian princibles. Something you may wish to
investigate.

I've been convinced that there is room to the right for a conservative
party, maybe the Republican Wing of the GOP can form a caucus. I don't see
that happening until the Democrats so marginalizes themselves that they go
the way of the Whigs. The GOP will move further to the "center" to
accommodate the new members, and the Conservatives will form a new party
"not because they left the GOP, but because the GOP left them..."

Ive already got my name on the list.

Ill send you an email with the details.

"me too!" Please

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

Umm, I'll just take that as hyperbole. :-)

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:12:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 06:37:05 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

With the Dems no longer trying to bridge the gap and keep the old
northern/southern Democratic coalition together, they swung left. A
lot
of
people, probably like yourself, switched parties somewhere along the
line --
not over race, but because of the excesses of '60s/'70s liberalism. In
fact,
I've been a registered Republican for a very long time, myself, after
having
been a Democrat when I was young.


So with advancing age..you decided to return to your roots?

No, I just came too late. The Republicans were just starting to be
overrun
by authoritarian racists, right-wing nutbags, holy rollers, and
warmongering
neocons.

However, I try to keep hope alive. d8-)


There is going to be a strong push in the very near future for a third
party based on Republitarian princibles.

I sure as hell hope so. And I hope they take all their buddies with them.

Something you may wish to
investigate.

Thanks, but I'll leave that to the professionals...the Justice Department
comes to mind.


Ive already got my name on the list.

Go for it! 'Any room there for the holy rollers?

--
Ed Huntress


Ill send you an email with the details.

Gunner

Ed Huntress wrote:

Go for it! 'Any room there for the holy rollers?

Who are they, anybody who goes to church?

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:20:55 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:12:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 06:37:05 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

With the Dems no longer trying to bridge the gap and keep the old
northern/southern Democratic coalition together, they swung left. A
lot
of
people, probably like yourself, switched parties somewhere along the
line --
not over race, but because of the excesses of '60s/'70s liberalism. In
fact,
I've been a registered Republican for a very long time, myself, after
having
been a Democrat when I was young.


So with advancing age..you decided to return to your roots?

No, I just came too late. The Republicans were just starting to be
overrun
by authoritarian racists, right-wing nutbags, holy rollers, and
warmongering
neocons.

However, I try to keep hope alive. d8-)


There is going to be a strong push in the very near future for a third
party based on Republitarian princibles.

I sure as hell hope so. And I hope they take all their buddies with them.

Something you may wish to
investigate.

Thanks, but I'll leave that to the professionals...the Justice Department
comes to mind.

The JD will be busy with the DNC and the GOP.

Ive already got my name on the list.

Go for it! 'Any room there for the holy rollers?

Only if they leave their religion at the door.
"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On 17 Jan 2006 08:47:38 -0800, "Gus" wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:

Go for it! 'Any room there for the holy rollers?

Who are they, anybody who goes to church?


According to Ed, and most leftists.. a holy roller is anyone who
dosent use Marx's name in vain.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Spehro Pefhany writes
on Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:57:12 -0500 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:07:14 GMT, the renowned pyotr filipivich
wrote:


"Well, gawlee, look at all that target area!"

Them SOBs

are you referring to the Canadian Precision shooters, or did you take
that weft turn because you were using the warp drive?

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

Go for it! 'Any room there for the holy rollers?

Who are they, anybody who goes to church?

A school board that degrades science by insisting on re-defining it to fit
their own pet superstitions; a congressman who says we all should be
governed by a biblical worldview; a TV evangelist who says that the head of
a foreign state suffered a stroke because he ignored a single phrase of the
Bible.

They mostly vote Republican these days. We'd be better off if they voted
Repo-Tunisian, or Rubber-Tannery-Man, or whatever abortive exercise in
political dissonance Gunner and the kids have in mind.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

Go for it! 'Any room there for the holy rollers?

Who are they, anybody who goes to church?

A school board that degrades science by insisting on re-defining it to fit
their own pet superstitions; a congressman who says we all should be
governed by a biblical worldview; a TV evangelist who says that the head
of
a foreign state suffered a stroke because he ignored a single phrase of
the
Bible.

They mostly vote Republican these days. We'd be better off if they voted
Repo-Tunisian, or Rubber-Tannery-Man, or whatever abortive exercise in
political dissonance Gunner and the kids have in mind.

--
Ed Huntress



Ed,

Did you catch the latest speeches by the Democrat Mayor of New Orleans?

If not, tune your TV to CNN.

wrote in message
oups.com...
As I said, you are too young to remember.

Well, most people here are too young to remember the ratification of the
Constitution, but an awful lot of them seem to know what it says. d8-)

Before the Dixiecrat
rebellion, the Democratic party took the South for granted. Did not
take the South into consideration when drawing up the party platform,
etc. They thought the South was always going to vote Democratic
reguardless.

The Dixiecrats were a third party, and as expected lost. But after
that there was an effort to keep the South as part of the Democratic
party. As you say the Democrats were able to hold it together for a
while, but one could see that it was a matter of time before the South
would go Republican.

No doubt about that, Dan. The only reason they were Democrats is because
Lincoln and the carpetbaggers were Republicans.

It was a weird political history. Nixon tapped the right vein to pull them
over by playing the race card.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:04:03 -0500, the renowned "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

wrote in message
roups.com...
As I said, you are too young to remember.

Well, most people here are too young to remember the ratification of the
Constitution, but an awful lot of them seem to know what it says. d8-)

Before the Dixiecrat
rebellion, the Democratic party took the South for granted. Did not
take the South into consideration when drawing up the party platform,
etc. They thought the South was always going to vote Democratic
reguardless.

The Dixiecrats were a third party, and as expected lost. But after
that there was an effort to keep the South as part of the Democratic
party. As you say the Democrats were able to hold it together for a
while, but one could see that it was a matter of time before the South
would go Republican.

No doubt about that, Dan. The only reason they were Democrats is because
Lincoln and the carpetbaggers were Republicans.

It was a weird political history. Nixon tapped the right vein to pull them
over by playing the race card.

Phlebitis?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

"RAM^3" wrote in message
...


Ed,

Did you catch the latest speeches by the Democrat Mayor of New
Orleans?

If not, tune your TV to CNN.

Do you mean his "chocolate city" remarks? Heh. The guy really has a way with
words, doesn't he? g

--
Ed Huntress

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:04:03 -0500, the renowned "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

wrote in message
roups.com...
As I said, you are too young to remember.

Well, most people here are too young to remember the ratification of the
Constitution, but an awful lot of them seem to know what it says. d8-)

Before the Dixiecrat
rebellion, the Democratic party took the South for granted. Did not
take the South into consideration when drawing up the party platform,
etc. They thought the South was always going to vote Democratic
reguardless.

The Dixiecrats were a third party, and as expected lost. But after
that there was an effort to keep the South as part of the Democratic
party. As you say the Democrats were able to hold it together for a
while, but one could see that it was a matter of time before the South
would go Republican.

No doubt about that, Dan. The only reason they were Democrats is because
Lincoln and the carpetbaggers were Republicans.

It was a weird political history. Nixon tapped the right vein to pull
them
over by playing the race card.

Phlebitis?

Hah! Yeah, the deep-vein type. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

Go for it! 'Any room there for the holy rollers?

Who are they, anybody who goes to church?

A school board that degrades science by insisting on re-defining it to
fit
their own pet superstitions; a congressman who says we all should be
governed by a biblical worldview; a TV evangelist who says that the head
of
a foreign state suffered a stroke because he ignored a single phrase of
the
Bible.

They mostly vote Republican these days. We'd be better off if they voted
Repo-Tunisian, or Rubber-Tannery-Man, or whatever abortive exercise in
political dissonance Gunner and the kids have in mind.

--
Ed Huntress



Ed,

Did you catch the latest speeches by the Democrat Mayor of New
Orleans?

If not, tune your TV to CNN.


I saw part of it but aside from referring to New Orleans as being
"chocolate" there wasn't much to it. But did anyone see Dennis Hastert and
David Dreyer talking about the changes they wanted to make in lobbying? That
was a good one, I'll tell ya. They were going on about the Republican party
being the party of "reform". Yeah, they are for reform as soon as they get
exposed as being completely crooked. Of course, it isn't until they get
eposed for taking bribes from lobbyists until the idea hits them. Nothing
could be more hypocritical than the Republicans crying for lobbying reform.
After their orgy of taking money and other gifts from lobbyists it's a
little late for that. What's nearly as funny as their newfound honesty is
their assertion that they are a reform party. There is one thing Republicans
have always stood for and it isn't reform. It's called the status quo.
Putting a Republican in office means that everything will remain the same
for as long as possible or that by reform they mean going backwards to doing
things the old ways. Their motto has always been "Stand Pat". They've been
using that since TRs days.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Putting a Republican in office means that everything will remain the same
for as long as possible or that by reform they mean going backwards to
doing
things the old ways. Their motto has always been "Stand Pat". They've been
using that since TRs days.

Actually, the current group that calls themselves Republicans are thinking
of changing their motto to "When you talk, we listen..."

--
Ed Huntress

Hawke wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

Go for it! 'Any room there for the holy rollers?

Who are they, anybody who goes to church?

A school board that degrades science by insisting on re-defining it to
fit
their own pet superstitions; a congressman who says we all should be
governed by a biblical worldview; a TV evangelist who says that the head
of
a foreign state suffered a stroke because he ignored a single phrase of
the
Bible.

They mostly vote Republican these days. We'd be better off if they voted
Repo-Tunisian, or Rubber-Tannery-Man, or whatever abortive exercise in
political dissonance Gunner and the kids have in mind.

--
Ed Huntress



Ed,

Did you catch the latest speeches by the Democrat Mayor of New
Orleans?

If not, tune your TV to CNN.


I saw part of it but aside from referring to New Orleans as being
"chocolate" there wasn't much to it. But did anyone see Dennis Hastert and
David Dreyer talking about the changes they wanted to make in lobbying? That
was a good one, I'll tell ya. They were going on about the Republican party
being the party of "reform". Yeah, they are for reform as soon as they get
exposed as being completely crooked. Of course, it isn't until they get
eposed for taking bribes from lobbyists until the idea hits them. Nothing
could be more hypocritical than the Republicans crying for lobbying reform.
After their orgy of taking money and other gifts from lobbyists it's a
little late for that. What's nearly as funny as their newfound honesty is
their assertion that they are a reform party. There is one thing Republicans
have always stood for and it isn't reform. It's called the status quo.
Putting a Republican in office means that everything will remain the same
for as long as possible or that by reform they mean going backwards to doing
things the old ways. Their motto has always been "Stand Pat". They've been
using that since TRs days.

Hawke

Nagin said a little more than just the chocolate remark.

"Surely God is mad at America," Nagin said. "He sent us hurricane after
hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this
country.

"Surely he doesn't approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses.
But surely he is upset at black America also. We're not taking care of
ourselves."

I believe he has as much chance reading God's mind as does Pat
Robertson.
GW

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Putting a Republican in office means that everything will remain the same
for as long as possible or that by reform they mean going backwards to
doing
things the old ways. Their motto has always been "Stand Pat". They've been
using that since TRs days.

Actually, the current group that calls themselves Republicans are thinking
of changing their motto to "When you talk, we listen..."

--
Ed Huntress

A little scandal may be a good thing if it gets them to change the
rules on accepting bribes, I mean, gifts from lobbyists. I've thought
that practice was corrupt for many years.
GW

In article . com, Gus says...

A little scandal may be a good thing if it gets them to change the
rules on accepting bribes, I mean, gifts from lobbyists. I've thought
that practice was corrupt for many years.

That's the 'you gotta touch bottom before you can come up again'
theory of life. There's something to be said for that.

However these guys don't think they've done anything wrong.
See all the apologists on this board for example. As far as
gunner is concerned, as long as clinton got his hooter honked
in the oval office, Delay is by definition innocent of anything,
forever.

This extends so far as to claims that prosecution of those
crooks is tantamount to giving 'aid and comfort' to terrorists.

Yeah right.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Hawke wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


Go for it! 'Any room there for the holy rollers?


Who are they, anybody who goes to church?


A school board that degrades science by insisting on re-defining it to


fit


their own pet superstitions; a congressman who says we all should be
governed by a biblical worldview; a TV evangelist who says that the head
of
a foreign state suffered a stroke because he ignored a single phrase of
the
Bible.

They mostly vote Republican these days. We'd be better off if they voted
Repo-Tunisian, or Rubber-Tannery-Man, or whatever abortive exercise in
political dissonance Gunner and the kids have in mind.

--
Ed Huntress




Ed,

Did you catch the latest speeches by the Democrat Mayor of New


Orleans?


If not, tune your TV to CNN.




I saw part of it but aside from referring to New Orleans as being
"chocolate" there wasn't much to it. But did anyone see Dennis Hastert and
David Dreyer talking about the changes they wanted to make in lobbying? That
was a good one, I'll tell ya. They were going on about the Republican party
being the party of "reform". Yeah, they are for reform as soon as they get
exposed as being completely crooked. Of course, it isn't until they get
eposed for taking bribes from lobbyists until the idea hits them. Nothing
could be more hypocritical than the Republicans crying for lobbying reform.
After their orgy of taking money and other gifts from lobbyists it's a
little late for that. What's nearly as funny as their newfound honesty is
their assertion that they are a reform party. There is one thing Republicans
have always stood for and it isn't reform. It's called the status quo.
Putting a Republican in office means that everything will remain the same
for as long as possible or that by reform they mean going backwards to doing
things the old ways. Their motto has always been "Stand Pat". They've been
using that since TRs days.

Hawke




As screaming liberal commie, I do have to point out that it's not just
the republicans....both sides are feeding at the pig trough.

What needs to happen is elimination of all money in the form of
donations, gifts, perks, etc that come from ANY source that does not
have a legal vote in the USA. That includes Unions as well as
corporations and charitable organizations. If you can't vote, you can't
influence the voting process. Corporations are NOT and should not be
considered the same as individuals with rights. They are bestowed the
ability to operate as a legal entity for tax purposes and business
operations, but should not treated like an invented person with deep
pockets.

Following that, it would be nice (but probably not legal due to
donations being considered the same as free speech) to limit individual
contributions to a specific maximum amount.

The real cheeser to me is campaining for re-election while holding
office. We continue to pay these people...and they even adjust all the
government schedules....while they campain to get back in. There is
inherent influence while still holding office. You get all sorts of
perks that help you get re-elected like free mail, the president gets
the use of a private plane at super discount rates (which is like a
flying billboard), you get on TV more easily because you are already in
office, etc. basically, the Govt shuts down for 6+ months while we pay
these guys to get re-elected. Wouldn't you like to keep getting your
paycheck for 6 or 8 months while you spent all your time looking for a job?

I am not for term limits because that would eliminate the possibilities
for someone REALLY good to keep doing the job (few and far between).
What I would support is requiring terms to be non-consecutive. You can
come back, just not because you are already there. You can't waste my
time and money trying to get re-elected when you should be working. You
have to earn it back just like the new kid on the block running for the
first time.


Koz

Koz wrote:


As screaming liberal commie, I do have to point out that it's not just
the republicans....both sides are feeding at the pig trough.

What needs to happen is elimination of all money in the form of
donations, gifts, perks, etc that come from ANY source that does not
have a legal vote in the USA. That includes Unions as well as
corporations and charitable organizations. If you can't vote, you can't
influence the voting process. Corporations are NOT and should not be
considered the same as individuals with rights. They are bestowed the
ability to operate as a legal entity for tax purposes and business
operations, but should not treated like an invented person with deep
pockets.

Following that, it would be nice (but probably not legal due to
donations being considered the same as free speech) to limit individual
contributions to a specific maximum amount.

The real cheeser to me is campaining for re-election while holding
office. We continue to pay these people...and they even adjust all the
government schedules....while they campain to get back in. There is
inherent influence while still holding office. You get all sorts of
perks that help you get re-elected like free mail, the president gets
the use of a private plane at super discount rates (which is like a
flying billboard), you get on TV more easily because you are already in
office, etc. basically, the Govt shuts down for 6+ months while we pay
these guys to get re-elected. Wouldn't you like to keep getting your
paycheck for 6 or 8 months while you spent all your time looking for a job?

I am not for term limits because that would eliminate the possibilities
for someone REALLY good to keep doing the job (few and far between).
What I would support is requiring terms to be non-consecutive. You can
come back, just not because you are already there. You can't waste my
time and money trying to get re-elected when you should be working. You
have to earn it back just like the new kid on the block running for the
first time.


Koz

As a holy-rolling fundamentalist winger, I pretty much agree with the
above.
GW

In article , Koz says...

What needs to happen is elimination of all money in the form of
donations, gifts, perks, etc that come from ANY source that does not
have a legal vote in the USA. That includes Unions as well as
corporations and charitable organizations. If you can't vote, you can't
influence the voting process. Corporations are NOT and should not be
considered the same as individuals with rights. They are bestowed the
ability to operate as a legal entity for tax purposes and business
operations, but should not treated like an invented person with deep
pockets.

From your mouth to god's ear, my friend. However there is about
as much chance of that happening, as of "kenny boy" getting
convicted.

"Kenny Boy." Now exactly who gave him that name?

And doesn't *that* illustrate the pure and unvarnished truth
of what you are saying?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article ,
Koz wrote:


The real cheeser to me is campaining for re-election while holding
office. We continue to pay these people...and they even adjust all the
government schedules....while they campain to get back in. There is
inherent influence while still holding office. You get all sorts of
perks that help you get re-elected like free mail, the president gets
the use of a private plane at super discount rates (which is like a
flying billboard), you get on TV more easily because you are already in
office, etc. basically, the Govt shuts down for 6+ months while we pay
these guys to get re-elected. Wouldn't you like to keep getting your
paycheck for 6 or 8 months while you spent all your time looking for a job?

I am not for term limits because that would eliminate the possibilities
for someone REALLY good to keep doing the job (few and far between).
What I would support is requiring terms to be non-consecutive. You can
come back, just not because you are already there. You can't waste my
time and money trying to get re-elected when you should be working. You
have to earn it back just like the new kid on the block running for the
first time.

I think the way to do this is to forbid printing the name of incumbents
on the ballot. If they can win by write-in then they get another term


--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/