[evilgenius]

Might I suggest to you that the Southern politicians of both parties voted against the civil rights act because voting for it in that year would end their political careers. The majority of voters in the south were white, still ticked off by the "War of Northern aggression" and wanted to keep Jim Crow segregation laws in place forever. Truth be told much of that sentiment still exists in the white population of the South even though expressing it has been harshly suppressed by political correctness.
If you had read a book or two you might know that.

I think the example of Lyndon Johnson agrees with you. He was a Southern Democrat who had wanted to do something about civil rights for some time. Because of what the people he represented were like, he had to wait until he came into a high enough office to get anything done. The Civil Rights Act was then possible. Even then, if Kennedy had not been assassinated it might not have passed. I think that, even though Johnson was responsible, you could find all sorts of gaffs on his part throughout his career which people today could use to preclude him - and call him a racist. I suppose he used the wrong language even after he introduced the legislation. Johnson was a man of his time. He was flawed, but probably no more than the average man is today, relative to his contemporaries, in relation to the truth we are trying to discover when we get into these arguments.

There isn't any forgiveness right now. We aren't empowering people to change. That's an aspect of repentance. What we are doing by not including forgiveness when we see repentance is to interpret people as coming from some basic seed that doesn't change, not as products of the decisions they make or their environment. Wisdom is a trial and error thing. We aren't born with it. If we had bad parents, and who didn't, then we were not likely to come along rightly, so that we might have the appearance of at least being able to judge others, even if we don't really have that standing. It's like we are saying that a person's character is entirely embedded within their DNA. That's not much different than judging someone for the color of their skin.

There may be certain crimes that a person could commit in their early years that we shouldn't forgive them for. I think concentration camp guard may be one of those. Why should wearing black face in a person's early twenties be the equivalent of that? It should, certainly, if they show that they never learned otherwise, but what about when it is obvious that they have? Has nobody else besides me ever done or said something that they took a look at and said to themselves that they never wanted to hurt another like that again? I can't change what I've done, but I can let that thorn in my side of regret guide me throughout my future.

[Newfie]

Evil,

You make excellent points.

But as you say there is no forgiveness right now. I would rather say there is a an excess of revenge. And that will eat us up.

Excess guilt is no good either. Nor is blame.

One of my ideas is that somewhere along the line you need to forgive your parents, then ask for forgiveness from your kids. But also remember that we all screw up, and forgive ourselves even if others don’t.

That doesn’t help much when you are the focal point of a mob. But it’s a start.

[Outcast_Searcher]

She might be capable of doing it, she’s wonky and smart enough.

Screeching loudly about far left political vote buying issues doesn't make one smart.

Falsely claiming minority genetic heritage for political points doesn't make one smart.

Playing "soak the rich" by trying to legalize directly confiscating the wealth of highly successful people, as though that will have no adverse economic consequences like capital flight, setting up trust structures in response, etc.) moves her in the direction of stupid.

Good at buying left wing votes, yes. Being smart re economic belief system, not so much.

[Cog]

The Virgina Democratic party executive branch is in meltdown:

Governor wants to kill kids after they are born. Wore blackface as medical student
Lieutenant Governor allegedly raped a woman in 2004 and said "**uck that *itch" in a private meeting just yesterday
State Attorney General came out today and said he wore blackface in college as well

What is it with Democrats wearing blackface and being accused of sexual assault?

[vtsnowedin]

She might be capable of doing it, she’s wonky and smart enough.

Screeching loudly about far left political vote buying issues doesn't make one smart.

Falsely claiming minority genetic heritage for political points doesn't make one smart.

Playing "soak the rich" by trying to legalize directly confiscating the wealth of highly successful people, as though that will have no adverse economic consequences like capital flight, setting up trust structures in response, etc.) moves her in the direction of stupid.

Good at buying left wing votes, yes. Being smart re economic belief system, not so much.

That is a Newfe quote not mine!!
I have nothing good to say about chief spreading bull.

[Newfie]

Yup, itnis my quote. We didn’t say she was politically smart. I do think she understands economics pretty well.

[KaiserJeep]

People have short memories. Before the Kennedy's and the so-called "Camelot Reforms" of the 1960's, the Democratic Party was the extreme Right Wing of American Politics. In fact, during the Civil Rights era, the Solid Democratic South was the haven for bigots and racists of every type. For example, they never found a Republican under the sheets of a KKK member.

The Kennedy/Shriver clan were atypical Democrats who were not racial bigots. But anybody who was a Democrat in the period before such bigotry became politically incorrect, probably displayed such behavior openly. Those of you not old enough to remember racial discrimination on the part of Democrats should at least understand that the legacy exists and was and is very real.

[Plantagenet]

The Virgina Democratic party executive branch is in meltdown:

What is it with Democrats wearing blackface and being accused of sexual assault?

It’s bad enough the Ds leaders in Virginia are two racists and an accused rapist,but what does this say about the rest of the D party? Why aren’t Nancy Pelosi and the Ds in Congress calling for the D leaders in Virginia to resign? Why aren’t Ds across the country demanding these racists resign? Why aren’t the D legislators in Virginia moving to impeach these racists?

This is ripping the scab off what seems to be pervasive racism in the D party.

Cheers

[vtsnowedin]

The Kennedy/Shriver clan were atypical Democrats who were not racial bigots. .

On what basis do you say that? Boston Irish of which the Kennedys were the leaders are just as racist as any other group. Sure they complain about how the Irish were treated in the famine days of "No Irish need apply" but then turn around and treat Italians blacks and Puerto Ricans as the scum of the earth.

[evilgenius]

People have short memories. Before the Kennedy's and the so-called "Camelot Reforms" of the 1960's, the Democratic Party was the extreme Right Wing of American Politics. In fact, during the Civil Rights era, the Solid Democratic South was the haven for bigots and racists of every type. For example, they never found a Republican under the sheets of a KKK member.

The Kennedy/Shriver clan were atypical Democrats who were not racial bigots. But anybody who was a Democrat in the period before such bigotry became politically incorrect, probably displayed such behavior openly. Those of you not old enough to remember racial discrimination on the part of Democrats should at least understand that the legacy exists and was and is very real.

Yeah, except for Roosevelt. FDR was nothing like that example either. He was the one who led the Democrats out of the wilderness, so to speak. The Kennedys did not originate it. I don't think civil rights would have gotten as far as it did if progress was not made before them. And not just civil rights in terms of minority rights. With Roosevelt there was an appeal to the common man, the working man. He came in a context that included a backlash against Hoover. The sort of conservatism that the Republicans are good at now was also in vogue with them back then. They used the Supreme Court to act against everything Roosevelt did. They wanted to raise rates when it was inappropriate out of an obligation to ideology, which hearkened to an idea that very much included a split of the proceeds that left the working man on the outside. They believed in a power structure that was actually slanted in their favor due to legislative action and interpretation, also very much like today. The Roaring Twenties had seen the average man so enticed by the structure of capitalism that he had bought into it. You know, "once I owned a railroad," became "brother can you spare a dime." That song wasn't entirely about the plight of the super rich. It was about how the capitalistic dream had failed those it needed to work for if it was going to be what its proponents said it was. What's really fantastic is that America did not go the route of Russia and adopt communism. What the fight for worker's right did instead was to bargain with management, not seek its overthrow. I'm certain that the conservatives of the time thought that was a danger. They might not have opposed Roosevelt to such a degree if they weren't so afraid of that, I suppose. But then again, they might have done it anyway, purely out of partisan politics.

[Outcast_Searcher]

She might be capable of doing it, she’s wonky and smart enough.

That is a Newfe quote not mine!!
I have nothing good to say about chief spreading bull.[/quote]
Absolutely right vts. MY BAD.

I was apparently irritated enough re the claim of her being so smart (vs. a crafty political actor) that I didn't recheck things carefully enough re the attribution when i posted. Absolutely NOT my intent to attribute that to the wrong person.

...

chief spreading bull. That's a good one I hadn't heard, btw. How appropriate!

[Outcast_Searcher]

People have short memories. Before the Kennedy's and the so-called "Camelot Reforms" of the 1960's, the Democratic Party was the extreme Right Wing of American Politics. In fact, during the Civil Rights era, the Solid Democratic South was the haven for bigots and racists of every type. For example, they never found a Republican under the sheets of a KKK member.

Yeah, except for Roosevelt. FDR was nothing like that example either. He was the one who led the Democrats out of the wilderness, so to speak. The Kennedys did not originate it. I don't think civil rights would have gotten as far as it did if progress was not made before them.

KJ, I don't think it's so much short memories as that the vast majority of people now didn't live through that. Except for history majors, how much detail do people remember from their history classes?

(I remember a LOT from my science and math classes. History, not so much re details.)

I think evil's FDR point is right on. That's the kind of example many / (most?) people think of re pre 1960 politics, for the democrats being like modern democrats in ideology. Hell, I'm pushing 60 and I have no memory and zero experience prior to the 60's.

Hell, I knew smart computer programmers with degrees that had no clue what DNA was. Didn't even know that it was only associated with the structure and reproduction of living things. Outside of their specialties, expecting the average person to know or remember historical details is largely impractical (sadly enough -- myself included, as my memory gets worse as I age).

[evilgenius]

I think it's debatable how much progress could be made on what we understand civil rights to be today before the progress made by the labor movement. There's a beginning to an understanding of equality that has to start somewhere. As post-slavery as America was, it wasn't yet at a place where equality under the law could just be cited. Today we have no problem referring to those who lack, or who represent an historical perspective of such a thing. Before the labor movement, though, that was everybody. Under those conditions it was very difficult to pull anyone out as representative. People like Mark Twain could do it. But even Twain couldn't go around saying he didn't believe in God. Which is to point out how our memories are highly influenced by the emotional construct they occur in. And that's both outside ourselves as well as within. People can be forced to choose between champions. It doesn't mean they necessarily hold one of them in disfavor. It only means the one they choose has a better chance of winning right now.

And that's not even bringing up what we mean when we talk about equality. I said equality under the law above, and what that means is probably up for debate within the highly emotionally charged environment we live in today. My personal opinion is that equality is about participation when it comes to right-of-way. That means that if we are all equal we still have to acknowledge that a person has right-of-way in whatever situation due to prior circumstances or some such thing. It's not a referral to race as having given them that any more than the rich guy in the Bentley has a right to cut me off if I am driving a Toyota. It means we have the right to make decisions for ourselves and carry them out, as long as they don't infringe upon what someone else was doing beforehand. There's even a limit to that. Since I started with a traffic metaphor I will continue, you can't just make a u-turn in front of me, no matter that you have some prior position. Some things we do that have entirely to do with our own opinions or positions aren't allowable solely considered outside the context of what everybody else is doing, or may be doing. Right-of-way demands that things keep moving, even on a theoretical basis, and, as such, too great a concession to individual or group demands violates it. Sometimes we have to accept the bad things that people do, in order to maintain an order in which the good is possible. When the structure we do our lives in has bottlenecks where right-of-way seems impossible, that's when we have to fix them. Not in a catering to some individual out of their special place among us, but because that person could be any one of us.

[Plantagenet]

A second woman just accused the Lt. Governor of Virginia of rape. And unlike the accusations against Kavanaugh, the accusations against Lt. Governor Fairfax are remembered and supported by other people who were told of the rapes when they happened.

However, for some strange reason the D presidential candidates and most other leading Ds remain strangely silent about the fact that the D Lt. Governor of Virginia has been credibly accused of two rapes. When one woman accused Fairfax of rape, it came down to he said vs she said. But now that two women have accused him of very similar sexual assaults, you'd think the Ds would be telling him to hit the road instead of stonewalling the issue.

Fairfax apparently called the first accuser a "f$#%ing B%$#ch. Wow...what sensitivity to the concerns of women.


He-said versus she-said-and-then-another-woman-accused-him-of-the-same-thing

[Plantagenet]

The D Governor of Virginia was nicknamed "Coonman" and selected a picture of himself in blackface/and or a KKK costume for his personal page in his medical school yearbook. He reportedly can do a mean moonwalk while in blackface and he almost demonstrated his moonwalk at a press conference held to defend himself over his racism, but lucky for him his wife stopped him.

All of those things suggest Gov. Northam isn't very smart.

Now, in an interview, he is referring to black slaves as "indentured servants."

virginia-governor-reeling-blackface-scandal-refers-slaves-indentured-servants

It appears that in addition to being a racist, the D governor Northam of Virginia is an uneducated idiot. He must be the only person in the whole United States who doesn't know that the slaves weren't identured servants. Apologists for the D governor point out he only went around in blackface back in the 90s, and hasn't done it recently. But his claim that black slaves in the US were indentured servants amounts to racist ignorance and it is on display right now. IMHO this very public display of Northam's current racism and ignorance disqualifies him to continue as governor of Virginia now.

IMHO Gov. Northam has just disgraced himself again. He should resign immediately and let his Lt. Governor, the accused rapist take over.

Cheers!

[vtsnowedin]

Well the lt. governor certainly knows if his accusers are telling the truth or not. If they are lying he should sit for a polygraph test and challenge them to do the same. If he can't do that and win he should pack his bags and go.

[Plantagenet]

Well the lt. governor certainly knows if his accusers are telling the truth or not. If they are lying he should sit for a polygraph test and challenge them to do the same. If he can't do that and win he should pack his bags and go.

Before there is any lie detector test the Lt. Governor should make a sworn deposition under oath.

His accusers have both sworn under oath that he raped them and have indicated they are willing to travel to Richmond and to testify under oath there that the Lt. Governor raped them.

In contrast, the Lt. governor has resorted to personal attacks on the women, calling one of them "a f#$%ing %itch."

I find it suspicious that the Lt. Governor is calling for an FBI investigation of the rape allegations. As a lawyer he knows very well that the FBI has no jurisdiction over what is essentially a local criminal matter. Based on the where the alleged rapes took place, it will be up to local police and prosecutors to do the investigation, assuming the rapes occurred recently enough to fall within the statute of limitations.

But even if the alleged rapes are too old to be prosecuted, the D party has sworn to always "believe the woman" and to take a "zero tolerance" towards any sexual impropriety against women. Based on the Ds own statements, they need to take steps to boot this guy out of office. Otherwise the Ds will be proven, once again, to be liars and hypocrites.

Cheers!

[vtsnowedin]

Otherwise the Ds will be proven, once again, to be liars and hypocrites.

Cheers!

That goes without saying.

[KaiserJeep]

There was once a time when FDR appointed a prominent Democrat and KKK member to the SCOTUS.

There was once a time when KKK membership was demanded of Democratic candidates, not condemned.

Senator Robert Byrd was in that murderous hate group for years, and achieved the rank of "Exalted Cyclops", which comes about when one has both instigated and participated in racial violence.

“Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again,” he wrote Senator Theodore Bilbo, another Democrat associated with the KKK, “than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

This scum was elected leader of the Senate during Bill Clinton's presidency, not so long ago.

Lest we forget: https://spectator.org/before-northam-democrats-didnt-just-dress-up-as-klansmen/

Democrats who deny the past transgressions, or refuse to acknowledge the legacy of Democratic racial hatred, are complicit in the shameful history that stains the party.

[Newfie]

Plant,

I know you are having fun rubbing noses and all that but I’d like a word or two of a contrarian view.

Much like President Trump Northam was elected by the people. Done deal. There are legal processes for him to be removed from office, and perhaps they should be exercised. That’s for the people of Virginia to decide.

I don’t abide by the common method of hounding the man out of office. It ursurps the rule of law, it takes the power from the electorate and puts it within some elite group of party politicians.

I cry no tears for Northam but lament the loss of process. Mob rules are a dangerous thing, kinda like lynchings.