[BlackGriffen]

Take a guess at where these words come from:

That all these things have been done with the knowledge, sanction, and procurement of the present National Administration; and that for this high crime against the Constitution, the Union, and humanity, we arraign that Administration, the President, his advisers, agents, supporters, apologists, and accessories, either before or after the fact, before the country and before the world; and that it is our fixed purpose to bring the actual perpetrators of these atrocious outrages and their accomplices to a sure and condign punishment thereafter.

BG

[MindFad]

I have no idea, but I really would like to know. Surprise me.

[AKcrab]

Google quickly gives an answer, but I don't get the point.

[PacHead]

I thought I was on MacNN, not Jeopardy - but anyhow - - - -

What is the Republican Platform of 1856 - - Do I get a prize ?

And what in the world is your point ?

Can I wager my half my money towards the daily double ?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I thought I was on MacNN, not Jeopardy - but anyhow - - - -

What is the Republican Platform of 1856 - - Do I get a prize ?

And what in the world is your point ?

Can I wager my half my money towards the daily double ?

"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" seems to be the point...

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by PacHead:
And what in the world is your point ?

Keep thinking, because you'll enjoy it more if you realize it for yourself. Hell, it could be argued that this is something that cannot be told at all but must be realized for oneself.

BlackGriffen

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Yeah, what exactly is your point?

That the Republican Party was founded on the idea of undoing the pro-slavery, anti-constitution, anti-liberty, anti-freedom actions of the sellout Democrat Party that authored such horrors as the Fugitive Slave Act and the Missouri Compromise, and remained the party in favor of slavery/segregation and anti-Civil Rights for the next 100+ years thereafter?

Yeah, we realized that.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Yeah, what exactly is your point?

That the Republican Party was founded on the idea of undoing the pro-slavery, anti-constitution, anti-liberty, anti-freedom actions of the sellout Democrat Party that authored such horrors as the Fugitive Slave Act and the Missouri Compromise, and remained the party in favor of slavery/segregation and anti-Civil Rights for the next 100+ years thereafter?

Yeah, we realized that.

The Democrats as we know it did not exist then. The closest thing to them was known as the Democratic-Republican party. I couldn't make that one up if I tried.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The Democrats as we know it did not exist then. The closest thing to them was known as the Democratic-Republican party. I couldn't make that one up if I tried.

No, by then I believe that Andrew Jackson had already split the Democratic party off of the Democratic Republicans.

And I see that Crash can't see the forest for the trees.

BlackGriffen

[PacHead]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" seems to be the point...

Du skjønner, jeg har ikke peiling på hva i all verden du skriver. Jeg skjønner ikke fransk, så det hadde vært fint om du kunne ha holdt deg til det engelske språket her på debatten. Heller ikke har jeg noen interrese av å lære fransk.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Du skjønner, jeg har ikke peiling på hva i all verden du skriver. Jeg skjønner ikke fransk, så det hadde vært fint om du kunne ha holdt deg til det engelske språket her på debatten. Heller ikke har jeg noen interrese av å lære fransk.

Utrolig! Han snakker norsk!? Vel jeg må inrømme at til og med norskspråkige kan tilhøre ultra-høyre, USA sympatiske etc etc grupper. Ikke ille. Forresten har jeg ingen interrese av å lære fransk heller.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Utrolig! Han snakker norsk!? Vel jeg må inrømme at til og med norskspråkige kan tilhøre ultra-høyre, USA sympatiske etc etc grupper. Ikke ille. Forresten har jeg ingen interrese av å lære fransk heller.

Ja, det er helt utrolig, ikke sant ! Forresten, så vil jeg ikke karaktisere meg selv som en ultra-høyre person, jeg tilhører ingen politisk parti.

Men, vi er ihvertfall enige om at fransk er noe som ingen av hos har noe bruk for. Hvis ikke angaqok skjønner dette, så vet han hvordan det føles, når han stadig bruker franske utrykk, som ingen skjønner.




PS - If anybody is wondering what in the world we are talking about - We are simply commenting on how silly it is for angaqOK to keep injecting French into his replies, as if people would understand that langauge, or have any desire of understanding him. I do not know French, nor will I ever know French. I will also never learn Swahili for that matter, and other languages which I have zero use for.

[Spliffdaddy]

If I ever learned French - I'd forget it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The Democrats as we know it did not exist then. The closest thing to them was known as the Democratic-Republican party. I couldn't make that one up if I tried.

No, we’re talking 1856. I didn’t bring up the time frame, BG did.

The Democrat Republican-Party was 1798-1844.

The Democrat Party was founded in 1844 so yes it existed in 1856. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 on the principals of opposing just the things I outlined about the Democratic Party, such as their platform of 1856 which clearly does JUST THAT! BG doesn’t even seem to realize it, nor understand the context of these words. Simply read what they refer to.

If you can tell me what real significance there was between the pro-Slavery Democrat Party of 1856 and the pro-segregation/anti-Civil Rights Democrat party of 1956, please go right ahead. Sure, you’re right, the MYTH has been fostered that there’s a huge difference in party stance during that time, and indeed some progress was made. But basically, the pro-discrimination stance the party always stood for was as alive and well in 1956 as it was in 1856.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
No, we’re talking 1856. I didn’t bring up the time frame, BG did.

The Democrat Republican-Party was 1798-1844.

The Democrat Party was founded in 1844 so yes it existed in 1856. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 on the principals of opposing just the things I outlined about the Democratic Party, such as their platform of 1856 which clearly does JUST THAT! BG doesn’t even seem to realize it, nor understand the context of these words. Simply read what they refer to.

If you can tell me what real significance there was between the pro-Slavery Democrat Party of 1856 and the pro-segregation/anti-Civil Rights Democrat party of 1956, please go right ahead. Sure, you’re right, the MYTH has been fostered that there’s a huge difference in party stance during that time, and indeed some progress was made. But basically, the pro-discrimination stance the party always stood for was as alive and well in 1956 as it was in 1856.

Tree tree tree tree tree...

You still can't see the forest for the trees, can you? I'll give you a hint: try to think outside of that little box you've stuffed your brain into. Hell, I'll give you another one: why would I post that given the context of what's going on today?

To address your side note: the Dixie-crats are a faction of the Democratic party that had already begun wane by the end of WWII. As is evidenced by Truman desegregating the military and the Dixie-crats walking out on the convention that nominated Truman. If you look at where those Dixie-crats went, you'll find that a lot of them latched on to the Republican party, giving it the modern flavor. To be sure, there are still some DINOs who would fit right in with the Dixie-crats (eg Zell Miller), but they're a dying breed. The likes of Strom Thurmond found a very comfy home with the Republicans, though. So, by 1956 not all of the Dixie-crats had packed their bags for the Republican party, but by 1967 (the civil rights movement where Democrats desegregated the schools) or so, the transition was, with exceptions, pretty much complete.

In short, the Republican party, ousted from power by the New Deal coalition, made a deal with the devil (a devil that was originally part of the New Deal coalition, to be sure), and has been demonized since for it. Pity that power ultimately matters to all politicians more than principles.

BlackGriffen

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Sheesh BG, you haven’t even got your decades straight! Pull it together already.

Let’s don’t even get back into this, but in 1956, some ‘Dixiecrat’ defection to the Republican Party wasn’t even an issue! You’re a very crucial decade off!

It’s also been pointed out I don’t know how many times that MOST segregationist Democrats never joined the republicans, and certainly not before the late 1960’s.

A new term has got to be coined for whatever nonsense you’re trying to float here:

YOU bring up a historic point trying to paint it into some imagined context with today…
Then when the REAL historic context of the quote is pointed out, and the fact that it has nothing what-so-ever to do with anything today, you want to bitch about the actual context and whine: ‘Don’t go back to 100+ years to talk about how it relates to something going on today!”

Well that’s EXACTLY WHAT you’re trying to do by dredging this bullcrap up! That you’re somehow trying to spin it into some anti-Republican thing (with all the usual history-revising and incorrect timeline bullcrap thrown in) is the HEIGHT of asinine!

Amazing!

Call it ‘pulling a BlackGriffen!’

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Sheesh BG, you haven’t even got your decades straight! Pull it together already.

Let’s don’t even get back into this, but in 1956, some ‘Dixiecrat’ defection to the Republican Party wasn’t even an issue! You’re a very crucial decade off!

It’s also been pointed out I don’t know how many times that MOST segregationist Democrats never joined the republicans, and certainly not before the late 1960’s.

That's where it started, did it not? When Strom Thurmond ran on his own ticket. Apparently party loyalty was stronger than I thought, but certainly most of the newly minted Dixie-crats have joined the Republican fold.

A new term has got to be coined for whatever nonsense you’re trying to float here:

YOU bring up a historic point trying to paint it into some imagined context with today…
Then when the REAL historic context of the quote is pointed out, and the fact that it has nothing what-so-ever to do with anything today, you want to bitch about the actual context and whine: ‘Don’t go back to 100+ years to talk about how it relates to something going on today!”

Well that’s EXACTLY WHAT you’re trying to do by dredging this bullcrap up!

No $hit, Sherlock! You're halfway there, you just seem to lack the mental faculty to make the right connections. Are you capable of drawing nothing more complicated than a connect the dots, too? I've been trying to tell you how: back up from the specifics, and look at things broadly. I doubt that you'll be able too, though, because you hold politics, half of it in particular, too close to your chest to be able to back up and look at it with perspective.

Rather than drag this out, I'll just say that Angaq0k got it dead on. I'm not going to do everything for you, though, so paste this text: "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" into Babelfish to get enough of the idea that I'm sure that even you will be able to piece it together then.

BlackGriffen

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
That's where it started, did it not? When Strom Thurmond ran on his own ticket.

No, that was 1948. Strom became a Republican in 1964. I guess you can call lopping 17 years out of history being 'accurate' in your book though!

Apparently party loyalty was stronger than I thought, but certainly most of the newly minted Dixie-crats have joined the Republican fold.

Actually, no, most of them didn't, and the entire subject is something Democrats are at the very pinnacle of hypocrisy to constantly try and spin as a Republican-only negative.

No $hit, Sherlock! You're halfway there, you just seem to lack the mental faculty to make the right connections... blather...

Heehee! How IRONIC is it that Demonhood just posted this?

Honestly, it's like you're going out of your way to use the whole list lately. Certainly, everyone uses a few on occasion- it’s kind of inherent in the nature of a forum like this, but you really seem to be purposely and consciously going gang-busters at it. What's up with that?

This threat alone we've got:

SELECTIVE QUOTATION:
Use an actual, fabricated, or hypothetical statement from some universally credible source.

OVER YOUR HEAD:
(Pretty much the whole category)

DISTORTED ACTIVE LISTENING
(a touch of it)

LISTEN UP:
Pretend that the reason the other person isn't able to agree with you is that they are not listening, or at least not hard enough.

Hey, but "That's entertainment!"

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
No, that was 1948. Strom became a Republican in 1964. I guess you can call lopping 17 years out of history being 'accurate' in your book though!

I said that's where it began. It was a process. You know, something that takes time to happen.

Heehee! How IRONIC is it that Demonhood just posted this?

How funny that you would use the very word you would need to understand in order to understand what I was trying to say with this thread.

But then this whole Democrat-Republican side thread is "X IS ONE ISSUE, Y IS ANOTHER."

Honestly, it's like you're going out of your way to use the whole list lately. Certainly, everyone uses a few on occasion- it’s kind of inherent in the nature of a forum like this, but you really seem to be purposely and consciously going gang-busters at it. What's up with that?

This threat alone we've got:

SELECTIVE QUOTATION:
Use an actual, fabricated, or hypothetical statement from some universally credible source.

I see that your reading comprehension is still in the gutter (that, or your guilty of SELECTIVE MEMORY for events that happened 30 seconds in the past). I never made an appeal to authority, real or imagined, anywhere in this thread. I was simply trying to parallel the situations: out of power party criticizing the in power party for moral shortcomings.

OVER YOUR HEAD:
(Pretty much the whole category)

Maybe. Though most of the ad hominems I used were of the "EVEN YOU" variety, or just good old fashioned name calling. I was just getting a cheap laugh at your expense, though, in my defense, I only used them after you showed evidence of fitting the description.

DISTORTED ACTIVE LISTENING
(a touch of it)

You should be really good at recognizing this one since you are, after all, a master of using it. That or, like I said, you have a SELECTIVE MEMORY span of 30 seconds.

LISTEN UP:
Pretend that the reason the other person isn't able to agree with you is that they are not listening, or at least not hard enough.

Except that I didn't expect you to agree with me. I was trying to let you figure out the point of the thread for yourself. Hey, I thought it was obvious, and agaq0k got it right off, so I couldn't have obfuscated my intentions too well.

In other words, I accused you of being hard of thinking, not hard of hearing.

Hey, but "That's entertainment!"

It most certainly is.

BlackGriffen

[andi*pandi]

"plus ca change plus la meme chose" is a common french idiom--meaning, it's one of those phrases that most everyone knows, even non-french speakers. Like dejavu. Those who are too lazy to babblefish, it means the more things change, the more they stay the same.

But I have no idea what BG is on about though.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Du skjønner, jeg har ikke peiling på hva i all verden du skriver. Jeg skjønner ikke fransk, så det hadde vært fint om du kunne ha holdt deg til det engelske språket her på debatten. Heller ikke har jeg noen interrese av å lære fransk.

Amazing how close this is to german. I can actually make sense of it. And of French too. Being ignorant is not an issue Pachead, accepting it actually is.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
"plus ca change plus la meme chose" is a common french idiom--meaning, it's one of those phrases that most everyone knows, even non-french speakers. Like dejavu. Those who are too lazy to babblefish, it means the more things change, the more they stay the same.

But I have no idea what BG is on about though.

Yeah but he said he was happy to be ignorant and not change a thing about it Whatcha gonna do?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
"plus ca change plus la meme chose" is a common french idiom--meaning, it's one of those phrases that most everyone knows, even non-french speakers. Like dejavu. Those who are too lazy to babblefish, it means the more things change, the more they stay the same.

But I have no idea what BG is on about though.

I just thought that it makes for an interesting comparison of different people criticizing the executive branch at different times. Ultimately, boils down to "Plus ça change." I was hoping not to have to spell it out, but I gave up and said it toward the end of that argument with CRASH.

BG