Ha ha ha LMFAO

[Michael Tee]

Huh?  Light in the loafers = gay???  Where the fuck did THAT come from?  Well, thanks for the heads-up.  Never heard that one before in my life.


<<And pretty much everyone in the south knew about Strom's love child.>>

BEFORE Strom died? 

BT at least provided a source for the close friends and staff being in the know, what's your source for the "pretty much everyone in the south" knowing about this?

[Amianthus]

Huh?  Light in the loafers = gay???  Where the fuck did THAT come from?  Well, thanks for the heads-up.  Never heard that one before in my life.

"light in the loafers - or light on one's feet - (of men) effeminate or homosexual. 1967 DAS (Dictionary of American Speech)(Supp.) Lightfooted.Homosexual. Fairly common since c1955."
"From "Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, Volume 2, H-O, by J.E. Lighter, Random House, New York, 1997."
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/22/messages/379.html

BEFORE Strom died? 

BT at least provided a source for the close friends and staff being in the know, what's your source for the "pretty much everyone in the south" knowing about this?

It was widely discussed on the computer bulletin boards in the Carolinas in the late 80s. Also, there was a book published in 1993 that brought up the allegations and discussed them as if it were common knowledge (Strom Thurmond and the politics of southern change By Nadine Cohodas, Simon & Schuster 1993).

[Plane]

<<Do you really think that there was a prevailing wind contrary to racism , or do you think there was none?>>

I think Thurmond realized his pursuit of racist ideological goals was a dead end and he needed to present himself as a more tolerant man or face political oblivion.

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
<<Did Racism provide an advantage to a politician or a disadvantage?>>

Advantage in the South, disadvantage nationally. 

<<I can see how it might be one or the other , but I don't see anyone experienceing both at once.>>

It gets them local votes but their influence on the national party is diminished.  They can win their position but once they're in it, the influence they used to enjoy has lessened.  Another KIND of racist, with a more subtle appeal, gets an even bigger advantage locally and does not have the national handicap that Strom, as an old-line racist would have had.

<<So did a politician need to be a racist to get southern votes in 1870?>>  Yes.
<<"             "        "       "         "         "         "              "    in 1970?>>    Yes.
<<"             "        "       "         "         "         "              "    in 2008?>>   Yes.

<<I am aware of real changes that you may have missed over that span of time.>>

Sure, racism became "the hate that dared not speak its name."

<<Are you aware that England converted from a slave tradeing compeditor to the cheif force for Abolition during the political career of William Wilberforce?>>

No, I don't know much about Wilberforce and I don't know how long England was for slavery before she turned against it.  But I know Strom Thurmond and I know his early career.  He was  dyed-in-the-wool South Carolina racist.  Simpler than that it don't get.  End of story.

<<How can it be that you do not beleive in change so rapid as a century and a half?>>

Ol' Strom only lived for a century, not a century and a half.  He was old, but not  THAT old.

A mind can change in about the time that it takes to blink.
Even if so profoundly that it takes years to evaluate .

Changeing a national legacy may take a generation or seven , but it depends on what is going on.

You can beleive that England can make this change , Canada can make this change , the northern US can make this change , each in a space lessor than fifty years.

But contrary to every evidence, you cannot beleive that 150 years is enough time for Southern US citizens to make any change at all?

Ok we are special , but not quite that special.

[Plane]

<<So did a politician need to be a racist to get southern votes in 1870?>>  Yes.
<<"             "        "       "         "         "         "              "    in 1970?>>    Yes.
<<"             "        "       "         "         "         "              "    in 2008?>>   Yes.

<<So did a politician need to be a racist to get southern votes in 1870?>>  Yes.  Check
<<"             "        "       "         "         "         "              "    in 1970?>>    Yes. Marginal
<<"             "        "       "         "         "         "              "    in 2008?>>   Yes. False


I feel generous to give you a 66% on this exam , the way the second question is worded should have lead to a NO.