PDA

View Full Version : Get off your butt



Frenchie
11-07-2006, 09:46 AM
and go VOTE!!!

John Legg
11-07-2006, 09:57 AM
sorry not 18 yet! :D
my parents are though.

I hope Nater still runs for President when im 18, cause i feel bad. :rolleyes:

John

Catherine Kelly
11-07-2006, 01:16 PM
Already did that this morning... my 18yo son too... he wasn't sure he was properly registered... he tried to register on line... and wasn't sure it went through... so I figured it didn't hurt to ask.

they couldn't find his name... but with the new rules they registered him this morning and he voted also...

not sure how he voted... but right or wrong he voted...

when I turned 18 my father said the same to me... that it didn't matter if I was right or wrong... I was 18 and I would vote.. end of discussion... told both my kids the same... and so it is...

Catherine

tenfed1861
11-07-2006, 01:18 PM
Greatest honor any one can do.I voted.
Cullen

Pete K
11-07-2006, 01:45 PM
Frenchie:

I was voter no. 5 in my ward this morning. Got it done early to be a good role model to the students and faculty. I would have been earlier , but I allowed the senior citizens to go ahead of me. Do a good turn daily still runs deep in my personality.

Forquer
11-07-2006, 03:27 PM
Mi esposa and I will embark on the biannual trek of futility once she gets home from school.

Wouldn't be so bad if we had actual choices for candidates instead of the overwhelming feeling that we're doing nothing more than voting for the lesser of two evils. Regardless, as I say, if you don't vote, you have no right to b*tch.

Ahhh, politics in Ohio.

YOS,

jthlmnn
11-07-2006, 06:03 PM
Voted on my way to school this morning. Later, one of my 18 yr old students, who had cast his first ballot, was bummed that they didn't have an "I Voted" sticker for him. I gave him the one from my shirt and "made his day". It felt good.

Robert A Mosher
11-07-2006, 06:38 PM
I;ve watched elections in a number of countries around the world over the years and spent a long night in a Moscow suburb polling place back in the 1990s watching the Russians get used to a new political life. I think they liked the change even if their choices were still somewhat limited.

After apparently thinking her mother and I were a bit crazy about making sure we voted every chance we got, my college sophmore and first time voter daughter seems this year to understand us a bit better. She cast an absentee ballot while home from college on a short visit a couple of weeks ago. My wife did the same last week when she realized that her early departing airline flight this morning would keep her from voting. I voted this morning in the midst of a pretty good turnout that included a mix of morning commuters and retirees - and one guy who they helped to the head of the queue because he was on his way to the hospital where his wife was under care and he would be spending the rest of the day there - they actually slipped him into the line in front of me. Glad to oblige him.

Let the post-election bitching and moaning begin!

Robert A. Mosher

sbl
11-07-2006, 06:40 PM
..and it was easy as usual. Just take the pen and connect the broken arrow pointing at the candidate of your choice. Good thing there's those elderly ladies that volunteer to work the polls. My son gets to vote in 2008.

sbl
11-07-2006, 06:47 PM
As my friend Ran Ou tells my other friend Kamlesh Patel when he complains.....

"This is America! Get over it!"

Both these guys vote along with my co-workers Ranbir, Vang and Carman.

It's like a Kodak, Coke and Smile, Mom's Apple Pie moment!

dclarry
11-07-2006, 09:12 PM
Mi esposa and I will embark on the biannual trek of futility once she gets home from school.

Wouldn't be so bad if we had actual choices for candidates instead of the overwhelming feeling that we're doing nothing more than voting for the lesser of two evils. Regardless, as I say, if you don't vote, you have no right to b*tch.

Ahhh, politics in Ohio.

YOS,

Greg,

Well, think of me voting in the District next time you feel down. |8-)


Lawrence E. Kingsley
1st PA LT ATTY, BTTY F

Linda Trent
11-07-2006, 09:47 PM
Sorry, it was illegal for me to cast my vote today, so I didn't.







Linda.

Who voted several weeks ago, absentee. :-P

reb64
11-08-2006, 12:14 AM
and go VOTE!!!

Looks like enough of the wrong people did.

I'm letting this stay as it has been replied to in a polite and cogent manner. However, I've deleted two of your later posts for inflammatory expression. Moderate your tone and your posts will be allowed to stay up.
- Sgt. Pepper

Graves Mercantile
11-08-2006, 06:31 AM
"Looks like enough of the wrong people did" Not the wrong people, just different viewpoints from yours.


I'm glad to see the change in power. I'm a registered libertarian and a very conservative person at heart, but this country needs a change. The power has been in too few hands for too long and they have accomplished very little with it. I look forward to seeing what will happen over the next 2 years.

ThehosGendar
11-08-2006, 08:58 AM
On the subject of the "wrong people," let me quote George Washington and his prescient and wonderful 1796 Farewell Addres:

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

From http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm .

Frenchie
11-08-2006, 10:17 AM
I look forward to seeing what will happen over the next 2 years.

I don't. There are rough times ahead. The only good I can see is the chance for those who've been wasting the opportunities to increase our national security and sovereignty and resist the destruction of our social foundations to learn a lesson - or re-learn it, as the case may be. They've been too interested in securing their own power at the expense of their duties. The elections of 2010 and 2012 will be seismic in their effects.

Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

huntdaw
11-08-2006, 12:05 PM
Well, the new power in Congress has been squawking and harping for some time now without offering any solid plans for anything. It's time for them to put up or shut up now. I have a feeling they will do neither.

MStuart
11-08-2006, 12:26 PM
IMHO, a little change every now and then is a good thing. One party comes to power, stays a little too long, and starts to "assume" and loses touch with the common folk. Happened in 1994 and probably this year, too. Not that any politician is actually in touch with the common man, anyway.

Mark - Not affiliated with any political party

Milliron
11-08-2006, 05:38 PM
Well, the new power in Congress has been squawking and harping for some time now without offering any solid plans for anything. It's time for them to put up or shut up now. I have a feeling they will do neither.

With all due respect, the minority party routinely proposes legislation that never sees the light of day. The majority party controls the committee chairmanships. The committee chairs control what legislation comes to a vote. Quite often, bills proposed by the minority are never even voted on, let alone passed. So, it's not quite fair to say that the minority has never offered solid plans for anything--you just never were aware of it.

My favorite feature of this scheme is where the minority proposes a particularly popular and bi-partisan friendly bill. Routinely, the majority will craft an identical bill, shelve the minority bill, and offer their version for a vote. This way the majority can claim the credit for both originating and passing the bill while claiming that the minority has offered nothing.

This is actually the context for John Kerry's famous "Actually I voted for the war appropriations bill before I voted against it" quote. Kerry proposed the original bill (which was very popular at the time, considering we had just invaded Iraq), it was shelved by the committee, who then offered an identical bill. Kerry voted against it "in protest" (which was foolish, considering he was preparing to run for President), the measure passed, and Kerry was then on record for voting against it. Politics at its finest.

Bob Muehleisen
Cin, O.

Rob Weaver
11-08-2006, 06:11 PM
This election got me thinking: The Federal government must have endured at least 1 mid-term election during the Civil War - should have been in 1862. Weren't Senators still appointed by the governors of states then? How about the House and gubernatorial races? (I just love that word "gubernatorial" ;) ) How did Congress go in 1864? And just for kicks, 1866?

John Legg
11-08-2006, 10:34 PM
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...Jennifer Granholm

Linda Trent
11-09-2006, 07:41 AM
Weren't Senators still appointed by the governors of states then? ?

Senators, prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment, were chosen by the state legislature; however if a senator passed away the governor of the state would name someone to fill the vacant seat. :p

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

I don't know about all states, but Ohio had her gubernatorial midterm election in 1863, and it was a vicious one, pitting Brough (Union party) against the copperhead Clement Vallandigham (Democrat). The Union party was made up of Republicans and some war Democrats. There was no "Republican party" (through the remainder of the war, in Ohio) -- probably a ploy to pull together the two sides. :rolleyes:

Ohio and her soldiers cast a large majority in favor of the Union Party. By the way, governors only served two year terms, not four.

Linda.

Frenchie
11-09-2006, 09:27 AM
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...Jennifer Granholm

:confused: Who?

Frenchie
11-09-2006, 10:03 AM
I'm glad to see the change in power. I'm a registered libertarian and a very conservative person at heart, but this country needs a change. The power has been in too few hands for too long and they have accomplished very little with it. I look forward to seeing what will happen over the next 2 years.

It seems many who call for change have trouble describing exactly what kind of change they want, other than "anybody but Bush and his cronies". As for accomplishments, just off the top of my head: Tax cuts that have spurred the economy to record numbers; removal of a despot, serious damage to terrorist organizations and liberation of about 50 million people; putting a real scare into other despots, i.e., Iran; installation of a democratic government in Iraq; prevention of more coordinated terrorist attacks in the US; and there are more good things the administration has accomplished.

Nota bene, my opinion of the Prez and his administration isn't all roses; I'd love to fill his ears with what I think of the illegal immigration problem, the borders, the idiotic handling of Rumsfeld's resignation, his general failure to whipsaw the Republican party into getting things done, his stupid loyalty to and support of people who don't measure up, etc.

Regarding this mid-term bump in the road, I console myself with the thought that the GOP has the chance to reassess and come back with better ideas. Also I believe that a Democratic administration (President Al "Global Warming" Gore) wouldn't have done much differently after 9/11; in fact I think the so-called dangers to individual liberties and other home security measures adopted by Bush & Co. and so loudly decried by the "loyal opposition" would have been even more extensive. No one can arrogantly wield the power of the State like a leftist.

reddcorp
11-09-2006, 10:41 AM
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
Pogo

The Political Pundit Possum's statement pretty well sums up the GOP this go around.

You shouldn't forget who (or what) brung you to the dance. IMHO the GOP lost sight of what was promised in 1994.

Dems, the ball's in your court.

A.W. Redd

NoahBriggs
11-09-2006, 11:59 AM
I voted.

Voting results happened.

Government continues to roll.

Country continues to roll.

More for the history books.

Over two hundred years as a constitutional republic and still rolling.

In its own quirky way, American still works.

Back to historic research. Cheers!

Ozark Iron John
11-09-2006, 12:52 PM
http://www.kyblogger.com/images/ivotedtoday.jpg

Checks & Balances are Returning!

The People are going to get a good look at the books. Something sorely missing in Washington these past six years. The War Profiteers will Pay for their Transgressions.

Cheney and Company will dissert Duh-bya like Rats abandoning a Sinking Ship. SEC DEF is just the First to Go.

Tar & Feathering shall be Forthcoming!

sbl
11-09-2006, 03:28 PM
Well, the new power in Congress has been squawking and harping for some time now without offering any solid plans for anything. It's time for them to put up or shut up now. I have a feeling they will do neither.


I hope they will. I've been following the "new power" for some time and they have lots of plans and are NOW able to bring them up for discussion.

Frenchie
11-09-2006, 08:53 PM
Scott, you must mean for discussion in the House and Senate. I'm genuinely interested in hearing about them and will be paying close attention. So far, though, there's been almost no discussion of these plans in the media, at least not much beyond a lot of idle talk about impeachment, getting rid of Rumsfeld et al, pulling out and leaving the Iraqis holding the bag, destroying the institution of marriage, raising taxes, and letting Mexico continue to send criminals and malcontents to prey on American citizens and generosity and send billions of US dollars south of the border. I hope the plans brought up in Congress will be better than those sorts of things.

Milliron
11-09-2006, 09:42 PM
destroying the institution of marriage

Never did understand how a measure designed to prevent people from marrying was "defending marriage." Just a thought. Besides, unmarried couples now outnumber married ones, despite everyone's best efforts to "defend marriage."


letting Mexico continue to send criminals and malcontents to prey on American citizens and generosity and send billions of US dollars south of the border

That, or picking all the fruit in California, Idaho and Iowa at 2 bits a day while paying millions in Social Security taxes that they will never collect. Do you ever read the news or do you just swallow conservative talk-radio wholesale? Wow.

Mods, feel free to slap my head. Just couldn't let it go by.

Bob Muehleisen
Cin, O.

sbl
11-10-2006, 06:19 AM
So far, though, there's been almost no discussion of these plans in the media, at least not much beyond a lot of idle talk about impeachment, getting rid of Rumsfeld et al, pulling out and leaving the Iraqis holding the bag, destroying the institution of marriage, raising taxes, and letting Mexico continue to send criminals and malcontents to prey on American citizens and generosity and send billions of US dollars south of the border.

(oh I get it :wink:)

Frenchie,

I listen to several of the Liberal/Progressive radio programs on Air America (still on the air) and the Jones Network. The actual Congressman and Senators come on these shows regularly. Ed Shultz it now on Armed Forces Radio and has Congressman and Senators on all time.

Lou Dobbs is a pretty good source on CNN as is Keith Olberman (sp) on MSNBC.

I'm optumistic again.

Frenchie
11-10-2006, 11:00 AM
(oh I get it :wink:)

Isn't it a shame that little emoticon doesn't convey the smug, superior smirk on your face? That's all right, I know it's there.


I listen to several of the Liberal/Progressive radio programs on Air America (still on the air) and the Jones Network. The actual Congressman and Senators come on these shows regularly. Ed Shultz it now on Armed Forces Radio and has Congressman and Senators on all time.

Lou Dobbs is a pretty good source on CNN as is Keith Olberman (sp) on MSNBC.

I'm optumistic again.

I'm not surprised you listen to those programs. If you listened to the conservative talk shows I do, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Air America is dying for a very simple reason: most people don't want to listen to spittle-spraying, blind, vitriolic anger 24/7. Conservative talk radio has exploded in popularity and success because it is the most efficient of the methods for talking about the important things the major media won't bring up, and for expressing middle-American values and opinions.

The major media on television and newspapers is losing to the Internet and conservative talk radio because Americans are beginning to understand they aren't getting a lot, maybe most, of the story from them, and what they are getting is very biased. Talk radio gives them a great deal of what they're missing.

CNN lost me forever when they broadcast videos of American troops being shot. CNN refuses to show videos of the 9/11 attacks and the terrorist's killing of civilians, but US soldiers being injured and killed is good for us to see, or something. Disgusting.

"Progressive" makes me laugh. People who style themselves as "progressives" want the country - nay, the world - to go back to the good old 1960s. They lament that Iraq is comparable to Vietnam, a silly notion at best, while at the same time doing all they can to ensure this war becomes as much like the one in Vietnam as possible.

But I'm optimistic too. I try to remember always that, outside the very rare life-and-death situation, things are never as bad as they seem. Tomorrow is Veteran's Day. Without the sacrifices of our veterans, things would be far worse than they are now. I'm going to break out every national color I have and fly them in front of the house.

sbl
11-10-2006, 12:32 PM
"Isn't it a shame that little emoticon doesn't convey the smug, superior smirk on your face? That's all right, I know it's there."


So you weren't sh*ttin' me.

flattop32355
11-10-2006, 05:56 PM
What's harder than winning a war?

Give up?

Winning a peace, when not everyone wants it.

That's were we are right now.

Frenchie
11-10-2006, 11:51 PM
So you weren't sh*ttin' me.

I don't know what you're talking about here.

sbl
11-11-2006, 12:08 AM
Frenchie,

I thought your rant was a put on. I realize it wasn't.

tompritchett
11-11-2006, 09:51 AM
One of the rules about arguing politics, is that you will rarely get someone to change deeply held beliefs or change strongly held opinions. Instead all you will do is get your and the other person's blood pressure up, especially in a written forum. Frankly, it is very rarely worth it, especially when you are arguing from diametrically opposing viewpoints.

Milliron
11-11-2006, 10:42 AM
One of the rules about arguing politics, is that you will rarely get someone to change deeply held beliefs or change strongly held opinions. Instead all you will do is get your and the other person's blood pressure up, especially in a written forum. Frankly, it is very rarely worth it, especially when you are arguing from diametrically opposing viewpoints.

Tom, I usually agree with you on that point, but lately I see a utility in letting people know that not everyone feels the way they do. What with the "noise machine" created by either (but frankly one particular) side of the debate, I feel compelled to defend the alternative viewpoint. Otherwise people get the mistaken notion that everyone believes they same things they do, which isn't true.

Virtually every member of my mess has views similar to Frenchie's (reenactors being a famously conservative bunch). However, by defending the alternative viewpoint over the years, I think and I think they would agree, that while they still feel largely the same way, I have loosened up some of the more inaccurate perceptions. They are more willing to see the other side of the debate, and that to me is real progress.

That's probably as much as you will ever accomplish.

tompritchett
11-11-2006, 12:02 PM
Tom, I usually agree with you on that point, but lately I see a utility in letting people know that not everyone feels the way they do. What with the "noise machine" created by either (but frankly one particular) side of the debate, I feel compelled to defend the alternative viewpoint. Otherwise people get the mistaken notion that everyone believes they same things they do, which isn't true.


Point well taken so I will express that, as a moderate Republican or conservative Democrat depending upon who is running, I also do not agree with Frenchie's and several other of the more conservative positions expressed in this thread. Personally, I am glad that the Republicans lost control of the two houses of Congress and am looking forward to how the President and the Democratic Congress will have to work together. I truly hope that the Democrats can push through a phased rise in the guaranteed minimum wage as it has been stagmant way too long and, historically, rises in the minimum wage have been accompanied by increased economic activity as working Americans have had more money to spend and thus put back into the economy. I am also very concerned about our nation's lack of progress in dealing with Global Warming, a lack of progress that is directly attributable to this Administration and about the continued bleed of jobs from all sectors to outsourcing to other nations. Given, the projected continued rise in oil prices as global demand continues to dramatically rise, this latter practice could turn around and bite you badly as future transportation costs for outsourced manufactured goods start to exceed the initial savings in labor costs from the initial outsourcing. (BTW, 20 years ago I was arguing that American labor had to be carefull with their demands as their costs would exceed the transportation costs of outsourcing their jobs to parts of the world with drastically lower labor costs.) I have also developed the philosophy that sometimes some our best government, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, comes from having opposite parties controlling Congress and the White House as the balance and the need for compromise mellows out the effects of the extremists in each party.

Having stated my personal positions, I have no intentions to engage in further debate or argument about them or anyone else's that have been expressed in this thread.

Milliron
11-11-2006, 12:34 PM
I have also developed the philosophy that sometimes some our best government, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, comes from having opposite parties controlling Congress and the White House as the balance and the need for compromise mellows out the effects of the extremists in each party.

I completely agree. I think the Founding Fathers would view the past election and say, "See . . . !" And as crazy as I thought the last six years were, they are certainly nothing new. Ask Republicans how they felt from 1974 to 1980. I am really hoping that the lesson to be learned here is that compromise is always necessary. I think that's what people want. Nobody was interested in the avalanche of propoganda that accompanied this election. I think the result was ordained quite some time ago in the mind of the electorate, although the subsequent scandals probably increased the severity of the backlash.

I was dismayed at the divide and conquer politics that were being employed. As Shelby Foote said about the ACW, Americans failed to do what they do best--compromise." Here's to compromising.

tompritchett
11-11-2006, 12:57 PM
Nobody was interested in the avalanche of propoganda that accompanied this election. I think the result was ordained quite some time ago in the mind of the electorate, although the subsequent scandals probably increased the severity of the backlash.

I was dismayed at the divide and conquer politics that were being employed. As Shelby Foote said about the ACW, Americans failed to do what they do best--compromise." Here's to compromising.

Interesting enough, one of the worst elections in terms of polarizing propoganda was in 1800 when Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adam's re-election bid. Supporters of each continually were proclaiming that the victory of the other would spell immediate doom for our young democracy. As was this past election, the election of 1800 also drew a lot of interest in Europe because this was the first true test of the government in power and, ultimately the change of governmental power - something the young American democracy was able to do relatively peacefully rather than by violence and war as was the European norm.

And just imagine what the Europeans thought about the election of 1864 where the control of the U.S. government was being challenged via the electorial process while we were engaged in a major and bloody war. Such would have never been allowed to happen in Europe.

Pete K
11-11-2006, 01:37 PM
Was it not the mid term election in 1864 where many of the post war "radical republicans" were elected? Look back to the deep seeded hatred of the "copperheads" and how they were displayed in the press. Have we really grown up politically since 1864? Reconstruction party politics and the scandals of the 1870'- 1890's (Tammany Hall, Credit Mobillier, Grant's Admin. , etc...) were dark days for both parites.

Was it not Chruchill who said "Democracy is the worst form of government, but the best form we have"? (I may have paraphrased)

tompritchett
11-11-2006, 02:07 PM
Was it not the mid term election in 1864 where many of the post war "radical republicans" were elected?

While I am not sure about the election of the radical republicans, 1864 was not technically a mid-term election as Lincoln's first term was running out and he was running for re-election. The election of 1862 would be the true "mid-term" election for Lincoln and 1866 for Andrew Johnson. I do know that in general the Republican party did radicalize after the 1866 mid-term as a backlash against many of the reconstruction policies of Andrew Johnson. Maybe that is the election you are thinking about.

Eeeeek! I just realized for the last few posts I have been talking about history here in the Whine Cellar - place normally reserved for off-topic subjects and general complaining. Please forgive me for my most grave sin in this matter ;)

toptimlrd
11-11-2006, 03:13 PM
Eeeeek! I just realized for the last few posts I have been talking about history here in the Whine Cellar - place normally reserved for off-topic subjects and general complaining. Please forgive me for my most grave sin in this matter ;)


Keep it going there Tom, I like it ..... I like it.

Sgt_Pepper
11-12-2006, 08:31 PM
Eeeeek! I just realized for the last few posts I have been talking about history here in the Whine Cellar - place normally reserved for off-topic subjects and general complaining. Please forgive me for my most grave sin in this matter ;)

:D I've been wondering how long it would be until someone else realized it. As one of my dear aunts used to say, it's mind over matter - if no one minds, it doesn't matter.

flattop32355
11-13-2006, 12:25 AM
:D I've been wondering how long it would be until someone else realized it. As one of my dear aunts used to say, it's mind over matter - if no one minds, it doesn't matter.

I guess that means I don't have to hit him with the Alert button for improper posting. ;)

tompritchett
11-13-2006, 09:32 PM
I guess that means I don't have to hit him with the Alert button for improper posting.

Yeah, but no it looks like the thread has died because of it. :oops:

Corse's Lieut
12-04-2006, 07:04 AM
Thanks to everyone who went out and voted. The leadership of our country is too important to sit back and let others decide for you. Leaders will not listen as intently to the people if they know most of the people didn't care enough to even go out and vote. There's many less people to be accountable to if they refuse to vote!

Rob Weaver
12-30-2006, 10:08 AM
In the intervening weeks, I have stumbled across some info on the election of 1862. (Forgive me for posting history to the Whine Cellar, but that's where the thread ended up.) As has been correctly pointed out, 1862 was the only "mid-term election" of the Civil War, as the 1864 election was a general election. So how did that mid-term go? Fresh on the heels of 2nd Bull Run and Antietam in the East, and Perryville in the West, the story is told in the words of Shelby Foote: "...Democrats sniffed victory in November. And in many instances they got it. New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana - all of which had gone solidly Republican in the election two years ago - sent Democratic delegations to the House of Representatives. So did Illinois... New Jersey... now went solidly Democratic; Wisconsin, on the other hand, now split her six-man delegation down the middle. Although the number of Democratic congressmen increased from 44 to 75 as a result of this election, the Republicans would remain the majority party because they managed to carry three widely scattered regions: New England, the Border States and the Far West."
"The New York Times ran the election story under the heading, "Vote of Want of Confidence... The Salem Advocate declared: 'We saw the President of the United States stretching forth his hand and seizing the reins of government with almost absolute power, and yet the people submitted. On the 4th day of November, 1862, the people arose in their might, they uttered their voice, like the sound of many waters, and tyranny, corruption and maladministration trembled."

He also reports Lincoln's response that he felt like "the boy who stubbed his toe on the way to see his girl; he was too big to cry, and it hurt too much to laugh."
(All quotations from Part 3 of "The Civil War: A Narrative - From Fort Sumter to Perryville" by Shelby Foote.)

tompritchett
12-30-2006, 10:28 AM
In the intervening weeks, I have stumbled across some info on the election of 1862. (Forgive me for posting history to the Whine Cellar, but that's where the thread ended up.) As has been correctly pointed out, 1862 was the only "mid-term election" of the Civil War, as the 1864 election was a general election. So how did that mid-term go? Fresh on the heels of 2nd Bull Run and Antietam in the East, and Perryville in the West, the story is told in the words of Shelby Foote: "...Democrats sniffed victory in November. And in many instances they got it. New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana - all of which had gone solidly Republican in the election two years ago - sent Democratic delegations to the House of Representatives. So did Illinois... New Jersey... now went solidly Democratic; Wisconsin, on the other hand, now split her six-man delegation down the middle. Although the number of Democratic congressmen increased from 44 to 75 as a result of this election, the Republicans would remain the majority party because they managed to carry three widely scattered regions: New England, the Border States and the Far West."
"The New York Times ran the election story under the heading, "Vote of Want of Confidence... The Salem Advocate declared: 'We saw the President of the United States stretching forth his hand and seizing the reins of government with almost absolute power, and yet the people submitted. On the 4th day of November, 1862, the people arose in their might, they uttered their voice, like the sound of many waters, and tyranny, corruption and maladministration trembled."

He also reports Lincoln's response that he felt like "the boy who stubbed his toe on the way to see his girl; he was too big to cry, and it hurt too much to laugh."
(All quotations from Part 3 of "The Civil War: A Narrative - From Fort Sumter to Perryville" by Shelby Foote.)

Thank you for reviving the historical component of this thread. I was afraid that I killed it when I noticed that we had been talking of history.

Speaking of elections - it was, first, the adoption of the Democratic platform that they too would seek the re-unification of the Union and then the re-election of Lincoln that ultimately signaled to many in the Confederacy that their cause was truly over. Much of the Confederacy's hope was based upon the feeling that the North would become tired of the war and that this weariness would become expressed in the outcome of the 1864 election. In fact, one book on Civil War strategy, which I just finished over the holiday, argued that Lee's Gettysburg campaign was more for influencing this Northern sentiment than for anything else. When the 1864 Northern elections did not turn out as the Confederacy hoped, then many saw the handwriting on the wall and lost all hope of being able to maintain their independence, especially when combined with the military reversals at Gettysburg and Vicksburg.

Rob Weaver
12-30-2006, 04:55 PM
It is tragic to me that after the 64 election essentially sealed the fate of the Confederacy, the military effort continued for another 6 months. It seems that the Richmond government was no disconnected from the big picture. Think of the lives lost at Nashville, the suffering of 6 months of seige at Petersburg, the march through the Carolinas ...

flattop32355
12-30-2006, 06:37 PM
Was it not Chruchill who said "Democracy is the worst form of government, but the best form we have"? (I may have paraphrased)

I believe it was something like, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

reb64
12-31-2006, 04:27 AM
Thanks to everyone who went out and voted. The leadership of our country is too important to sit back and let others decide for you. Leaders will not listen as intently to the people if they know most of the people didn't care enough to even go out and vote. There's many less people to be accountable to if they refuse to vote!


Gee, lets see, 10 % more blacks voted republican than last time and 30% less hispanic, a blanket term i know, switched from rep to dem. seems to me, the republicans would have stayed in power if not for the hispanic turnout, some sort of backlash, fear or other vote on their part.

baldknobber
01-01-2007, 03:04 AM
Why is this even still being discussed? What about Preservation, Authenticity, and Events. I know this is the 'whine celar' as you all call it, but hey, what does this have to do with civil war? Not a darn thing. Sorry to go on a little rant, but I feel you all could be doing something more productive than talking about voting.
Off my soap box.....

Mods, if you feel my post will make people uncomfortable about themselves as historians, please delete it.

Regards,

Sgt_Pepper
01-01-2007, 05:08 AM
Mods, if you feel my post will make people uncomfortable about themselves as historians, please delete it.
Regards,

No problem here, Mr. McCarty. There are many posts that might be seen to "make people uncomfortable about themselves as historians"; there's nothing unusual about yours. Besides, the Whine Cellar was my first responsibility as a moderator and I've always felt it to be my special place. I can't speak for the other mods, but I tend to be more tolerant here than elsewhere. Rant on if the spirit so moves you, just keep it respectful.

Robert A Mosher
01-01-2007, 11:36 AM
Why is this even still being discussed? What about Preservation, Authenticity, and Events. I know this is the 'whine celar' as you all call it, but hey, what does this have to do with civil war? Not a darn thing. Sorry to go on a little rant, but I feel you all could be doing something more productive than talking about voting.
Off my soap box.....

Mods, if you feel my post will make people uncomfortable about themselves as historians, please delete it.

Regards,

Brian -
As an historian, I would have to disagree with your point, In fact, about the only thing more productive than talking about voting is to actually go out and vote. All of the history of sacrifice that we are trying to preserve and remember via reenacting reflects in great part on the fact that in the United States, the act of voting is a central key act in the political process that defines our present and determines our future.

Robert A Mosher

bob 125th nysvi
01-02-2007, 03:47 PM
grew up in Nigeria to a upper middleclass family.

And he used to get such a kick out of listening to us American's complain about our government.

He said to me one time: "You have to live in a country where you go to bed thinking your side won the election and wake up the next morning to find guys on the street corners with tanks and guns telling you they are now in charge."

He always contented that Americans DIDN'T vote because they could go to bed secure in the knowledge that the government wasn't going to screw things up too badly for too long, get too far left or right for long and could be changed at any election and the losers would accept the results in a non-violent manner.

While I deplore it and wish more would vote, maybe its a sign that things aren't as bad as we think.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

flattop32355
01-02-2007, 05:19 PM
While I deplore it and wish more would vote, maybe its a sign that things aren't as bad as we think.

A sure sign that democracy is working in the USA is the ability of everyone to bellyache about just about everything, everyday.

toptimlrd
01-02-2007, 08:35 PM
grew up in Nigeria to a upper middleclass family.

And he used to get such a kick out of listening to us American's complain about our government.

He said to me one time: "You have to live in a country where you go to bed thinking your side won the election and wake up the next morning to find guys on the street corners with tanks and guns telling you they are now in charge."

He always contented that Americans DIDN'T vote because they could go to bed secure in the knowledge that the government wasn't going to screw things up too badly for too long, get too far left or right for long and could be changed at any election and the losers would accept the results in a non-violent manner.

While I deplore it and wish more would vote, maybe its a sign that things aren't as bad as we think.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

Well said Bob. Regardless of how far left or right we think the country is going, there is a reason we are simultaneously revered and hated around the world; it's called jealousy and envy. What other country has the number of people risking their very lives to get into it (both legally and illegally) we do? If things were better elsewhere, we wouldn't have the illegal immigration problem we currently have. Thank God we live in this representative republic where freedom still comes first.

Rob Weaver
01-02-2007, 09:32 PM
One of the things I hope my extended quote about the 62 elections did for us was to make us realize that the rhetoric about tyranny and rights, etc, and sending a message to the party in power we heard in the last election cycle was pretty much in line with the general flow of American political tradition. It's an amazing thing that the United States repeatedly continues to hold elections even in the midst of wartime, like 1862, and 1944, and 2006 ... Notice that the Democratic party takes formal control of Congress this week. There will be no tanks in the streets, no bloodshed. The transition will be completed without proscriptions or secret police spiriting dissidents away in the middle of a meal. As imperfect as it is, **** of a system we've got here.

Trooper Graham
01-02-2007, 09:40 PM
One of the things I hope my extended quote about the 62 elections did for us was to make us realize that the rhetoric about tyranny and rights, etc, and sending a message to the party in power we heard in the last election cycle was pretty much in line with the general flow of American political tradition. It's an amazing thing that the United States repeatedly continues to hold elections even in the midst of wartime, like 1862, and 1944, and 2006 ... Notice that the Democratic party takes formal control of Congress this week. There will be no tanks in the streets, no bloodshed. The transition will be completed without proscriptions or secret police spiriting dissidents away in the middle of a meal. As imperfect as it is, **** of a system we've got here.

That's why the US has had the only successful republic in world history.

Rob Weaver
01-03-2007, 01:40 PM
And may God grant us the resolve to remain free.

tompritchett
01-03-2007, 04:51 PM
And may God grant us the resolve to remain free.

from both foreign and domestic enemies.

reb64
01-04-2007, 11:09 PM
and go VOTE!!!

Well here you go, those of you who are glad the dems took control look what we got, third in line for president is now robert byrd, ex-klan kleagle or recruiter, once vowed never to serve with a negroe by his side, he'd rather have the flag trampled than to see country taken over by mongrels from the wild. way to go america.

toptimlrd
01-04-2007, 11:37 PM
Well here you go, those of you who are glad the dems took control look what we got, third in line for president is now robert byrd, ex-klan kleagle or recruiter, once vowed never to serve with a negroe by his side, he'd rather have the flag trampled than to see country taken over by mongrels from the wild. way to go america.


Regardless of political affiliations and I avoid such discussions in forums where politics need not be brought in, I haven't heard the entire list of positions but I am presuming you are saying the Byrd is now President pro tempre of the Senate. If that is correct, then the odds of him ever becoming president are very slim. About the only way for this to happen is for the President, Vice President, and the Speaker of the House all to become incapacitated in some way either simultaneously or so close together that they are unable to perform the duty of appointing the VP. here is the scenario:

Should something happen that incapcitates President Bush, Vice President Cheny would become President. In the event the position is permanent (the President passes away, is convicted in an impeachment, or resigns) the new President (and former VP) would appoint a new VP which would likely be someone from his or her own party and in this case it would be a Republican. Once that appointment is made, the apointment must be confirmed and if that apointee is deemed inappropriate for the position the new President would have to find another apointee. In the case that Speaker Pelosi becomes President because of the extremely unlikey possibility that both the President and Vice President become unable to execute their duties at the same time, her appointee would also have to go through the confirmation process. Senator Byrd would likely not be confirmed if not due to his past but due to his advanced age. With the congress and Senate so evenly split right now I do believe that any appointee is going to have to find favor with persons in the opposing party to ensure such confirmation.

If you recall the way Gerald Ford became President was not through succession via his position as Speaker of the House (although it did work out that way), he was appointed by President Nixon after Vice President Agnew resigned. When Nixon determined that an empeachement was immenent, he did what he thought was either best for the country, himself, or both by resigning (I really don't want to get into a discussion as to whether or not he would have been convicted as it is a moot point). Once he resigned, Vice President FOrd (who had been confirmed) became President and nominated Rockefeller as his Vice President.

I really don't think this is something worth starting what would become a vicious and partisan fight among friends here is it?

tompritchett
01-05-2007, 06:42 AM
Well here you go, those of you who are glad the dems took control look what we got, third in line for president is now robert byrd, ex-klan kleagle or recruiter, once vowed never to serve with a negroe by his side, he'd rather have the flag trampled than to see country taken over by mongrels from the wild. way to go america.

People do change over the decades (and Sen. Byrd has had many of those). Remember George Wallace in his early years as governor was openly in favor of segration and strongly fought every Civil Rights reform, having Asa Carter, a Klansman and longtime anti-Semite as one of his speach writers. But in the later days of his political career he openly recanted those stances and his last term as governor (1983–1987) saw a record number of black Alabamians appointed to government positions. I am not defending or praising Wallace's career but merely using it as an example of how men can change over the decades. And Sen. Byrd's political career in the Senate even pre-dates first rise to national prominence.

bob 125th nysvi
01-05-2007, 02:07 PM
Nancy Pelosi is second in line for the post so bobby bird would have to arrange for her being bumped off before he got his chance.

Line of seccession - VP, Speaker of the House, Leader of the Senate, Secretary of State - Provided of course that they are born an American citizen.

By the way has anybody seen Pelozi's birth certificate? She's got to be from some other planet. Oh that's right California IS another planet.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

Trooper Graham
01-05-2007, 02:30 PM
Oh that's right California IS another planet.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

We have sunk to another low...state bashing. I'll have you know the great state of California has provided this country with some of the best action heroes, mayors, action heroes, governors, action hero who became a president who's mind was Hollywood inactivated who thought he was still on the stage and silver screen.

tompritchett
01-05-2007, 04:18 PM
Oh that's right California IS another planet.

Oh, you mean the Socialists' Republic of California (versus the Peoples' Republic which is New Jersey).

Robert A Mosher
01-05-2007, 04:20 PM
We have sunk to another low...state bashing. I'll have you know the great state of California has provided this country with some of the best action heroes, mayors, action heroes, governors, action hero who became a president who's mind was Hollywood inactivated who thought he was still on the stage and silver screen.

Trooper-
Yeah, towards the end there whenever Reagen started reminiscing about his service in World War II it was great sport to guess which movie he was thinking about.

Still, right now I'd trade to get him back and even throw in a couple of draft choices!

Robert A. Mosher

bob 125th nysvi
01-05-2007, 04:23 PM
Oh, you mean the Socialists' Republic of California (versus the Peoples' Republic which is New Jersey).

Get it Right ....

That's the Crime Syndicate of New Jersey (born in Bloomfield, NJ) and the Soviet Socialist Republic of Massachusetts (no connection thank god).

and NY is just FN NY a subburb of Arkansas.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

Trooper Graham
01-05-2007, 04:24 PM
Trooper-
Yeah, towards the end there whenever Reagen started reminiscing about his service in World War II it was great sport to guess which movie he was thinking about.

Still, right now I'd trade to get him back and even throw in a couple of draft choices!

Robert A. Mosher

I still remember his "where do we get such great men" speech in Congress. i had just watched "The Bridges of Toko Ri" the night before.

I agree with your second quote. The best raise I ever recieved while in the service came from him. I think he was our last great republican president.

Trooper Graham
01-05-2007, 04:26 PM
Get it Right ....

That's the Crime Syndicate of New Jersey (born in Bloomfield, NJ) and the Soviet Socialist Republic of Massachusetts (no connection thank god).

and NY is just FN NY a subburb of Arkansas.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

I know all about Taxachusetts. My son reminds me every time we talk.

tompritchett
01-05-2007, 04:45 PM
Crime Syndicate of New Jersey

No, Rhode Island holds best claim for the Crime Syndicate label. New Jersey could also be called the Industrial Waste Dump of the U.S. given the number of abandoned hazardous waste site that have been found in its borders.

sbl
01-05-2007, 05:00 PM
I know all about Taxachusetts. My son reminds me every time we talk.

It takes a lot of money to the brains and conscience of the United States. Take my Mitt.... please. :twisted:

sbl
01-05-2007, 05:04 PM
[QUOTE=bob 125th nysvi]Get it Right ....

That's the Crime Syndicate of New Jersey (born in Bloomfield, NJ) and the Soviet Socialist Republic of Massachusetts (no connection thank god).

No...Mass and the Northeast is Gondor, the blue upper midwest is Rohan, the west coast is the Shire and rest is Mordor.

mike yeager
10-28-2007, 12:49 AM
I been workin to hard to long, whats the vote for,