Comparing the Then Dems to today's Dems

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Then Dems: JFK, FDR

Today:Pelosi, Reid, Obama

I think that I have made my case.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Then Republicans- Reagan,Goldwater
Today- Michael Steele, Dick Cheney, John McCain

Cool I can do it too

Not very good at it though.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Interst6ing how you jumped out to defend the libs, you being libertarian and all.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

You are welcome to fill in the blanks for me, honestly though campaigning on EVIL LIBRULS PELOSI/REID hasn't worked the last 2 elections, 3rd times the charm?

They're not evil, they're stupid. How many elections have the libertarians won again?

[WreckedParty]

Then Republicans- Reagan,Goldwater
Today- Michael Steele, Dick Cheney, John McCain

Cool I can do it too

Sad but true

[WreckedParty]

Id have to say the dems in power take on a FDR mentality only stepping on the gas pedal which isnt doing any good.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Sorry I forgot political parties were like sports teams, you disagree with my assesment?

Of course. VP Cheney is a great guy as is Senator McCain. Steele is a temp.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

With representation at 23% and dropping I'm not sure Republicans are in the position to talk smack about winning elections.

Again, how many?

[willfla29]

Don't forget, "Then Dems" also = George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Richard Russel, Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd, and all the other segregationists.....

[ddye]

Don't forget, "Then Dems" also = George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Richard Russel, Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd, and all the other segregationists.....
How many of those ended up being Republicans? Don't forget Henry Byrd, Jesse Helms and the rest...

Doug

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

Yeah, just thinking about the Libs of the 60's being compared to the Libs of today makes me laugh.

[SFC(R)L]

same circus

new clowns

[willfla29]

How many of those ended up being Republicans? Don't forget Henry Byrd, Jesse Helms and the rest...

Doug

As far as I know, of those I mentioned, only Thurmond switched parties....but even then only after giving up his Democratic Segregation views....if you meant Harry Byrd, he remained a Democrat as well.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

There are many libertarian ideals in Congress. Perhaps you are not aware of how political parties work, but the bigger ones usually take ideas from the smaller ones.

Whatever gets you through the night. Still waiting for a POTUS with (L)...

[Sneaky SF Dude]

That will likely never happen, atleast in the near future. The libertarian party has some extreme positions that are not electable to tell the truth. Although what I said was basic fact, did you skip government class altogether?

Condescending thing aren't you. No, I didn't skip government and they actually taught it when I was in school, unlike now. Did quite well in fact.

People get ideas from everywhere, so claiming you have 1/4 of the Presidency because you happen to agree with something one of them said isn't what we were talking about.

The discussion is parties. Read the thread title.

[Residential Bob]

Then - "We need for people to think that democracy is American and a good thing."

Now - "We've begun remaking America."

[RedStatePaPa]

Then Dems: JFK, FDR

Today:Pelosi, Reid, Obama

I think that I have made my case.

Valid comparison.

Today's moonbat lib bears no resemblance to the democrats of 50 years ago. Except maybe the (D) after their name.

At least Bush, Mccain, Cheney share many conservative values.


Interesting though how the Libertarians always seem to run to the defence of libs. It's amazing actually and happens often enough that there is a pattern.

[Residential Bob]

Today's moonbat lib bears no resemblance to the democrats of 50 years ago.I disagree. The more Democrats chip away at the republicanism that America was founded on, the more brazen and outspoken they can be with their hopes and dreams. Less republicanism = more democracy.

Democrats have always been liberal - always to the left of the American government. They have always pushed their agenda as far as the country would allow them.

[TexasGreatGranny]

Lets go back further than the 60's. How bout the 40's and 50's. Back then I was one...It was not the party it has become today. My dad who was a die hard democrat would roll over in his grave if he could see what is happening now. Back then the dems were the party of a strong military, they were known as the patriotic party. Nothing like the dems of today. It was country first all the way...its really sad that they have become socialist.

[RedStatePaPa]

Lets go back further than the 60's. How bout the 40's and 50's. Back then I was one...It was not the party it has become today. My dad who was a die hard democrat would roll over in his grave if he could see what is happening now. Back then the dems were the party of a strong military, they were known as the patriotic party. Nothing like the dems of today. It was country first all the way...its really sad that they have become socialist.

Back then both parties were proud, God fearing patriots and capitalists.

Not any more.

[TexasGreatGranny]

Valid comparison.

Today's moonbat lib bears no resemblance to the democrats of 50 years ago. Except maybe the (D) after their name.

At least Bush, Mccain, Cheney share many conservative values.


Interesting though how the Libertarians always seem to run to the defence of libs. It's amazing actually and happens often enough that there is a pattern.

I heard that idiot Ron Paul defending something Obama did today...I lived in his district the first time he ran. The ass claims he lives in Surfside so he can represent that district. he does not...he lives in Lake Jackson...Can't stand the man.

[RedStatePaPa]

They share many social conservative values, other than that I'm not really sure. Cheney himself said deficits didn't matter, Bush abandoned any conservative economic principles that he did have in the last portion in his presidency.

Bush/Cheney gave us recovery from the Clinton era dot-com bubble bursting. They gave us a strong economy, low unemployment and a strong foreign policy.

Nothing wrong there.

Until 2006 or so when libs lied their way into power with a nice msm assist. Since then, the economy has tanked and now with Pelosi, Reid and their lackey Obama running the show, it's only going to get worse.

[RedStatePaPa]

You have any valid reason to call Ron Paul an idiot other than the fact he doesn't throw bricks at Obama all day like you neo-conservatives?

Too busy working on getting earmarks on bills so he then vote no and look the hero to his sycophants.

[Trinka]

You have any valid reason to call Ron Paul an idiot other than the fact he doesn't throw bricks at Obama all day like you neo-conservatives?

I thought the title of this thread was dems then dems now


Last time I checked Bush isn't a dem...and cons. aren't either...

hmmmm....someone trolling?

[Trinka]

By this logic any post that doesn't follow suit with the OP is trolling?

When the thread is about dems and you bring up cons. and Rep....it's at most OFF Topic and at least trolling.......Yes...there is another thread right now on the topic your wanting to discuss

[RedStatePaPa]

I guess the housing bubble bursting isn't Bushs fault. If by strong economy you mean a large majority of our GDP being composed of paper money, which was backed up by mortgage debt. If by strong foreign policy you mean interventionist policy which was the exact opposite of what he ran on in 2000, sure.

I dont agree with what Obama is doing, the keynesian logic in itself is flawed, but Bush is not exempt from criticism.

You can call it whatever you want.

it was a strong economy. Period.


And if interventionist is the name du jour, then good. I'm all for it.
We aren't fighting the usual enemy, they don't use large armies and they only yell charge when they using our plastic to purchase bits for their IEDs.

But I never said Bush is exempt from criticism. I have never said that.

[RedStatePaPa]

So then you disagree with his position that money designated to his district should be spent. You would rather that money be sent back to Washington where it can't be tracked?

I don't like it that he bleats about earmarks but then adds them but votes no on the bill only to say that he voted no against earmarks...that he himself added.

Nah no hypocricy there.

[RedStatePaPa]

Anyhow.

The socialists in charge right now resemble Chavez and Castro more than JFK.

[Trinka]

Democrats and Republicans have nothing to do with eachother, my mistake. So you'll agree with me calling Ron Paul and idiot in this thread is trolling right?

Chill Out Dude.....

for a newbie you sure seem to have an attitude....I'm not looking to argue with you...I simply pointed out.....IF...You want to discuss cons and Rep. ....there is a thread that's doing that right now...

[RedStatePaPa]

So Clintons economy was strong aswell then, since it was essentially a large bubble that resulted in record lows in unemployment, or is that different?

Apples to oranges.


But defend Clinton some more Mr. Libertarian4life. :rolleyes:

[Trinka]

Anyhow.

The socialists in charge right now resemble Chavez and Castro more than JFK.

I wouldn't mind seeing a dem like JFK..........

[Mr. M]

I don't understand your position here.

a) he voted against the stimulus bill (which i assume you agree with)
b) the bill passed and funds were designated to his district
c) He would rather use those funds in his district where they are transparent and can be tracked, rather than send it back to Washington where it will be wasted.

Which part do you disagree with?

Your understanding of earmarks is fundamentally, and perhaps irretrievably, flawed.

For the time being we will lay that at the feet of youthful inexperience and not crass political opportunism.

[Residential Bob]

Lets go back further than the 60's. How bout the 40's and 50's. Back then I was one...It was not the party it has become today. My dad who was a die hard democrat would roll over in his grave if he could see what is happening now. Back then the dems were the party of a strong military, they were known as the patriotic party. Nothing like the dems of today. It was country first all the way...its really sad that they have become socialist.Back then, FDR was a dem, too. But socialism then met with greater resistance from the bench than it does now. In the 1790s, democracy wasn't even included in the framework for our government. All through our history, democracy has been anti-thetical to our republican form of government, but meeting with less and less resistance as the decades pass. A Democratic president and Congress can now roll liberal legislation out of Washington with relative ease.

Many in my family were Democrats, too, including my grandmother, who votes Democrat only because the Republicans took her great grandfather's slaves away (good gracious, was she beside herself when the Dems nominated a black). I don't think Democrats hate their country, let me say. Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat, too, and though his politcal progeny may not have been anti-American, they certainly seem to have been unaware of the inherent differences - the inevitable conflict - between democracy and republicanism.

[mgifford]

JFK was a wonderful Democrat and the last. Dems of that day are the Reps of today.

[Mr. M]

Please don't, I would appreciate you pointing out Ron Paul's hypocrisy.

One imagines you won't appreciate it.


Nonetheless, insertion of indicia earmarks into committee meeting notes or requests submitted through Congressional reports bypasses the process of requiring appropriations be included in the text of bills, voted on by both the House and the Senate and then signed into law by the President.

In short, they are unconstitutional on their face. Inserting them (as Representative Paul did in 2007--to the tune of sixty pages worth) can hardly be conflated with the moniker Champion of the Constitution, no?

It is also, as has been noted, disingenuous to insert them into Congressional reports fully intending to vote against the appropriations bills they affect, knowing you will still bring home the bacon. He is then free to speak out of both sides of his political mouth, taking credit for directing funds to constituents on one hand while pontificating, in his stentorian fashion, over "Dr. No's" record of voting against virtually all spending bills.

Now that you have two examples of hypocrisy regarding his position on earmarks, perhaps you would be interested in discussing how indicia earmarks provide the fetid swamp for corrupt politicians and fawning lobbyists to swim in?

[Mr. M]

I don't believe that 2nd example is hypocrisy at all. He voted against the stimulus, which is in line with his beliefs, and he would rather the funds be transparant than left up to Washington's discretion. If the stimulus was a closer vote, his belief would have remained the same.

Admitting he has a hypocrisy problem is the first step.


You seem intent on tying his vote to the current Stimulus bill. In 2007, when transparency was a personal prerogative and not a Congressional mandate or Presidential Executive Order, Representative Paul chose not to be transparent in 60 pages of indicia earmarks, sequestering funds that never saw the light of Congressional vote or ink from a Presidential pen. We may fairly lay that lack of transparency at his hypocritical feet as well.

And, in case it has escaped your notice, Ron Paul is Washington. Using the perks of the Republican political machine to garner sixty pages of indicia earmarks in a single year is the Beltway at work, in spades.

As Dumas wrote, he is "endeavoring to laugh only on one side, like the masks of the ancients," while playing off a reputation as Dr. No on budget issues.

Quite frankly, if Dr. Paul had eschewed earmarks during his career, one imagines your position would be vastly different.

[Mr. M]

I don't think RP necessarily looks down upon earmarks. He believes the money is going to be spent anyway, and he has never voted for one.

I will concede your constitutional point, as I don't believe RP has addressed the issue of whether these earmarks are constitutional. But I don't think theres anything wrong with disagreeing with a system that takes your money by simply asking for some of it back in return.

Not to be a bitter pill, L, but I think you are still missing the point of earmarks. For the sake of clarity, let's refer to them as indicia earmarks, that might give us some operating room.

What you are discussing is pork-barrel politics, an entirely different subject. We might have a lively discussion as to what constitutes pork and what are legitimate uses for the people's tax dollars (one supposes you have a none-too-flattering opinion of half-billion bridges to Nowhere, Alaska) but, at least, those feeding at that trough are as open as omnibus bills can be and are fairly voted on and signed into law.

Still, pork is something political hay is made out of, and Paul's miserly nature is no prophylactic to that charge. To lade every spending bill with hometown projects and then vote against it, especially when you use both positions to further a political career is not something one uses to cement your credentials as a straight shooter.

He might consider (he is, after all, a Congressman) writing a separate bill for his projects, they being so worthy. Then he could fairly vote for those and against so many appropriation bills he finds repugnant. He has written bills many times, bills over such diverse issues as asserting US hegemony over Panama or making Federal Reserve notes without value, so he certainly knows how the system works.

That he does not do so, speaks in plainer words than any oration he delivers. He chooses to bring home the bacon and keep the Dr. No reputation intact.

There is no other conclusion that can reasonably be drawn.

[Physics Hunter]

JFK was a wonderful Democrat and the last. Dems of that day are the Reps of today.

I have to take an emergency shower now.

[Physics Hunter]

Not to be a bitter pill, L, but I think you are still missing the point of earmarks. For the sake of clarity, let's refer to them as indicia earmarks, that might give us some operating room.

What you are discussing is pork-barrel politics, an entirely different subject. We might have a lively discussion as to what constitutes pork and what are legitimate uses for the people's tax dollars (one supposes you have a none-too-flattering opinion of half-billion bridges to Nowhere, Alaska) but, at least, those feeding at that trough are as open as omnibus bills can be and are fairly voted on and signed into law.

Still, pork is something political hay is made out of, and Paul's miserly nature is no prophylactic to that charge. To lade every spending bill with hometown projects and then vote against it, especially when you use both positions to further a political career is not something one uses to cement your credentials as a straight shooter.

He might consider (he is, after all, a Congressman) writing a separate bill for his projects, they being so worthy. Then he could fairly vote for those and against so many appropriation bills he finds repugnant. He has written bills many times, bills over such diverse issues as asserting US hegemony over Panama or making Federal Reserve notes without value, so he certainly knows how the system works.

That he does not do so, speaks in plainer words than any oration he delivers. He chooses to bring home the bacon and keep the Dr. No reputation intact.

There is no other conclusion that can reasonably be drawn.


Wow. I was right to go into science rather than law.

But I think your fangs are showing. :)

[mgifford]

I have to take an emergency shower now.

I suppose to know and understand my statement, you'd have to have been alive when JFK was, plus you'd have to have been involved enough in politics to be a voter, at least, as I was.

Since then the Dems have become the "nanny ninny" people who found that buying votes by giving voters entitlements, they could get into office. They also started saying "we are the party of the little guy".

Bobby Kennedy back then was the sorriest politician I knew, then Ted showed up and started his little "giveaway programs" too. Neither was a "pimple on JFK's ass". John was the last of the good ones.

[MrCapitalism]

How many of those ended up being Republicans? Don't forget Henry Byrd, Jesse Helms and the rest...

Doug


And here is a softball Doug, but praytell, why did they switch parties?

[BigBear]

Then Dems: JFK, FDR

Today:Pelosi, Reid, Obama

I think that I have made my case.
Your case being that the "Then Dems" are no longer alive while "today's Dems" are?

[goeagles]

JFK was a wonderful Democrat and the last. Dems of that day are the Reps of today.
JFK would be amused to hear himself equated to a Republican.
He was a Democrat through and through.
His handling of the steel price question was classic Democratic Party policy.

[mgifford]

JFK would be amused to hear himself equated to a Republican.
He was a Democrat through and through.
His handling of the steel price question was classic Democratic Party policy.

Yes, he was a Democrat and so was I. We were Democrats when Democrats had respect given and received in politics. The Dems. today aren't anything near what they were in the 60's Go. BUT, since the 60's they got an idea, and lust that they wanted to be in office for the duration, or at least until Jesus comes and they can then take over Heaven, and hand out care pkgs to all who believed that liberalism is good.

Shame on Democrats that are so zombized that they can't put the "kool Aid" down and be Americans and not just a party of fools.
Democrats became the mother of a "nanny state" people that were served up tripe thru their mother's milk, which is still tainted with hate for success and capitalism. Liberalism is a "mental disorder".

[MasterBlaster]

JFK would be amused to hear himself equated to a Republican.
He was a Democrat through and through.
His handling of the steel price question was classic Democratic Party policy.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Does this sound like a Democrat, or a Republican circa 2009?

[MasterBlaster]

JFK would be amused to hear himself equated to a Republican.
He was a Democrat through and through.
His handling of the steel price question was classic Democratic Party policy.
Cuban Missile Crisis vs. Iranian Hostage Situation.


How was each handled?

[mgifford]

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Does this sound like a Democrat, or a Republican circa 2009?

Good one brother! The Democrat would just simply hire "Dewey Screwem & Howe" Attorney's, then they would proceed to buy votes as many as they were able to buy.

[TexasGreatGranny]

I don't think RP necessarily looks down upon earmarks. He believes the money is going to be spent anyway, and he has never voted for one.

I will concede your constitutional point, as I don't believe RP has addressed the issue of whether these earmarks are constitutional. But I don't think theres anything wrong with disagreeing with a system that takes your money by simply asking for some of it back in return.

UHHHHH, Ron Paul is the king pen of ear marks. He loves them...At one time, years ago he didn't but he has changed his attitude drastically.

[TexasGreatGranny]

Ron Paul and earmarks....http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6286883.html

You will find he is a hypocrite if you read the article

[margaretms]

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

Does this sound like a Democrat, or a Republican circa 2009?

When Obama makes statements along those lines, he's accused by some people here of being a scary dictator who wants to make people submit to the state. In his own time, Kennedy was smeared as a "liberal"(some things never change) to which he responded:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

Although some on the right around here love or claim to respect dead liberals (JFK, MLK sometimes), or wish the Democrat were more like "Olde Tyme" Democrats (FDR?), there's little reason to believe they'd view Kennedy any differently than the quotation above implies if he were alive now.

[Physics Hunter]

I suppose to know and understand my statement, you'd have to have been alive when JFK was, plus you'd have to have been involved enough in politics to be a voter, at least, as I was.

Since then the Dems have become the "nanny ninny" people who found that buying votes by giving voters entitlements, they could get into office. They also started saying "we are the party of the little guy".

Bobby Kennedy back then was the sorriest politician I knew, then Ted showed up and started his little "giveaway programs" too. Neither was a "pimple on JFK's ass". John was the last of the good ones.

Good thing I have you to tell me I can't study history. Oh, and I was alive while JFK was Prez. He was "ok" but he was not worth naming everything that does not move after him.

JFK did two things well. He did not flinch before the Soviets Cuban gambit, and he cut taxes. In this I say I would perhaps vote for such a man over McCain.

However I am not swayed by looks or style, the man had morals closer to Clinton. And then he left us with Johnson.

And while I respect my elders, on the field of ideas age is not a determining factor on who is correct.

[Physics Hunter]

When Obama makes statements along those lines, he's accused by some people here of being a scary dictator who wants to make people submit to the state. In his own time, Kennedy was smeared as a "liberal"(some things never change) to which he responded:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

Although some on the right around here love or claim to respect dead liberals (JFK, MLK sometimes), or wish the Democrat were more like "Olde Tyme" Democrats (FDR?), there's little reason to believe they'd view Kennedy any differently than the quotation above implies if he were alive now.


Great quote.

[spearmaster]

You are welcome to fill in the blanks for me, honestly though campaigning on EVIL LIBRULS PELOSI/REID hasn't worked the last 2 elections, 3rd times the charm?

Why not? It worked for Obama with his "Bush is evil" campaign. Hell, Obama is still running on that.

[mgifford]

Good thing I have you to tell me I can't study history. Oh, and I was alive while JFK was Prez. He was "ok" but he was not worth naming everything that does not move after him.

JFK did two things well. He did not flinch before the Soviets Cuban gambit, and he cut taxes. In this I say I would perhaps vote for such a man over McCain.

However I am not swayed by looks or style, the man had morals closer to Clinton. And then he left us with Johnson.

And while I respect my elders, on the field of ideas age is not a determining factor on who is correct.

Yes, he did two of the most important things well and that's what made him a good president. As I said before "the liberals today who have created a nanny state" out of a thriving a country. The liberals today don't amount to a "pimple on JFK's ass".

Age doesn't factor on who's correct, but WISDOM does and people who are liberal weenies don't have it. BTW, I didn't care about his looks, I'm not gay.

When JFK handled the "Bay of Pigs", I immediately joined the Military to go to Vietnam. He was a leader and liberals today are wussies that can only be compared to the "original" wussies, the French. Weasley Clark, John Kerry, John Murtha and Colon Powell, aren't all together a "pimple on GW's ass".

BTW again, McCain was almost cooked when a "Aircraft Carrier" jet dropped a bomb and it killed over a Hundred sailors on the flight deck. You could actually leave him out of this because he was busy fighting a war at that time.

[mgifford]

why not? It worked for obama with his "bush is evil" campaign. Hell, obama is still running on that.

+1

[spearmaster]

With representation at 23% and dropping I'm not sure Republicans are in the position to talk smack about winning elections.

Libertarians making fun of Republicans about losing elections is about like the 2008 Detroit Lions making fun of Da Bears for losing a game.

[Physics Hunter]

Yes, he did two of the most important things well and that's what made him a good president. As I said before "the liberals today who have created a nanny state" out of a thriving a country. The liberals today don't amount to a "pimple on JFK's ass".

Age doesn't factor on who's correct, but WISDOM does and people who are liberal weenies don't have it. BTW, I didn't care about his looks, I'm not gay.

When JFK handled the "Bay of Pigs", I immediately joined the Military to go to Vietnam. He was a leader and liberals today are wussies that can only be compared to the "original" wussies, the French. Weasley Clark, John Kerry, John Murtha and Colon Powell, aren't all together a "pimple on GW's ass".

BTW again, McCain was almost cooked when a "Aircraft Carrier" jet dropped a bomb and it killed over a Hundred sailors on the flight deck. You could actually leave him out of this because he was busy fighting a war at that time.

Respect: Yes I put my hand over my heart for you and McCain in regards to service. Thank you.

But Wisdom, there is an elusive subject. I am not good with McCain's political "wisdom."

Good is not Great.

[mgifford]

Respect: Yes I put my hand over my heart for you and McCain in regards to service. Thank you.

But Wisdom, there is an elusive subject. I am not good with McCain's political "wisdom."

Good is not Great.

I didn't want McCain either!

[mgifford]

While you Americans are grilling out on "Memorial Day", take a minute to remember those who chose to go and they gave up all their tomorrows, forever, so that you can fire up the grill and relax on Monday.

[Physics Hunter]

While you Americans are grilling out on "Memorial Day", take a minute to remember those who chose to go and they gave up all their tomorrows, forever, so that you can fire up the grill and relax on Monday.

There is a Cemetery near my land. It dates back to the Civil War. The soldiers there are Confederate. One of my GGGfathers died on the Union side.

I will take my young son up there to continue to teach him respect.

Not all of America is lost.

[mgifford]

There is a Cemetery near my land. It dates back to the Civil War. The soldiers there are Confederate. One of my GGGfathers died on the Union side.

I will take my young son up there to continue to teach him respect.

Not all of America is lost.

I have a picture of my gggfather on my computer. He was at several war battlefields that are familier. He was then shot and couldn't fight any longer, but had to walk home a hundred miles with a bullet in his leg. The picture is of him in uniform.

[Physics Hunter]

I have a picture of my gggfather on my computer. He was at several war battlefields that are familier. He was then shot and couldn't fight any longer, but had to walk home a hundred miles with a bullet in his leg. The picture is of him in uniform.

My GGGF was Northern Cav and died of the flu at the tail end of the war.

May God bless all Veterans this Memorial Day.

[mgifford]

my gggf was northern cav and died of the flu at the tail end of the war.

May god bless all veterans this memorial day.

10-4!

[Sneaky SF Dude]

You have any valid reason to call Ron Paul an idiot other than the fact he doesn't throw bricks at Obama all day like you neo-conservatives?

I knew it!