Howard Dean lays the smackdown on Bush, media

You are correct that the process began before the 1960's, but you're either naive or misinformed if you believe that the direct action campaigns of the 1960's had "absolutely nothing to do" with the progress that this country made in the area of civil rights. Brown vs. Board was one small part of a much larger picture.

What caused LBJ to bail out of politics was his escalation of the war in Vietnam, more than anything else. And if 1960's liberalism had anything to do with the election of Nixon, it was by creating a level of expectation among African-Americans and others that failed to be fully met, resulting in the racial riots and other civil strife that made people more amenable to Nixon's talk about law and order. The Democratic party divided against itself because Nixon and later Republicans pandered to the rabidly segregationist wing of the party; I guess you could blame that on 1960's liberalism, or you could be more precise and blame it on the craven political scheming of the right wing. Whatever floats your boat.

And thanks, by the way, for mentioning Simon and Garfunkle. Now I'm going to have "Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme" floating around in my head for the next 2-3 hours. Damn OCD...

I stand by my knowledge of the facts, and by my assertion that Tannhauser, who was blathering on about gay people and gay marriage in another thread, is a hypocrite for spending so much time at a web site that represents so much of what he apparently disagrees with. I don't consider it name-calling so much as a statement of the obvious.

Can i get an Amen?!

The direct action campaigns for racial equality were successful. When those tactics were used by other groups they were less than successful, they were miserble failures in comparison.

What caused LBJ to bail out of politics was a fractured Democratic party, war protesters, and wholesale defection of southern democrats. He knew he couldn't win, so he stepped out. He was right, the DNC in Chicago wasn't beng protested by Republicans.

Now, care to point out where Tannhauser said he was against same-sex mariages?

My whole pint of the Gay marriage thread was that the ballot intitiatives were intended to take the issue out of the hands of an activist judiciary. The matter is far from finished. Just because I haven't posted doesn't mean I've turned and ran away. I am opposed and will remain as such.

QUOTE]s5 said:
kerry made it clear that he personally believed that marriage is between a man and a woman, but that he wouldn't seek to codify his personal beliefs.



Go read his interview in either OUT or The Advocate. I forget which.

QUOTE]Attack_Macaque said:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a woman's right to choose, and your right to look at naked SGs while you simultaneously ridicule the lifestyle choices of those SGs who choose to have sex with other women rather than men.

I knew you were going to do the race issue and accused me favoring segretation in spite of all the prices I've paid to date outside my race. The lady I'm seeing now is black

Have a look

One more

Show me where I have said anyone should be prevented fooling around however they please



[Edited on Nov 15, 2004 by Tannhauser]

double post

[Edited on Nov 15, 2004 by Tannhauser]

i agree, and the shit they pulled on his wife was just unbelievable. because she has a real job and her own life and is --*gasp!*--a normal person who didn't want to be her husband's co-campaigner, the new york times had to "out" her, and she was subsequently stalked by idiotic shows like "20/20," where she had to sit on a couch with dean to validate herself. complete and utter bullshit.

the dnc had also been undermining him from the start.

however, remember that the screaming incident you refer to above occurred after dean had lost the iowa primary. whether the primary system is flawed is another question, but by winning that race, kerry (who had been declared dead by the pundits) clearly gained momentum, and he did go on to win the nomination by the numbers, not by some back-room decision.

(i also always found dean's "vanguard of the left" stance to be a bit bizarre, since he was nothing of the kind when he was governor of VT.)



[Edited on Nov 15, 2004 by in_a_blue_state]

[Edited on Nov 15, 2004 by in_a_blue_state]

deleted

[Edited on Nov 15, 2004 by Tannhauser]

you're presuming that bill frist won't work to get rid of the 60-vote rule during the next four years, which is a distinct possibility.

it used to be a given that majority leaders would protect the autonomy of the senate, but a guy like frist may be perfectly happy to continue the advance of power of the executive branch.

Only on judicial nominees

Howard Dean is da bombshit, yo

speaking of the advance of power of the executive branch . . .

More like reasserting the authority of the legislative branch

You'll have to tell me which other groups you have in mind, because from where I'm sitting, the words "miserable failure" are hardly applicable. Keep in mind that the activism of the 1960's also produced legislation prohibiting employment discrimination against women and the formation of the EEOC. The anti-war protestors, while they didn't succeed in getting our troops out of Vietnam during LBJ's term of office, did ultimately create the political pressure that forced the US into peace talks with North Vietnam. Anti-war activism also led to the end of the draft and the constitutional amendment that lowered the voting age to 18. This period also gave birth to the environmental movement, which brought about the formation of the EPA, among other things. And this doesn't even take into consideration the profound cultural changes that were touched off in the 1960's, which were to no small degree influenced by the awareness generated by liberal activism.

All this is true, but as I stated before the quagmire in Vietnam was the biggest factor in his downfall. The party was already fractured by the issue of civil rights, but disagreement over the war caused it to break down even further, and was the chief instigating factor in the disruptions at the 1968 DNC that played such a significant role in Hubert Humphrey's loss later that year.

See above.

If you'll go back and look again, you might notice that nowhere did I accuse you of being a a racist or favoring segregation. What I was accusing you of was being oblivious to all of the good things that were produced by 1960's liberalism. As someone who is apparently dating an African-American, you of all people should be grateful for the sacrifices made by people like Fannie Lou Hamer, Medger Evers, and James Meredith, in order to create the political and social climate that enables you to date your girlfriend without one or both of you ending up at the end of a rope. People were taunted, arrested, beaten, tortured, and even murdered in order to win recognition of the rights that you apparently think just materialized one day from out of nowhere. And as someone who I'm sure still deals with the social stigma that still exists even to this day regarding interracial relationships, you of all people should understand to at least a certain extent what gays and lesbians who have their loving relationships constantly demeaned by homophobes are going through.

I would have to look closer at the thread in question to see if you specifically stated that gays and lesbians should be prevented from "fooling around however they please," but I should think your opposition to gay marriage rights demonstrates the low regard in which you hold gays and lesbians. Otherwise, why would you even care?

And that makes it more acceptable how, exactly?

No, more like doing away with a long-standing custom that has historically resulted in the Senate being a more deliberative and judicious body than the House, not to mention more civil. Apparently all those things are secondary to stacking the court with anti-choice homophobes, thus preventing the appointment of "activist" judges who might protect a woman's right to choose and the rights of gays and lesbians in much the same way that past "activist" judges ruled in favor of equal rights for minorities.

That went out when they started using the filibuster on nominees

That went out when they started using the filibuster on nominees

It's not a recent development

That went out when they started using the filibuster on nominees

the fillibuster has been a political tactic since the inception of the constitution.

That went out when they started using the filibuster on nominees

They? Oh, you mean the Republicans:

(from the Senate Democrats web site)

amen! brotha