With gay marriage decided, what will be the next big left-led social change?

[YankeeFan]

Seriously, YF, who gives a shirt?

Who gives a shirt?

You don't want to own your party's history, but you won't disown it either.

Bill Clinton forking eulogized Fulbright. Are you ok with that? The current party leaders are one or two degrees of separation from terrible racists.

When did all of this "switching" happen? How many of the Democrat politicians who signed the Southern Manifesto died as Democrats?

How did Al Gore Sr. vote on the Civil Rights Act? And, why is son a Democrat?

And, give me a break with the, "I wouldn't vote for Robert Byrd," bullshirt. Who would you vote for instead of him?

 

[doctorquant]

Ok, Baron, before this thing gets locked ... (and I am probably sooooo gonna regret this)

Your partisan blinders make you especially susceptible to the "tyranny of the seen."*

You asked earlier about when "the right" had ever done something that benefited "the vast majority of the population." Here's your direct quote:

When has the right ever led any social change that actually benefited the vast majority of the population?

Let's ignore the fact that NEITHER side likely has ever done ANYTHING to the benefit (other than morally) of "the vast majority of the population." Instead, let's consider your basic question and the logical flaw underpinning it.

You assume that only by one "side" or the other doing something can people benefit. Yet very often the people benefit by one side simply being stopped by doing something; in the vast majority of instances, people are better off when no one's forking around with them as they live their lives the way they want to live them.





*Note to Riptide: They probably won't cover this until you get out of junior high.

 

[Starman]

In the early 1970s, it was made clear to Dixiecrats such as Byrd and George Wallace that if they wanted to stay Democrats, they had to explicitly repudiate their past racism. Jimmy Carter had to go through a similar racial purging process in 1970-76 before he was deemed ready to put before the public.

The Dems decided they needed to undergo a power enema to blow the southern rednecks out of their ranks. They were not given the option of 'evolving' out of racism, they were told to get their minds right, or get out.

Most got out. The Republic party evolved into the bagger party and welcomed them in.

It was actually quite amazing to see and hear George Wallace, who had run as a third party candidate in 1968 as a no holds barred racist, trying to sing Kumbayah in the middle to later 1970s.

I don't think Wallace himself or too many others really bought it, but they understood it was a Kabuki role he had to play under the circumstances.

 

[Riptide]

*Note to Riptide: They probably won't cover this until you get out of junior high.

Ignotum per ignotius, Mr. Hand.

 

[BTExpress]

In the vast majority of instances, people are better off when no one's forking around with them as they live their lives the way they want to live them.

Which is what the rest of the world has been screaming to America for years.

 

[doctorquant]

Ignotum per ignotius, Mr. Hand.

Latin in summer school, huh? Maybe if you get a credit or two ahead you'll get to be in Pre-AP sophomore English with Suzy Summerfield!

 

[Riptide]

Latin in summer school, huh? Maybe if you get a credit or two ahead you'll get to be in Pre-AP sophomore English with Suzy Summerfield!

No, I saw it on that sign that someone taped to your back. You wear it well!

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Ok, Baron, before this thing gets locked ... (and I am probably sooooo gonna regret this)

Your partisan blinders make you especially susceptible to the "tyranny of the seen."*

You asked earlier about when "the right" had ever done something that benefited "the vast majority of the population." Here's your direct quote:



Let's ignore the fact that NEITHER side likely has ever done ANYTHING to the benefit (other than morally) of "the vast majority of the population." Instead, let's consider your basic question and the logical flaw underpinning it.

You assume that only by one "side" or the other doing something can people benefit. Yet very often the people benefit by one side simply being stopped by doing something; in the vast majority of instances, people are better off when no one's forking around with them as they live their lives the way they want to live them.





*Note to Riptide: They probably won't cover this until you get out of junior high.

"Neither side likely has ever done anything to the benefit of the vast majority of the population."

So the world was better off when there were slaves, when 5-year-olds worked in mines and women couldn't vote?

 

[doctorquant]

Were 5-year-olds "the vast majority" of the population?

 

[Stoney]

You don't want to own your party's history, but you won't disown it either.

If by "you", you are referencing me personally, then you are quite wrong. I'll own it. I'll disown it. I'll do whatever the fork you want with it, because that shirt doesn't affect my view of either party. Like I said, my current political loyalties don't have a damn thing to do with way back when, they have to do with today.

Unlike some here, I'm not a political party fanboy, I don't pledge undying loyalty to either, don't view either as inherently superior to the other. Right now I vote D because their positions and current worldview closer aligns with my own (especially since the Republican Party lost its mind and dumbed itself down in recent years), but can also acknowledge there have been other times and places in past history where I likely would've leaned toward the Rs.

As for the issue of racists, I'll readily admit that there was a time during the old dixiecrat days when a great many gravitated toward the Ds. I couldn't care less, because those are the same folks who jumped ship in later decades, and that's not the party that they prefer today.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Were 5-year-olds "the vast majority" of the population?

Doesn't the vast majority of the population benefit by not having child labor?

 

[doctorquant]

Doesn't the vast majority of the population benefit by not having child labor?

Define "benefit."