The irony of being Dick Cheney
- Thread starter John Reynolds
- Start date
Not always, but in many cases certainly. Some people don't like to look at themselves as bigots when it's painfully obvious they are. You know, the old "Well I don't hate gay people, I just don't want them having the same rights as me." That sounds eerily similar to "Well I don't hate black people. I just don't want them living near me," or something to that effect, wouldn't you say?
Your opinion on gay marriage is one shared actually by a few of my friends who happen to be gay, and do not want to deal with gay marriage in any way shape or form because they feel that marriage in and of itself is an antiquated system which really should be done away with.
My response to them, and you, is the same. Whatever you feel is good or bad about marriage is one thing, but for now, there are certain rights, status, and privileges accorded marriage that creates a new class of citizenry that homosexuals are excluded from, for no legal purpose. Whether you feel marriage is "good" or marriage is "bad" in and of itself, it's still creates a class of rights in our country that homosexuals are excluded from. We should, as you say, have the option of entering into it, succeeded or failing at it, if we want to or not.
What denigrates marriage more. Britney Spears getting married as a publicity stunt? Liz Taylor getting married 50,000 times? Bennifer?
Or two men or two women who want a life committment to one another, and want to legalize it? That's what I say.
Your opinion on gay marriage is one shared actually by a few of my friends who happen to be gay, and do not want to deal with gay marriage in any way shape or form because they feel that marriage in and of itself is an antiquated system which really should be done away with.
My response to them, and you, is the same. Whatever you feel is good or bad about marriage is one thing, but for now, there are certain rights, status, and privileges accorded marriage that creates a new class of citizenry that homosexuals are excluded from, for no legal purpose. Whether you feel marriage is "good" or marriage is "bad" in and of itself, it's still creates a class of rights in our country that homosexuals are excluded from. We should, as you say, have the option of entering into it, succeeded or failing at it, if we want to or not.
What denigrates marriage more. Britney Spears getting married as a publicity stunt? Liz Taylor getting married 50,000 times? Bennifer?
Or two men or two women who want a life committment to one another, and want to legalize it? That's what I say.
Natoma said:akira888 said:
Oh that's easy enough. To destroy all of western civilization and throw us back into the stone age. Or maybe just the bronze age. Don't want to set us back too far.
Yay another thread on Gay Marriage/Unions....
are you planning on using all your weird emoticons today???london-boy said:
Yay another thread on Gay Marriage/Unions....
later,
epic
epicstruggle said:are you planning on using all your weird emoticons today???london-boy said:
Yay another thread on Gay Marriage/Unions....
later,
epic
yeah it's so much fun not having to do anything at work...
My apologies in advance for the nature of my first post, but there seems to be a serious lack of understanding of local Southern politics here.
It's hard to understand unless you've grown up in the rural South or have friends and relatives there, but the "worst" of the WASP South is still at heart Democratic Party and will stay that way until the day they die.
Republicans and Democrats? Jim Crow and the supression of blacks were Democratic Party institutions in the South right up until the Democratic national convention of 1964. Even after 1964, the Republicans weren't the ones enforcing segregation in the South, it was Democrats all the way. The national Democratic party was doing some soul searching, but the local southern Democratic party hadn't changed a bit.Natoma said:
That stuggle was within the Democratic Party itself. Republicans had little to do with it. Even 20 years ago, you'd be hard pressed to find a registered Republican in the rural South much less elect one. You can argue that the Republican "Southern Strategy" was aimed at picking up those angry WASP Democrats, but it wasn't effective at anything but the Presidential level. Local and state politics were and still mostly are solid Democratic party.Natoma said:
You make it sound like Wallace crafted the "Southern Strategy" himself. Wallace was born and died a Democrat. He went independent for a few years, but came back to his segregationist Southern Democratic roots. Republicans picked up some of the points in his platform, but Wallace had nothing to do with the Republicans.Natoma said:
This is somewhat true In national elections. In local and state politics, however, the Democrats have been firmly entrenched until very recently. Georgia went through the entire 20th century without a Republican governor. Most of those old Democrats from the generation that lynched blacks and bombed their churches are still registered Democrats and still vote Democrat in everything but presidential elections.Natoma said:
It's hard to understand unless you've grown up in the rural South or have friends and relatives there, but the "worst" of the WASP South is still at heart Democratic Party and will stay that way until the day they die.
Perhaps you should bone up on the history of the party you support, as well? The Democratic party in the North is one thing, the Democratic party in the South is another.Natoma said:
Well first off, welcome. Always good to have yet another intelligent voice on the forums.
Yes, Republicans and Democrats. One prominent Republican, for instance, who supported Jim Crow and the institutions built up to continue this line of legal segregation was President Rutherford B. Hayes, in the late 1870s. For 100 years, segregation was codified and enforced at the local, state, and national level. It took an entire society to continue it, and there are clear instances that while the Democrats were the primary architects, Republicans helped keep it afloat.
Both parties are to blame.
Where do you think the Neo-Con Republican Movement as well as the Southern Strategy came from? Disenfranchised 60s Democrats who left the party and filled the Republican leadership, and took much of the "angry white male vote" with them. Many of the republican think tanks today are run by former Democrats.
Wallace didn't craft it by himself, but he was the primary mover and shaker of the movement. Much in the same way that Barry Goldwater is credited as being the father, the change agent, of Conservative Republicanism, but did not do it by himself.
Wallace may not have participated in the "Southern Strategy" movement, but he certainly gave birth to it, which is all I was saying.
Presidential elections is what most political pundits, commentators, and activists are referring to when they discuss the "Southern Strategy". I don't know enough about local elections and politics to comment on that. Sorry for the confusion.
Btw, I did grow up in the south. I spent about 5 years of my childhood/early teens in West Virginia (mayberry to be exact), where the bulk of my family lives. Half of my family are rednecks too. They live on the other side of town there.
As I said earlier, much of the democrats who became disenfranchised with the more "liberal" democratic movement toward civil rights in the 60s went on to found Conservative Republicanism in some way shape or form (either through direct engagement by switching to republicanism - the neo-cons for instance, or the ideas themselves - George Wallace and Barry Goldwater, though Goldwater was Republican anyway).
VtC said:My apologies in advance for the nature of my first post, but there seems to be a serious lack of understanding of local Southern politics here.
Natoma said:
Republicans and Democrats? Jim Crow and the supression of blacks were Democratic Party institutions in the South right up until the Democratic national convention of 1964. Even after 1964, the Republicans weren't the ones enforcing segregation in the South, it was Democrats all the way. The national Democratic party was doing some soul searching, but the local southern Democratic party hadn't changed a bit.
Yes, Republicans and Democrats. One prominent Republican, for instance, who supported Jim Crow and the institutions built up to continue this line of legal segregation was President Rutherford B. Hayes, in the late 1870s. For 100 years, segregation was codified and enforced at the local, state, and national level. It took an entire society to continue it, and there are clear instances that while the Democrats were the primary architects, Republicans helped keep it afloat.
Both parties are to blame.
VtC said:
Where do you think the Neo-Con Republican Movement as well as the Southern Strategy came from? Disenfranchised 60s Democrats who left the party and filled the Republican leadership, and took much of the "angry white male vote" with them. Many of the republican think tanks today are run by former Democrats.
VtC said:
Wallace didn't craft it by himself, but he was the primary mover and shaker of the movement. Much in the same way that Barry Goldwater is credited as being the father, the change agent, of Conservative Republicanism, but did not do it by himself.
Wallace may not have participated in the "Southern Strategy" movement, but he certainly gave birth to it, which is all I was saying.
VtC said:
Presidential elections is what most political pundits, commentators, and activists are referring to when they discuss the "Southern Strategy". I don't know enough about local elections and politics to comment on that. Sorry for the confusion.
Btw, I did grow up in the south. I spent about 5 years of my childhood/early teens in West Virginia (mayberry to be exact), where the bulk of my family lives. Half of my family are rednecks too. They live on the other side of town there.
VtC said:
As I said earlier, much of the democrats who became disenfranchised with the more "liberal" democratic movement toward civil rights in the 60s went on to found Conservative Republicanism in some way shape or form (either through direct engagement by switching to republicanism - the neo-cons for instance, or the ideas themselves - George Wallace and Barry Goldwater, though Goldwater was Republican anyway).
I promised I wouldn't engage you in political discussion, but for the sake of others in this thread, "neo-cons" weren't bigoted democrats who decided they were republicans afterall. They were socially liberal free thinkers who decided, after watching the democratic party turn against Vietnam, that 'the sword' is an acceptably good way to spread socially liberal free thinking.
It is true that there was flip flopping on the democratic ticket (to the republican one) whenever JFK decided that he would run on civil rights, and that there was a southern strategy and folks like Strom Thurmond were instrumental to it, but those that flip flopped were not "neo-cons".
Of course, neocon is the new left wing slander term (like liberal is, to the right wing), so what it was and what it means doesn't seem to matter much.
Anyways, I'll try to rationalize this with myself that I'm not actually discussing anything with you, just preventing the spread of misunderstanding.
It is true that there was flip flopping on the democratic ticket (to the republican one) whenever JFK decided that he would run on civil rights, and that there was a southern strategy and folks like Strom Thurmond were instrumental to it, but those that flip flopped were not "neo-cons".
Of course, neocon is the new left wing slander term (like liberal is, to the right wing), so what it was and what it means doesn't seem to matter much.
Anyways, I'll try to rationalize this with myself that I'm not actually discussing anything with you, just preventing the spread of misunderstanding.
I never saw the terms neo con and liberal as slander terms only as ways of identifying ones main political viewpoints. Tho up here neo con is mostly associated with right wing fiscal issues that have ramifications in the social arena and taxation it seems in the US its mostly about moral issues (to us up here those with conservative moral viewpoints are simply fundamentalists). And while Liberal to me means laissez faire capitalism, free trade and less government, it became a connotation for social democrat or socialist in the US.
Most confusing...
Most confusing...
RussSchultz said:
I wasn't trying to make the connection that Neocons are formerly bigoted democrats. I brought up the Neocons to stress the point that the Neocon republican movement today as well as the Southern Strategy comes from disenfranchised democrats who switched parties.
Reading my post again I should have made that distinction clearer, though I thought I did with the "as well as" part to distinguish the Neocon movement from the "Southern Strategy" policy. C'est la vie I suppose.
So anyway, to sum it up:
Today's Neocon movement was started by disenfranchised democrats who left the party in the 60s and lead many of today's Republican think tanks, as well as dominate policy in the current administration.
Today's Southern Strategy Policy (and other large chunks of Modern Republican Conservatism) was started by bigoted disenfranchised democrats (some of which left the party, others who merely germinated the seeds in Republicans who took the mantle and ran with it, such as Goldwater's successors).
Sorry for any confusion if anyone got the impression that I was trying to say neocons are bigots by their very structure.
Anyway, don't feel so bad Russ. At least this time you didn't call anyone names and realize afterward you had no justification to do so.
Similar threads
