Rob E Dangerously

I'm your Dad's replacement!

Wait.. they had an online poll? and I didn't get the chance to rig it?

yeah.. Eugene shouldn't be retarded, he should be insane

DUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRR Eugene the Lunatic is unhappy

EUUUUUUUUUGEEEEEEEENNNNNEEEEEE

I just hope he doesn't suck like him.... Eugene should just randomly blurt out "EUUUUUUUUUUUUGENEEEEEEEEEE" and he can dress up like one of the Bluebloods

I just hope he doesn't suck like him.... Eugene should just randomly blurt out "EUUUUUUUUUUUUGENEEEEEEEEEE" and he can dress up like one of the Bluebloods

And DJ Ran. is being "all up in your area" grounds for a DQ?

Eugene sorta looks like Kevin Sullivan

So, will Johnny get a 'Nitro Girl'?

Stripperella is better looking than JotW as for 'This Just In' it looks like it sucks.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/10...=19_55_164_9_04

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...air_1081496637/ Imagine how history would have changed if Terry Nichols caught Tim McVeigh in the act. Um.. that's probably a bit sick too. So yeah.

Yeah, I could have sworn that there were a chunk of them who were libertarianish So, they didn't flatout oppose it? You're changing your point there. Johnson, with his links, was able to pull that off with the closure vote with the help of Dirksen (71-29). (You can check this, the Democrats had complained about LBJ's tendancy to work with Eisenhower in the 1950s) http://www.africanamericans.com/PoliticalImpact.htm 'It can be argued that the Republican Party's 1964 presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, undid much of the good work that Everett Dirksen had performed in the Senate for the Republican Party in the spring of 1964. Dirksen, after all, had rounded up the critical Republican votes needed to cloture the civil rights bill. Under other conditions, these actions on Dirksen's part might have moved significant numbers of black voters to vote for the GOP candidate for president. However, Goldwater was so outspokenly against the civil rights bill, and so much more visible than Dirksen, that black voters in 1964 abandoned the Republicans and began giving near-unanimous electoral support to the Democrats.' #1 - Lieberman was running for VP with Gore that year #2 - Jewish voters tend to be quite liberal too there'll probably be a swing in the vote this year. But, you never know. As for an anti-semitic wing. That's not a wing Mike. Wing suggests much more than one comment and a few misc. Black leaders. Uh huh. so, Truman the Racist was the one who desegregated the Military and generally supported Civil Rights. Damn him! and possibly that's because the biggest conservative (Goldwater) lost by 20+ points. Being a huge conservative only gets you so far. (Unless your competition sucks, then you could win an election or two) Yeah, so they'll tell him something. Oooooooh. The massive Democratic majority in the Senate would be another force to give him that impression. Uh huh. If LBJ was running today, he'd still be manipulative to pull off a victory or two. But, the media wouldn't be as restrained with his personal life. Obviously they didn't read the 9th amendment, did they? So, this clearly powerful wing was able to pass how much legislation? And it's the one who's moved the least in their stance in the last 80 years. I'd question a situation where a Governor resigned to take a Senate seat. Russell and Hollings also appear to be rivals. But, here's some more on Governor Hollings - http://www.sciway.net/hist/governors/hollings.html http://www.charleston.net/stories/081003/com_10bass.shtml and more on Russell - http://www.sc.edu/library/socar/uscs/2000/russ00.html "Voters appeared critical of the manner of Russell's appointment. During his gubernatorial campaign, Russell had promised to serve his full term as governor and not to use the position for further political advancement." Everybody as in 'Black Leaders' or 'Everybody'. Maybe I missed something. I don't know. and which ads were those? I'm a Missouri resident, maybe I missed them. How much credit does the GOP want for the Civil Rights Act when they nominated a Senator who opposed it in 1964?

I didn't ask that. You see, the big problem now is that the Republican congress is spending more than the government takes in with revenue. Deficit-Spending. So, Kerry would be even worse with deficit spending?

So, if Kerry's elected, we'll spend even more than we take in? Because that's already a problem right now. And the most we'll probably hear is claims that "Kerry will raise taxes". Ignoring of course that a tax increase of some kind would be needed to deal with the deficit spending of the Republican congress. Although there's grounds to trim down spending on somethings. I quote the Hon. Rep. Mike Ferguson of New Jersey: "Let me set the record straight right now. This budget does not cut funding for any program."

Yeah, true. And also, I could have sworn seeing something that claimed that there were a portion of black people surveyed who had Libertarian tendancies or something of that sort. Nope. Wrong. A majority of Democrats voted for the Civil Rights act. It's just that percentages are used and they show that a higher percent of Republicans voted for it. Had Democrats in 1964 'flat-out' opposed it, it would have been crushed. The Exit Polls gave the female vote to Gore at 54-43. That's nowhere near as bad as Bush's showing with African Americans (90-9), Hispanic voters (62-35), Asians (55-41) and Jewish people (80-17). That might be stretching it a bit. Which accounts would those be Mike? Eisenhower did it to 'make a point' regarding federal orders and Supreme Court decisions (or the decisions) too. And there's not too much to hold against Dwight. He was quite a moderate, he was popular, he had a catchy slogan, and it was a shame that the Democrats couldn't get him in 1952. The Republicans weren't that powerful in the 89th congress (65-67) or the 88th congress (63-65). In the Senate, the Democrats had majorities of 67-33 and 68-32. In the House, the majorities were 258-177 and 295-140. Other than overriding vetoes, there's not much the Republicans could do. Nixon wasn't that conservative. It's probably how he rose in power that changes the perception of him. Although in the 60s, it's possible he could have supported some legislation. JFK's record was sorta shady. But LBJ with his connections and all that got the ball rolling. The constitution allowed for legislation to enforce the 14th and 15th amendments. Yet for many years, those amendments had no real enforcement. All about? Nah.. I wouldn't go that far. They were founded to oppose slavery, but for decades from the 1880s on-wards, they didn't do anything. Here's some more on the GOP and civil rights http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/3543 Yeah, Wilson was a Virginian who grew up during the Civil War. And Wilson was quite the racist himself. So both parties around the 1920s had a lousy record on civil rights. I'd say that's true. Granted, it wasn't that hard to be better than the Democrats on race at that time in history. Actually, to be honest. Johnson crushed Hollings in the 1962 primary by a 66-34 margin. There'd have to be some reason why a sitting Governor would lose by such a large margin to a US Senator. Hollings did win election in a special election, first beating Donald Russell (Russell succeeded Johnson when he died. How did he pull it off? by resigning as Governor and then he was appointed to the Senate) and winning a special election over an actual Republican. What other actions did he make? Whatever horrible actions he made, apparently they weren't enough to avoid losing to a US Senator by 32 points in a Primary. (Strom also ran against Olin, and lost 54-46) I don't think it's quite like that. But, Blacks won't vote for Republicans. I must have missed that survey. So basically it was too hard with the Liberal Media? Ok. And also because it's hard to successfully attack someone's methods of doing things. I'm sure it's also hard to come out and state the achievements of the party and all that. Yep. It happens. Including the Civil War is questionable. But it's not as bad as Lott's statement. I'm pretty sure that Lott made his comments in November or December 2002

Factual nitpick: NSA isn't a cabinet advisor And as well, what does appointing Colin Powell to be Secretary of State do to help regular black people? (I'm not exactly sure about the opinion on Powell/Rice by the Black community. But, I'm sure it's not positive. Either for being Republicans or whatever else. Heck, maybe some resent them for being lighter skinned. I don't know what the deal would be. But, I do know of countries where there are black/mulatto clashes. Like Haiti or the Dominican Republic) While the Republicans did help pass that and the Civil Rights act. They also nominated a Conservative who voted against the Civil Rights act, and their 1964 convention voted down a condemnation of extremism. And then the Republicans went to the South to win over disillusioned Democrats over. How good of an impression does it make to help pass something, while nominating people who didn't help pass such legislation? Republicans had a shot a long time ago to brag about that. It appears they didn't do it then. I guess it was a bit more important to win over the South than the African-American vote. Desegregation of the Military (Truman), ending discrimination for federally owned/financed/operated property (Kennedy). And also, with Johnson, let me repeat my previous point, had Goldwater been President, he wouldn't have signed the Civil Rights act. Care to mention anything that suggests different with Goldwater and the VRA? Had Nixon been elected, could you confidently say that he would have moved for Civil Rights legislation like Kennedy or got it passed like Johnson? And who ran the White House for 40 years out of the 56 from 1877 to 1933? Who controlled the Senate for 46 of those 56 years? who ran the house for 32 of 56 years? The Republicans. And even with that control, they didn't have the eagerness to try and pass any anything. I'd say that it was possible to pull off. It'd take a bit of research (thankfully, I have a huge-ass CQ Guide to US Elections here at the moment), but even with the Democrats in the South, the House and Senate could have done something. The start of all this is Comprimise of 1877. Where Hayes ended reconstruction to appease the South. And there were such groups as "The Lily White Movement" of Texas ( http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online...ew/LL/wfl1.html ) where White Republicans sought to kick Black Republicans out of positions of power in the party. And something that relates specifically to the 1928 election - http://www.pressroom.com/~afrimale/hoover.htm "Hoover’s purge of African Americans from southern branches of his party would complete their banishment from the politics of the region. At the 1928 Republican National Convention, the Hoover-controlled credentials committee, refused to seat Florida black delegates replacing them with the “lily-white” white candidates from that state. This scenario was repeated in state after state as black delegates from the south were replaced by white delegates." 'The Democrats' implies 'All Democrats'. Yeah, Democrats did run the South and thanks in part to them being allowed to declare their party a 'private organization', they were allowed to keep black voters out of the party in the South. It wasn't until the Smith v. Allwright decision in 1944 that the end of that was in sight. I'd imagine that Hollings did it as an 'asskissing' measure. As he was running for the Senate against Olin Johnson in 1962. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93720,00.html "A World War II combat veteran, Hollings was elected as a state legislator, lieutenant governor and governor, the last of which he became at age 36. He oversaw the peaceful desegregation of his state's schools, something other southern governors at the time resisted." And the closest a Republican came to winning anything before Strom was Eisenhower, who was nominated by a group called "South Carolinans for Eisenhower". You're just surrendering there Mike. History is intrepreted. It can be shaped and spun. At that time, I don't think it was a priority for the Republicans to hail their role in Civil Rights. That's their problem, isn't it? I guess you guys should have fought back at that time. yeah. There's probably a comparison between turnout for elections on Saturday and elections on Tuesday. I believe this was mentioned in The Dixiecrat Revolt and the End of the Solid South, 1932-1968 that a dissenting group of Ole Miss students went to the 'Dixiecrat' convention in Alabama and mentioned that they were hypocrites for supporting the New Deal and big government and claiming to be 'States Righters'. Lott's statements about 'America not having so many problems if we elected Strom' are bound to fall into that image. What he said was just simply overdoing it on asskissing. There would have been no objection if he mentioned Mississippi voting for Strom, that's a fact. He inserted opinion into it afterwards. Well, in late December 2002, I'm not sure how much the Economy was being mentioned. There's definately alot more competition in the news right now.

How has Bush appealed to Black voters? I'd imagine that it'd take alot to really win them over anyways. #1 - The VRA was signed by a Democrat. #2 - Claiming credit for something that happened almost 140 years ago isn't too appealing. How about the Republicans ending reconstruction in the 1870s? and then letting Segregation rise in the late 1890s. What did they do in the 1900s? 1910s? 1920s? For decades, Republicans got the majority of votes from African-Americans, and they did nothing. It's their image, they can shape it as they wish. The 'orgy' system of an open primary and a runoff in December is unique. Louisiana does have elections over the weekends (well, for their governor's race). That wouldn't be too bad of an idea to bring to other states. Strom was a politician first. Polticians are oppurtunistic by nature. Anyways, it's a good idea to not tick off voter bases such as African-Americans and adapt to the times. Although I've read stuff about how he'd 'stand up to the establishment' to get himself more votes and praise. Such as the 1954 Senate Election. Southern politics in general is very tough to decipher. Yeah, but this is Chris Dodd. He may not be the most knowledgible about that. I wonder how many US Senators know that Truman joined the Klan for a short time in the 1920s (before quitting due to the Klan's anti-catholic stance)? These are Senators, not Scholars. They would have assumed he was crazy if he was from Michigan and he said that they voted for Thurmond and they were proud of it. If he was from Michigan and praised Strom, it wouldn't have went as far and nobody would have noticed. Nah, it was sticking his foot in his mouth. He just happens to be a Southerner. Well, was there really as much 'other news' going on then as there is now? Now, there's the 9/11 commission and Iraq. Then, I think it was easier for a Senator making a dumb comment to be the top story.

Mike, vote Libertarian. A candidate on the right would have some ammo against Bush regarding immigration (in relation to national security) and spending. I've read stuff that basically either sticks up for all that, or says 'you're supporting Democrats if you don't agree'. There's alot of ground that Libertarian candidates will cover this November. (The biggest grounds for Democrat gain would involve incorporating some of the Libertarian philosophy. Basically moving from 'government that is big in general' to 'more effiecent government', disowning the Drug War, stuff of that sort)

So 'I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great Senator at any moment' equals 'When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either'? I don't think so There's not much that has linked Byrd to the Klan in the last 50 years. How about questionable statements? Anything from Byrd, other than that one 'white-n' moment? Dodd is up for re-election this November. So, the Republicans have more power over his employment than the Democrats. Anyways, if Dodd resigns, the Governor appoints a Republican. You should look into spellcheck. No offense or nothing.

Yeah.. I wish there'd be something on the net, like from CQ, mentioning the roll call on things such as this. The Republicans from Texas ad Kentucky who voted against the CRA were voted out of office in 1964 as well. I'd say that the fight was lost for awhile after 1964. There's some resentment. And recognition of what Democrats have done, or have been percieved as doing. There's suspect actions from the GOP from the 1870s to the 1950s. Republican organizations in the South began to distance themselves from Black voters even in the 1920s. I'm sure the numbers are out there. But, I think Bush in 2000 got one of the lower vote totals from black voters, and his showing in cities was one of the worst ever for his party. True, on the national level, both parties ignore the guys who piss off large portions of America He ran as a Republican in 1992 though. But, not in a general election. And David Duke too. But, Duke benefitted from the dumbasses who vote for the whiter candidate. I found a story that claimed that areas in Louisiana that supported Duke helped give Blanco the victory over Bobby Jindal. Yeah, basically voting just on your own principles and not what the people in your state want might get you a 'Profile in Courage' but it'll also get you defeated for re-election. Lott is probably a bit more knowledgeable about Strom than Dodd is about Byrd. Even if Dodd's dad did serve in the Senate with Byrd I'd say that he could have kissed BUTT without going that far. The part about the 'country not having all these problems if he was elected' was overdoing it. "We voted for you in 1948" doesn't seem as objectionable. And remember that Lott also said that about Strom in 1980. I'll put this out so you won't have to find it. "Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., has said, 'If a Democratic leader had made[Lott's] statements, we would have to call for his stepping aside, without any question whatsoever'" [Although technically, Byrd isn't a leader at the moment. He'd be Pres. Pro-Tem if the Democrats had a Majority. And if he stepped away from that, Ted Kennedy would be next in line] Although, we'd have to see about that claim. If a Dem made a statement that went right out to support a group like that now-a-days, there'd be reason to question them. Dodd was probably glossing over a bit of Byrd's record

Supposedly he joined in 1942 and quit in 1943. Even if he was kissing ass for a few years afterwards. I don't think anybody's mentioned any links between Byrd and the Klan after 1947. (And if voting against the Civil Rights Act makes one a Klansman and a bad guy, then the Republicans nominated a Klansman in 1964. I could recognize that the Republicans helped the Civil Rights Act if you recognize that they then put up candidates to appeal to the people against the Civil Rights Act. A good portion of Black voters supported Nixon, and then about 4% of them voted for Goldwater) As for Strom. I'd say that he shifted for his own survival. His 1946 campaign for SC governor wasn't quite as racist as his opposition. He disavowed racists like Gerald LK Smith in 1948. He voted against and filibustered civil rights legislation due to the people in his state who were against it was well. And then in the 70s and onwards, Strom started to hire black staffers and generally provide for his state. As for Dodd. It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't know or forgot about stuff like that. I have heard some stuff that paints Dodd as either not being too smart or just partying alot

and the US shot a rocket at a mosque, killing 40. Ooh, i'm sure that will go over well with the Iraqis.

Yes, but he still was elected twice for gov ('84 and '88) and then elected to one term as senator before losing to said dead guy Yes, but losing to a dead man shows the people of Missouri didn't think of him too highly. Maybe he won on flukes or by being unopposed. Or maybe Missouri is full of uptight people who liked Ashcroft to begin with but after three terms decided he was worthless. he lost to a popular dead guy, who was the Governor of Missouri at the time of his death.