|
Hey Harry...
https://ivn.us/2017/05/02/courts-can...ampaign=buffer
This is a good reason why Hillary lost. OK, so maybe Putin played a role, maybe sexism played a role, but *your* party says they don't need to follow their own rules?! and *your* candidates are out trying to sell their "I'm part of the resistance crap...?" Also, Isn't it a bit ridiculous that the DNC swayed the primary process in Hillary's favor and they are saying it is ok and they will do it again? This just shows politics is crooked and both sides are not doing what the will of the voters are expecting. Seems like, big money lobbyists and backroom deals are who and where the candidates are actually chosen... |
Hey Harry...
On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 7:20:26 AM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
https://ivn.us/2017/05/02/courts-can...ampaign=buffer This is a good reason why Hillary lost. OK, so maybe Putin played a role, maybe sexism played a role, but *your* party says they don't need to follow their own rules?! and *your* candidates are out trying to sell their "I'm part of the resistance crap...?" Also, Isn't it a bit ridiculous that the DNC swayed the primary process in Hillary's favor and they are saying it is ok and they will do it again? This just shows politics is crooked and both sides are not doing what the will of the voters are expecting. Seems like, big money lobbyists and backroom deals are who and where the candidates are actually chosen... "The last time the court rejected the “private party rights” argument was in 1944 when, despite the Democratic Party’s objections, the court held that the party had to let African-Americans participate in “their” primary. " Dirty scoundrels back then, and nothing has changed. |
Hey Harry...
On Thu, 4 May 2017 05:11:25 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote: "The last time the court rejected the “private party rights” argument was in 1944 when, despite the Democratic Party’s objections, the court held that the party had to let African-Americans participate in “their” primary. " Dirty scoundrels back then, and nothing has changed. 1944 was a low point for "democracy" in the democrat party. The apparatchiks in the party rammed Truman through in spite of the fact that Wallace (the incumbent) was the popular choice for VP and ultimately the president. There will always be speculation that if we had simply presented the terms the Japanese signed in Tokyo Bay in the spring of 45 they would have signed then. We were still insisting on them losing the emperor before the bomb. |
Hey Harry...
|
Hey Harry...
|
Hey Harry...
7:11 AMIts Me
- show quoted text - "The last time the court rejected the “private party rights” argument was in 1944 when, despite the Democratic Party’s objections, the court held that the party had to let African-Americans participate in “their” primary. " Dirty scoundrels back then, and nothing has changed. ...... Uh-huh. And conservatives are called "racists". Yeah buddy! |
Hey Harry...
On 5/4/17 2:14 PM, Tim wrote:
7:11 AMIts Me - show quoted text - "The last time the court rejected the “private party rights” argument was in 1944 when, despite the Democratic Party’s objections, the court held that the party had to let African-Americans participate in “their” primary. " Dirty scoundrels back then, and nothing has changed. ..... Uh-huh. And conservatives are called "racists". Yeah buddy! I know you were out shooting squirrels and such when it happened, Timmy, but in the mid-1960s, the Democratic Party (the liberals) kicked out the southern racists and that's when those folks began their takeover of the GOP, a movement that was enabled by Richard Nixon's "southern strategy." |
Hey Harry...
On 5/4/2017 1:27 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2017 13:01:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 5/4/2017 12:46 PM, wrote: On Thu, 4 May 2017 05:11:25 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote: "The last time the court rejected the “private party rights” argument was in 1944 when, despite the Democratic Party’s objections, the court held that the party had to let African-Americans participate in “their” primary. " Dirty scoundrels back then, and nothing has changed. 1944 was a low point for "democracy" in the democrat party. The apparatchiks in the party rammed Truman through in spite of the fact that Wallace (the incumbent) was the popular choice for VP and ultimately the president. There will always be speculation that if we had simply presented the terms the Japanese signed in Tokyo Bay in the spring of 45 they would have signed then. We were still insisting on them losing the emperor before the bomb. It was more than just the Japanese Emperor. The Japanese actually accepted the terms of surrender but added an addendum that protected the Japanese military types (including Tojo) *and* the Emperor from being tried for war crimes. That was unacceptable to Truman. Even after the second bomb was dropped (August 9th, 1945) it took another 6 days (August 15th) for the Emperor and his military to finally accept an unconditional surrender. ... and that debate rages on 70 years later ;-) I also understand "soft on communism" was the battle cry for a half century but it brought us 50 years of cold war, 2 major wars and a number of other little wars. It bankrupted the Soviets and drove our debt until the bailouts finally surpassed it. That is the main reason fir the growth of the military industrial complex and why we are creeping up on a trillion dollar DoD budget. I know there are people who think history was the only way it could ever be but being a real free thinker with intellectual curiosity I have to ask if things could have gone better with wiser decisions at the top. The nature of communism changed almost immediately after WWII. It was no longer a bastion of hope for the poor and disadvantaged. Stalin demonstrated his desire for global domination, a fact that Churchill, Truman and others were keenly aware of. The Soviet Union successfully tested their A-bomb in 1949, mainly thanks to the spies they had working at Los Alamos. I can't see that there was any way to avoid the "cold war" and it's resulting arms race. |
Hey Harry...
1:18 PMKeyser Soze - show quoted text - I know you were out shooting squirrels and such when it happened, Timmy, but in the mid-1960s, the Democratic Party (the liberals) kicked out the southern racists and that's when those folks began their takeover of the GOP, a movement that was enabled by Richard Nixon's "southern strategy." .... So they kicked out the George Wallace liberal democrats and brought new the LB "N bill 1957" J, and the "when I appoint a N to the SPCUS, I want everybody to know he's a N". That LBJ? You mean "those " southern racists? Here Harry, you "care for some gopher?" |
Hey Harry...
1:18 PMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text - I know you were out shooting squirrels and such when it happened... ---- You're very perceptive in that order Harry. Yes I was shooting squirrels in 1966 when I was 10 years old, with my own .22 rifle. When I was 13 I bought my own .357 and was in the 8th grade at the time... :^ ) |
Hey Harry...
On Thu, 4 May 2017 14:18:18 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
I know you were out shooting squirrels and such when it happened, Timmy, but in the mid-1960s, the Democratic Party (the liberals) kicked out the southern racists and that's when those folks began their takeover of the GOP, a movement that was enabled by Richard Nixon's "southern strategy." I don't think it was as much that they were kicked out as that they just left in disgust. |
Hey Harry...
|
Hey Harry...
On Thu, 4 May 2017 15:47:15 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
I don't think it was as much that they were kicked out as that they just left in disgust. They were kicked out at the '64 Dem convention. You know Harry, they write this **** down. I was also alive in 64. There were 50 or 60 deep south delegates who refused to sign the platform. Two black delegates of over 60 who said they should have won if they had their voter rights honored were seated as at large delegates and that ****ed off more southerners but nobody was kicked out. |
Hey Harry...
|
Hey Harry...
Keyser Soze
- show quoted text - White racist delegates from Mississippi and Alabama refused to sign a pledge to support the Johnson-Humphrey ticket, were therefore refused seating as delegates, and walked out. The refusal to sign the pledge kicked them out. I watched that convention. You may call it what you like, but the racists were kicked out. ..... So they voted racists in to replace the racists they voted out. That solved a lot. |
Hey Harry...
On Fri, 5 May 2017 06:44:27 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 5/4/17 10:46 PM, wrote: On Thu, 4 May 2017 15:47:15 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: I don't think it was as much that they were kicked out as that they just left in disgust. They were kicked out at the '64 Dem convention. You know Harry, they write this **** down. I was also alive in 64. There were 50 or 60 deep south delegates who refused to sign the platform. Two black delegates of over 60 who said they should have won if they had their voter rights honored were seated as at large delegates and that ****ed off more southerners but nobody was kicked out. White racist delegates from Mississippi and Alabama refused to sign a pledge to support the Johnson-Humphrey ticket, were therefore refused seating as delegates, and walked out. The refusal to sign the pledge kicked them out. I watched that convention. You may call it what you like, but the racists were kicked out. They still had their credentials. They just did not get to vote. It was the same with the 60 black delegates who demanded to be seated because they felt they should have been elected. You also did not really "watch" the convention unless you were there. The networks had a little bit of newsreel coverage but nobody really wanted to miss Bonanza or General Hospital to see these things. They also soft pedaled the problems at the convention and concentrated on the speeches coronating LBJ when they did have televised coverage. I was around then too and my parents were "all the way with LBJ". |
Hey Harry...
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 5/4/17 10:46 PM, wrote: On Thu, 4 May 2017 15:47:15 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: I don't think it was as much that they were kicked out as that they just left in disgust. They were kicked out at the '64 Dem convention. You know Harry, they write this **** down. I was also alive in 64. There were 50 or 60 deep south delegates who refused to sign the platform. Two black delegates of over 60 who said they should have won if they had their voter rights honored were seated as at large delegates and that ****ed off more southerners but nobody was kicked out. White racist delegates from Mississippi and Alabama refused to sign a pledge to support the Johnson-Humphrey ticket, were therefore refused seating as delegates, and walked out. The refusal to sign the pledge kicked them out. I watched that convention. You may call it what you like, but the racists were kicked out. Sounds like a dictatorship not a convention to chose a ticket. My way or my way. |
Hey Harry...
On 5/5/17 11:21 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 May 2017 06:44:27 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 5/4/17 10:46 PM, wrote: On Thu, 4 May 2017 15:47:15 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: I don't think it was as much that they were kicked out as that they just left in disgust. They were kicked out at the '64 Dem convention. You know Harry, they write this **** down. I was also alive in 64. There were 50 or 60 deep south delegates who refused to sign the platform. Two black delegates of over 60 who said they should have won if they had their voter rights honored were seated as at large delegates and that ****ed off more southerners but nobody was kicked out. White racist delegates from Mississippi and Alabama refused to sign a pledge to support the Johnson-Humphrey ticket, were therefore refused seating as delegates, and walked out. The refusal to sign the pledge kicked them out. I watched that convention. You may call it what you like, but the racists were kicked out. They still had their credentials. They just did not get to vote. It was the same with the 60 black delegates who demanded to be seated because they felt they should have been elected. You also did not really "watch" the convention unless you were there. The networks had a little bit of newsreel coverage but nobody really wanted to miss Bonanza or General Hospital to see these things. They also soft pedaled the problems at the convention and concentrated on the speeches coronating LBJ when they did have televised coverage. I was around then too and my parents were "all the way with LBJ". "They just did not get to vote." That says it all. |
Hey Harry...
On Fri, 5 May 2017 12:11:37 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 5/5/17 11:21 AM, wrote: On Fri, 5 May 2017 06:44:27 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 5/4/17 10:46 PM, wrote: On Thu, 4 May 2017 15:47:15 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: I don't think it was as much that they were kicked out as that they just left in disgust. They were kicked out at the '64 Dem convention. You know Harry, they write this **** down. I was also alive in 64. There were 50 or 60 deep south delegates who refused to sign the platform. Two black delegates of over 60 who said they should have won if they had their voter rights honored were seated as at large delegates and that ****ed off more southerners but nobody was kicked out. White racist delegates from Mississippi and Alabama refused to sign a pledge to support the Johnson-Humphrey ticket, were therefore refused seating as delegates, and walked out. The refusal to sign the pledge kicked them out. I watched that convention. You may call it what you like, but the racists were kicked out. They still had their credentials. They just did not get to vote. It was the same with the 60 black delegates who demanded to be seated because they felt they should have been elected. You also did not really "watch" the convention unless you were there. The networks had a little bit of newsreel coverage but nobody really wanted to miss Bonanza or General Hospital to see these things. They also soft pedaled the problems at the convention and concentrated on the speeches coronating LBJ when they did have televised coverage. I was around then too and my parents were "all the way with LBJ". "They just did not get to vote." That says it all. They were not kicked out and they were still around to lobby those who could vote although it was just the coronation of LBJ and any vote was just going to be ceremonial. Johnson's platform was a pack of lies anyway and we went back on most of it ... most notably the war. That is why he kicked himself out of the 68 election before he had the embarrassment of being only the second sitting president not to get the nomination of his party. |
Hey Harry...
On 5/5/17 12:45 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 May 2017 12:11:37 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 5/5/17 11:21 AM, wrote: On Fri, 5 May 2017 06:44:27 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 5/4/17 10:46 PM, wrote: On Thu, 4 May 2017 15:47:15 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: I don't think it was as much that they were kicked out as that they just left in disgust. They were kicked out at the '64 Dem convention. You know Harry, they write this **** down. I was also alive in 64. There were 50 or 60 deep south delegates who refused to sign the platform. Two black delegates of over 60 who said they should have won if they had their voter rights honored were seated as at large delegates and that ****ed off more southerners but nobody was kicked out. White racist delegates from Mississippi and Alabama refused to sign a pledge to support the Johnson-Humphrey ticket, were therefore refused seating as delegates, and walked out. The refusal to sign the pledge kicked them out. I watched that convention. You may call it what you like, but the racists were kicked out. They still had their credentials. They just did not get to vote. It was the same with the 60 black delegates who demanded to be seated because they felt they should have been elected. You also did not really "watch" the convention unless you were there. The networks had a little bit of newsreel coverage but nobody really wanted to miss Bonanza or General Hospital to see these things. They also soft pedaled the problems at the convention and concentrated on the speeches coronating LBJ when they did have televised coverage. I was around then too and my parents were "all the way with LBJ". "They just did not get to vote." That says it all. They were not kicked out and they were still around to lobby those who could vote although it was just the coronation of LBJ and any vote was just going to be ceremonial. Johnson's platform was a pack of lies anyway and we went back on most of it ... most notably the war. That is why he kicked himself out of the 68 election before he had the embarrassment of being only the second sitting president not to get the nomination of his party. Oh, please. Their ability to vote was revoked. That means they were kicked out, even if they could stand around and watch. I do get a kick, though, of your never-ending attempts to cut down political figures and their accomplishments. Obviously, you would be happiest with pols whose legislative accomplishments add up to nothing. Is that why you like Trump? |
Hey Harry...
12:13 PMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text - "... I do get a kick, though, of your never-ending attempts to cut down political figures and their accomplishments. .." ---- You mean like you do with the conservatives ? |
Hey Harry...
On Fri, 5 May 2017 13:13:05 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 5/5/17 12:45 PM, wrote: On Fri, 5 May 2017 12:11:37 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 5/5/17 11:21 AM, wrote: On Fri, 5 May 2017 06:44:27 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 5/4/17 10:46 PM, wrote: On Thu, 4 May 2017 15:47:15 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: I don't think it was as much that they were kicked out as that they just left in disgust. They were kicked out at the '64 Dem convention. You know Harry, they write this **** down. I was also alive in 64. There were 50 or 60 deep south delegates who refused to sign the platform. Two black delegates of over 60 who said they should have won if they had their voter rights honored were seated as at large delegates and that ****ed off more southerners but nobody was kicked out. White racist delegates from Mississippi and Alabama refused to sign a pledge to support the Johnson-Humphrey ticket, were therefore refused seating as delegates, and walked out. The refusal to sign the pledge kicked them out. I watched that convention. You may call it what you like, but the racists were kicked out. They still had their credentials. They just did not get to vote. It was the same with the 60 black delegates who demanded to be seated because they felt they should have been elected. You also did not really "watch" the convention unless you were there. The networks had a little bit of newsreel coverage but nobody really wanted to miss Bonanza or General Hospital to see these things. They also soft pedaled the problems at the convention and concentrated on the speeches coronating LBJ when they did have televised coverage. I was around then too and my parents were "all the way with LBJ". "They just did not get to vote." That says it all. They were not kicked out and they were still around to lobby those who could vote although it was just the coronation of LBJ and any vote was just going to be ceremonial. Johnson's platform was a pack of lies anyway and we went back on most of it ... most notably the war. That is why he kicked himself out of the 68 election before he had the embarrassment of being only the second sitting president not to get the nomination of his party. Oh, please. Their ability to vote was revoked. That means they were kicked out, even if they could stand around and watch. I do get a kick, though, of your never-ending attempts to cut down political figures and their accomplishments. Obviously, you would be happiest with pols whose legislative accomplishments add up to nothing. Is that why you like Trump? Kicked out means just that, credentials revoked and escorted to the door but you never let the facts get in the way of a good rant. |
Hey Harry...
On 5/5/17 3:35 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 May 2017 13:13:05 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 5/5/17 12:45 PM, wrote: On Fri, 5 May 2017 12:11:37 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 5/5/17 11:21 AM, wrote: On Fri, 5 May 2017 06:44:27 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 5/4/17 10:46 PM, wrote: On Thu, 4 May 2017 15:47:15 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: I don't think it was as much that they were kicked out as that they just left in disgust. They were kicked out at the '64 Dem convention. You know Harry, they write this **** down. I was also alive in 64. There were 50 or 60 deep south delegates who refused to sign the platform. Two black delegates of over 60 who said they should have won if they had their voter rights honored were seated as at large delegates and that ****ed off more southerners but nobody was kicked out. White racist delegates from Mississippi and Alabama refused to sign a pledge to support the Johnson-Humphrey ticket, were therefore refused seating as delegates, and walked out. The refusal to sign the pledge kicked them out. I watched that convention. You may call it what you like, but the racists were kicked out. They still had their credentials. They just did not get to vote. It was the same with the 60 black delegates who demanded to be seated because they felt they should have been elected. You also did not really "watch" the convention unless you were there. The networks had a little bit of newsreel coverage but nobody really wanted to miss Bonanza or General Hospital to see these things. They also soft pedaled the problems at the convention and concentrated on the speeches coronating LBJ when they did have televised coverage. I was around then too and my parents were "all the way with LBJ". "They just did not get to vote." That says it all. They were not kicked out and they were still around to lobby those who could vote although it was just the coronation of LBJ and any vote was just going to be ceremonial. Johnson's platform was a pack of lies anyway and we went back on most of it ... most notably the war. That is why he kicked himself out of the 68 election before he had the embarrassment of being only the second sitting president not to get the nomination of his party. Oh, please. Their ability to vote was revoked. That means they were kicked out, even if they could stand around and watch. I do get a kick, though, of your never-ending attempts to cut down political figures and their accomplishments. Obviously, you would be happiest with pols whose legislative accomplishments add up to nothing. Is that why you like Trump? Kicked out means just that, credentials revoked and escorted to the door but you never let the facts get in the way of a good rant. If you go to a political convention as a delegate and your ability to vote is revoked, you've been kicked out. |
Hey Harry...
Tim wrote:
12:13 PMKeyser Soze - show quoted text - "... I do get a kick, though, of your never-ending attempts to cut down political figures and their accomplishments. .." ---- You mean like you do with the conservatives ? Yup, like LBJ's accomplishments. Cranking up the Viet Nam war, sending me a draft notice. Signing the 64 Civil Rights act after the Republican Congress passed it ver the Democrats objections. Especially Sen. Gore. Very racist. You know the dad of Al (the internet creator) Gore. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com