An Anonymous Coward writes:
A gunman fired upon thousands of people attending a music festival on the Las Vegas Strip Sunday night, in a brutal attack that is blamed for at least 58 deaths, police say. In the mass shooting and panic that ensued, 515 people were injured. At least one of the dead is an off-duty police officer who was attending the concert.
Editorializing: Interesting how media always emphasize ISLAMIC terrorists, but downplay domestic terrorism as psychologically disturbed individual lone-wolfs.
"The gun-lovers happily vote for obviously corrupt people (of course, the other side does a lot of that too, so they're not excused either)."
I read the first part of the sentence, and my blood pressures started going up. I read the parenthetical part of the sentence, and everything was good. Neither party is any better than the other.
Not true. One party has more of a history of warmongering in the middle east than the other. Bush started 2 full-blown wars there, and his dad started 1; the past 3 Democrat presidents didn't start any.
They both have problems with corruption, which is why I put in the parenthetical part, but notice I didn't put any such thing above it when I talked about mideast wars.
And, of course, no Democrat administration has ever started a war, or police action, or even just shot a few shells across a demilitarized zone.
Which president went along with the trumped up CIA "evidence", to start the Vietnam War? Keep looking further back - there were others who started wars that we might have avoided.
I don't need to look farther back: the parties have changed far too much, in many ways, in that span of time to where it's pointless to compare presidents from that long ago to ones from the last couple decades. A big shift happened with Nixon's Southern Strategy, where all the southern racists switched over to the GOP, but there were shifts before that too. It's only really relevant to look at Presidents that are still alive.
Are you going to spout some silliness about Lincoln being a Republican too?
So, what you're saying is, the tiger can change his stripes? I'm not buying that. Democrats in Lincoln's day were busy keeping the black man down - and Democrats today are still trying to keep the black man on the plantation.
More racist garbage just like jmorris. When was your last Klan meeting?
You're saying some part of what he said is untrue? Which bit?
My name, spelled backward, can't be made to rhyme with Klan.
Then Bill Clinton took on Nixon's southern strategy and really made it work. Just look at our burgeoning prison system filled with "super-predators" (you know that's code for "not white folk").
Whatever ... Democrats and Republicans share the exact same foreign policy positions. That's why Bush's two wars became seven under Obama. Anyway, if you think about it, almost every major war we've been in from WWI up to Afghanistan/Iraq, was initiated by a Democrat (*). I guess the Republicans were just trying to catch up so people wouldn't start to doubt their hawkishness, because unlike Democrats, they were mostly talk, no action.
(*) Grenada/Panama, major? Not really; Iraq I? kinda too short.
The stupidity on this board is incredible.
WWII (or rather, America's entry into it), for one, wasn't started by a Democrat, it was started by a Japanese invasion.
And Iraq I wasn't a "war"? Holy shit, you're stupid.
You apparently have no idea the extent to which Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into a corner with sanctions and by ignoring overtures for peace. http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2011/12/06/did-fdr-provoke-pearl-harbor/ [antiwar.com]
Nixon's Southern Strategy
Haven't I bitch slapped you already over that lie? You Progs need that myth to explain how Republicans are the real racists but it is a filthy lie.
Question: Do you believe Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon was a political newb? The only way your theory survives 10 milliseconds is if you answer "Yes." Go look up the election returns from both of Nixon's successful elections and notice the presence of the Dixicrat. So your theory is Nixon, a Progressive / Liberal governor from California, had a devious plan that he thought could get Southern racist Democrats to switch their vote to him vs both the Democrat and the Dixicrat and do it in sufficient number to carry a single State somewhere down South. Remember, the Electoral College is winner take all.
No, the Old South switched Democrat to Republican as the old Yeller Dog Democrats died off and air conditioning brought millions of snowbirds in. As for the switch in Black voting, many have tried to tackle that one, best explanation I have seen is Lyndon Johnson didn't change his mind when he switched from fillibustering civil rights legislation, he simply changed tactics. A civil rights bill + The Great Society simply bought the loyalty of most blacks and reenslaved them on a new plantation... but now they vote for their own oppression. A respected biography of Johnson quotes him as saying he "would have those nIgg*rs voting Democrat for two hundred years." He might be proven wrong but his prediction is on track for now.
You want to believe your racist drivel, go ahead, moron.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.