Universal Pictures
"He had this crazy idea about breeding pine trees."
Tracking how Ron Paul has explained away his racist newsletters requires its own timeline. He's been doing this for a while now, since around the time "Back to the Future" was released. Now that he's doing it again, and two days prior to the Iowa caucus, it seems like a curious time to dis the 1964 Civil Rights Act (again).
About four minutes into his interview yesterday with CNN, Congressman Paul reiterated that he's all for the Jim Crow-killing aspects of the Civil Rights Act. But nearly fifty years later, he is still unhappy with how we got rid of it:
What you don't want to do is undermine the concept of liberty in that process. And what they did in that bill was they destroyed the principle of private property and private choices.
So if you do this, all civil liberties are protected by property rights, where it's your TV stations -- that's a piece of property -- or whether it's the newspaper, whether it's the church building, or whether it's the bedroom. This is something that people don't quite understand, that civil liberties aren't divorced from property.
So if you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms. And that's exactly what has happened.
Paul's criticism may be libertarian in its basis, but it fits right in with how the other Republican presidential candidates sold themselves in the takeover election of 2010, and now again in 2012. They wouldn't do it if the message didn't have appeal. Republican politicians hearken back to before that meddling Obama got involved, back to the good ol' Reagan years. Ron Paul is lamenting how things changed back in the '60s. The overall message to voters is that America was better back then. Hop into their political DeLorean, and they'll take you back there.
But as you'll recall from "Back to the Future," things back in the day were better for some people. As a kid, you know what I remembered most? Mayor Goldie Wilson was "colored" and sweeping a soda jerk's floor in 1955. Just saying.
On Friday's show, TRMS guest host Melissa Harris-Perry excoriated this brand of nostalgic campaigning by Republicans, and made an important distinction:
History and nostalgia are not the same thing. In fact, respecting history actually means being willing to do away with nostalgia...only nostalgia makes you believe that we're worse off now than a century ago. This I know. Despite the continuing inequalities in our country, there was no moment in the American story when it would have been better to be a Black woman than it is right now. The march is unsteady, but the progress is real.
The full segment is after the jump.
Melissa Harris-Perry responds to calls to "take America back" to "the good old days" with a reminder of some of the harsh realities and painful history America has progressed beyond.
Leave a Comment:
If go back and listen to Reagan's speeches when he was a candidate and president, he would use nostalgia to appeal to voters. It was snake oil for conservative older people who did not like change and would like to take the country back to the 1950's. Reagan was good at selling that idea to conservatives and the Christian right because he represented a link back to an earlier era. The worst part of it is that he was successful in selling that trip down memory lane to the voters. This was an intentional campaign tactic. I saw watched that hooey for what it was and voted Dem.
Forget the past. We can't go back. Talking Reagan, FDR, Clinton, etc is unproductive. We are now in 2012. The question is whether Pres Obama can lead us forward. There seems to be the opinion that all his ideas are correct, and any dissent is obstructive. Maybe he doesn't have the right ideas. Maybe he is just thinking short term to get re-elected.
I don't support all Republican ideas and positions, but do support cutting the deficit and debt. We need to focus on the long term and come to the realization we no longer live in the 60's. We are in a global economy, and unions don't have the same power they had. Europe is on the brink of collaspe and we can't ignore it nor disregard why it got there. Bemoan all you want, but capital and labor is mobile. They will go to the most productive areas.
You have to know where you have been in order to figure how to get where you want to go. We got here by deregulation and cutting taxes along with unnecessary wars and military spending. So in order to get where we need to be, we have to increase taxes, cut the budget and move monies to infrastructure. Europe is on the brink because of austerity measures which is exactly what you are advocating which is creating a second recession.
I know where I am. I agree we should let all the Bush tax cuts expire. The war execution, in hind sight, was a mistake. I won't go into Afghanistan and Obama's surge. Europe got into it's current state because of spending. Austerity only highlighted the extent to which over spending on social entitlements brings deficits
You can't cut spending into a growth economy. We tried tax cuts that were supposed to spur the economy. It did not. The tax cuts, wars and cutting spending has been brought to you by Republcian trickle down economics. It has not worked.
The social entitlements and our economy was under control and in fact had a surplus in 2000. Those surpluses were projected into the decade. What happened was a Republican president and Congress. The Republicans are advocating return to the pre-Obama policies just as the economy is starting to recover. It took 3 decades to get into the mess. We have tried doing things the way Republicans wanted so it is time to let the Dems run the country long enough to get us out of the mess.
Finally, don't blame deficit spending for the economic mess. This was created by the banks. We should reinstate Glass-Stegall and stop Wall Street gambling with other people's money.
I don't advocate doing either what Republicans or Democrats propose. Increased spending and lower tax rates will only add to the deficit. The only way to grow the economy is by growing production. That will only happen when companies perceive an opportunity to generate profits in the US. And, for that to happen, costs must adjust to a global economic reality. Increasing consumption without domestic production will only add to the profits of China and Walmart.
The Dems led the country, starting with Clinton, followed by Bush, encouraged by Frank, Dodd. Own a home and all will be well. Banks, don't stand in the way. Banks responded by coming up with ways to meet political pressure to lend, and concoct ways to minimise loss. It all blew up because people were lured, or were too stupid, to buy into this home ownership myth.
Voting for Dems is not a panacea. Vote only to control spending. Entitlements are at risk. It;s irrelevent who got us here. We are here and must move on to correct.
The problem with US production is that we allow other countries to ship here with little or no tariffs while they impose high tariffs on our goods. China demand the turnover of tech and the manufacture of goods in their country to sell in China. Not so in the US. We need reciprocal tariffs and restrictions which means whatever tariffs and restrictions China impose on American goods will be the same tariffs and restrictions imposed on Chinese goods coming into the US. Our trade policies are load dice against American workers.
The economic crisis was not created by people who bought too much home. It is the sale of subprime mortgages that were bundled by Wall Street and the banks and sold as good investments. When the economy crashed people could no longer pay their mortgage and others walked away because home values crashed. If the subprime mortgages had been properly rated, they would have never been sold. But the overrating is because of the ratings agencies relationships to the banks and Wall Street.
I do agree that trade policies need to change, but the fact is we would still be uncompetitive with low cost producers. I don't find any comfort in the US decline in employment, but look at the history. Japan initially exported garbage cars. Then, they awoke and made excellent ones. Our union reaction - continue to demand higher wages, raising prices. Our corporate response - reduce quality and, eventually, seek a govt bail out. Textiles? Relocate from the North to the South to seek lower wages. Then, go overseas. Technology? Create the ipod here with our brains, but produce overseas to make affordable.The list goes on. Americans want everything - low cost goods and high wages. They are mutually exclusive. Adapt to reality.
What is sub-prime? A buyer who cannot afford a house. Both are at fault. Lenders for giving money, buyers thinking they could afford, not understanding or caring the rate would rise. Stop feeling sorry for people's stupidity. The govt said they would back the mortgages, so they were rated AAA. The agencies should have said sonething, but, hey, the govt said they were good. Barnie said Freddy and Fannie were solid.
Japan like a lot of other countries subsize the production of cars, electronics and steel destined for the US. It is called dumping under international law. That is considered an unfair trade practice. Dumping is what collapsed our steel industry, not workers wages and benefits. We filed trade complaints and Japan was found guilty of dumping and paid billions of dollars in reparations and fines.
I just don't know what was so good about Reagan. He got us into the most ridiculous arms race which we forgot to stop. And he introduced us to the mysterious concept of trickle-down economics. Reagan, in retrospective, he was the worst President in my lifetime.
The comedian Louis CK did an awesome bit on this - how time machines are strictly a "white privlege". "A black person can't mess with time machines. 'Anything before 1980... <bleep> it, I don't wanna go'". Awesome bit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY
I'm very curious how you can be against the Jim Crow laws, yet also be against the Civil Rights Act. How in the world do these people think the Jim Crow laws were going to be repealed? Lawsuits to the Supreme Court? Appealing to the better angels of our nature? It's idiotic.
"I'm very curious about how you can be against the Jim Crow laws yet also be against the Civil Rights Act."
That's the whole problem with libertarianism. They say they're against things like Jim Crow laws, at least in principle (How very enlightened of them), but they also say they want to tear the government down almost to its foundation, to the point where it can't do much more than pay judges and support a tiny little military. A government that is so small that it can do next to nothing can't very well enforce things like the Voting Rights Act, now can it?
I don't know... maybe that's the idea.
And of course they would also block access to the courts to remedy those situations. I believe that Ron Paul is sponsoring a bill right now that would bar the federal courts, at least, from addressing a lot of these issues.
WOW how come the republicans never want to go back to the tax rates of the 1950's when we were so great!!!??
Ron Paul and the Republicans have certainly learned how to play the nostalgia card, no doubt about that. It's one of the tricks they use to get people to vote against themselves. They also never play the history card and refer to the good old days when there was no Social Security and no Medicare, but lots of Jim Crow.
I wondered what the Tea Party meant when they said they wanted their country back. Back from what? Now I understand it is segregation they want back! As a white mal I still hear racist remarks on an almost daily basis. When I can stand up for my own beliefs that what they are saying is wrong and racist - I do. but whne I am at work - I have been instructed not to say anything that might upset a customer. it is aggravating that just because I am white - that these bigots think I share their perverse jokes and hatred for blacks/gay/latino etc. You name it - if it ain't white - these bigots hate it.
I have said the kkk has turned their hoods and sheets in for tea bags. They are made up of religious extremists who hate everything that is not in line with their christian beliefs.
I would never had believed that if I had not moved to the west side of Michigan. It is truley filled with bigots and creatures of less then stellar believes. Women, Balcks, Latino's, all are subject to the rath of the conservtive. I would like the conservatives to quit blaming everyone else, the three mentioned above, for the economy and start looking in the mirror. They all want a piece of the pie and none want to give anything back or even take a cut. They are the problem
Melissa Harris-Perry IS A BEAST !
L. Ron Paul is scary, but not nearly as scary as his followers.
AMEN BROTHER! There is no talking to them in the same way you can't get a Fox News watcher to accept any real information with true historical content......it's frustrating and irritating as all get out to be assaulted with the propogandist point of view spewed from the Fox world to the very small perspectives of these zealots.
Amen
As one of many wheelchair users who went to jail with other ADAPT disability rights activists to win the civil right to use public transit, I was thrilled to see Melissa Harris-Perry include the days when bus access was denied as a time to which we should not return. This is the first time I've seen MSNBC mention this as a civil rights issue. In 2010, the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, there was not a word. Kudos to Ms. Harris-Perry for acknowledging us now.
Goldie Wilson had a job & could afford nightschool. Plus he had a belief that he might better himself. Can everyone in the USA today say the same?
Ron Paul looks like the only candidate who would end the war on drugs & keep poor people in the US from subsidising rich European countries defense budgets. He looks like a man who might value any one of the 50 US states over the State of Israel. Ron Paul looks like the only man who might bring the troops home. Dr Paul looks like he cares about the civil liberties in the constitution.
Sure it would be better if there was a candidate who would do the above without Paul's downside but I don't see one who has any kind of following now. If Paul ended the War on Drugs in his first year in office he could spend the next three years cracking jokes about fried chicken & he would still have done more for black America than Obama has.
The president can't do it all by him or herself (someday a 'her'). Yet every election cycle the people running for president pass themselves off as a supreme leader that can have things his way without a problem. Well, Obama's presidency should have proven to everyone that that isn't the case. He's been thwarted at almost every turn by the Republicans. Once again - blame the REPUBLICANS for the problems we're having now. Yes, it was Bush and his crazies, but it's been extended by the bunch of radical/weak/insane Republicans in office right now. If by some chance a Republican is elected president, that chump will be nothing more than a cheerleader. Others will be calling the shots, just like with Bush. And Paul is the most delusional of any of them. Remember - Paul has introduced close to 400 pieces of legislation since he's been in office. How many did he get passed? One. Just one. Do people really think he's going to be able to affect any change whatsoever?
We got in trouble with Bush and the Republican majorities as well as the spineless, scared Democrats. Yes, it started with Reagan and all his lies, but it's been continually maintained by a far-right status quo who could care less about minorities.
GOP: "WE WANT TAX CUTS!"
Dems: "OK, here's the payroll tax, we'll cut this one."
GOP: "NO!"
Seems perfectly rational to me! xD
As commander-in-chief Dr Paul could get troops out of foreign countries. He could speak about all the corporatist subsidies & military keynesianism that goes on. He could direct troops not to enforce the War on Drugs in Latin America. He could demonstrate to the average Joe that what the Republicans call a free market isn't any such thing. He could stamp down on corporate bailouts & any War on Iran. Don't think only Republicans buy into that stuff by the way. Only the like of Kucinich & Nader speak out about corporate welfare. I doubt they'll be in the running for the Republican ticket this year.
Watching Obama have to justify the US empire, the way the USA's boyfriend Israel behaves at US expense, & the War on Drugs, in a debate with Dr. Paul would be a good thing.
I don't disagree w/ 100% of Ron Paul's positions, but I would like to point out that I am not sure that I'd state he's as anti-corporatist as he claims to be. For instance his opposition to the Civil Rights Act does not protect liberty (as he is claiming). His opposition actually puts power in the hands of those who already have power and would have power in a libertarian society. So he is advocating for the infringement of liberty on the individual in order to expand liberty to the business. The irony, of course, is that the very same philosophers Ron Paul openly admits to following claimed that money and property are the key to all liberty (which is why he talks openly about those two aspects). This, of course, contradicts w/ the removal of the Civil Rights Act because the CRA actually increases (by that logic) the liberty of a business that would otherwise deny services (therefore income) to certain groups. It becomes rather twisted the more you try to unravel it and it's a contradiction that I personally have never been able to resolve.
What is more Ron Paul is backed by a plethora of PACs and he doesn't seem to have a problem (given his voting record) of voting in favor of corporate involvement in the government or unfair governmental influence given to corporations. Remember when his son, Rand Paul, came out talking about the government putting it's "boot heel" on BP regarding the oil spill? Rand Paul was arguing in favor of corporatism in this instance. He was not arguing against it. Ron Paul repeatedly came out defending his sons position- and not on the basis of the libertarian belief in free speech, but on the basis that he agreed. What this tells me is that Ron Paul does not inherently have a problem w/ the government supporting businesses, meshing w/ businesses, or otherwise ensuring a monopoly on the system. He also doesn't have a problem w/ money in politics. His problem, more often than not, seems to be oriented solely on who has power and who does not. And his angle tends to favor those already in power and not those w/o power.
W/ that criticism levied I do agree that the War on Drugs has to end, that we need a massive draw-down of our troops (although I disagree w/ the idea of isolationism), and I do agree that we need to curtail the size of government when it comes to invasive social policies or over-spending. I also agree that we need to work on the debt and deficit, but I would disagree that this can be done in a recession and I would disagree that the Republican Party has taken a long-term stance on how to solve this problem (their answers seem to be short term oriented). To this extent I do think Ron Paul's existence as a political figure is helpful. He at least is bringing these qualms to the forefront of the debate and to that extent I can agree w/ you that it's beneficial.
You are never going to be an end to the war on drugs or the war on smoking or the war on drinking. Self abuse is the right of every citizen. So as long as there is adiction, there will be drugs. Supplied by other countries and there cash crop, there is no stopping it. There is only education, and that my friend is where Dr. Paul falls very short. He does not care about anyone getting an education. He wants vouchers and private schools. This leaves the economically challenged in the crapper. The middle class will suffer for this also. Do any of you ever talk to a MD to see what they belive in? I work in the medical field and I can tell you that they chief concern of most doctors is their bank account. That is were Dr Paul comes from.
When you view everything through the prism of one of the basic libertarian mantras, everything Ron Paul espouses makes a degree of sense: When individuals are left to their own devices and left free from government intervention, they will act rationally, and their pursuit of their own self-interest will in turn benefit others.
If you truly believe this to be a factual statement, then every single problem can be solved by getting government out of the way and letting people figure it out. Jim Crow laws? Segregationists will eventually act rationally and call for their repeal, so don't intervene, since federal action goes against libertarian principle - even if it achieves a similar result faster and corrects massive injustice.
The Ron Paul crowd is far more interested in ideological purity than how that ideology would actually affect the man on the street. And they seek that purity with almost religious conviction.
Are you kidding me! How resonsible did the banks act in the 2008 catastrophy. How responsible was Enron. How responsible was Lehman Brothers. Do you live under a rock? I do not understand how people can be robbed right in front of themselves and still say that basic human nature is good and that a business man will never do anything illegal of immoral. They sold us down the river. The took the money and ran. How many ways can I tell you that give the chance they will steal your lasr dime. These are the people that Paul wants to deregulate. WAKE UP. They only want your money and your house and your first born.
Susan I think you need to re-read Aaron's comment.
@Aaron: this is why I often joke that philosophically I'm a libertarian, but pragmatically I'm a liberal.
Couldn't agree more, Mouzer. And Susan, yes you do need to re-read. I am simply saying that if you buy into the libertarian philosophy, everything gets wrapped up in a nice little box for you where "less government" is the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything. And in that framework, Ron Paul's otherwise outlandish positions would make perfect sense.
excellent piece ...
The reason why Paul and the libertarians are against the Civil Rights Act and ADA is because they see it as an infringement on private rights which it is. However, they believe that a truly free market will correct abuses in that places that do not allow minorities will go out of business. That is preposterous. In small towns, there are not a lot of choices in restaurants, theaters, and other public venues. The libertarian blind faith in the free market is misplaced and that is demonstrated by history in the late 1800's and early 1900's. We tried an unfettered free market economy and that lead to so many abuses that antitrust, labor, mining, and safety laws were passed to end those abuses. This pattern of legislation goes back to Teddy Roosevelt and continues to present day. We cannot afford to wait for the "free market" to correct abuses. Otherwise, we would still have polluted air, water, food, etc., because the free market rewards those who cut corners to make profits. Libertarians do not see any moral issues, just the "free market" theory.
On top of everything else, the idea that the Civil Rights Act somehow led to "the government can come into our bedrooms" is just insane. Griswold v. Connecticut was decided in 1965; until then, government could prohibit you from buying contraception. Anti-sodomy laws, anti-abortion laws and other "morals" laws all date from well before 1965, and getting government out of our bedrooms didn't seriously begin until after the Civil Rights Act.
If libertarians cared about the real maximum liberty for all people, which requires dealing with the potential conflict between my right to live as I wish and another's right to discriminate, rather a narrow crabbed view that puts property above all and assumes that no one's exercise of their rights can ever infringe on another's rights, they would see that the period from the Civil Rights era onward has been one of increasing liberty, not restrictions on it.
In 1963 Illinois revamped its criminal code and eliminated most of those laws before Griswold. Many states followed Illinois. Only the most conservative states kept those laws. But the SCOTUS kept expanding the scope of privacy rights that ultimately lead to Roe v. Wade which triggered all the conservative backlash. The conservative argument is that no such privacy right is mentioned in the constitution. The SCOTUS said that various constitutional provisions point to the right of privacy. I would note that the conservative strict construction argument is used only when it supports the conservative view. But strict construction is observed more in the breach than practice by liberals and conservatives.
What a bizzare idea. Mr Paul can sound so resonable at times you can forget just how extreme his ideas are.
I wonder how many items he would remove from the bill of rights?
He really needs to visit Rachel so she can give him a sound drubbing just as she did his son. That was by far my favorite interveiw. Encore, Encore!
How is this discussion about Paul? It meanders and misses the point. Civil liberty IS about property rights! Most of the postings miss the fact that statist policy and use of government power hamper individual rights has been the true issue.
The right to organize, the right to the fruit of labours, is part of those same rights as the producer is not just an organization, but those who do the work! Our system is skewed towards corporate and socialist statism. History and current events clearly show how the abuses of government power lead to the issues we struggle with.
The financial crisis was a direct result of deregulation and lack of government oversight, and investment bankers being given the freedom to pursue their own self-interest, and it ended as a complete disaster. This issue was created by the exact opposite of government power abuse.
"investment bankers being given the freedom to pursue their own self-interest"
yes - but that crossed party lines - particularly problematic were the Foreign held banks who already had a strong foothold - even on Main Street USA - & still do -
but at least the rogue Brits of Midland AKA "HSBC" are receding....
Who Knew ?? :)
"Jim Crow" Institutionalized bigotry and discrimination. No government entity should discriminate against any of its citizens or make any laws requiring any private entity to do so.
Should they be allowed to make laws telling me who I have to serve or hire? Let's say that I think not. I still don't trust the motivation of most of those standing behind this argument.
If civil rights laws have overreached, move forward by clarifying your objections not blocking progress with obfuscations.
Civil liberties are about "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
Just because one person sees all of that as property rights doesn't make it so.
There is more to life that what we own. In my view it is the the valuable part of life.
In a perfect world this would hold water, but the world is far from perfect and I cannot watch every bank or business to make sure they are not taking everything from me. I count on the people I elect to protect me from the Cheney's and Rove's of the world. From the banks and the real estate letches. Let the government do it's job. If you want to be left out there naked without any regulations to safeguard yourself. Move to Columbia and become a drug lord. They are very deregulated and bussiness men that are llowed to do what they want. Even kill you
Disclaimer----THIS POST IS UNDER MY NAME BUT I HAVEN'T READ IT.
Ron Paul followers are despicable honkies, white supremacist nazis who, if given half a chance, would happily employ gas chambers and ovens. They are pathetic ivory twits who are unathletic and can't run fast. The rallies of these redneck, Ku Klux, goobers break up only when they go collect their medicare or social security checks. In most cases they are the product of white incest or rape.
hahahahahaha
@Notorious
You forgot to add that anyone who quotes you is a liar.
♫ ♫ Will the real "Notorious HUGE" PLEASE STAND UP !! ♫ ♫
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hugh-G-Rection/171440932891436?ref=ts&sk=wall
Mike: "But the SCOTUS kept expanding the scope of privacy rights that ultimately lead to Roe v. Wade which triggered all the conservative backlash."
Actually, as covered in the recent New Yorker article about Planned Parenthood, this is a conservative myth. Nixon's people were already working on using abortion as a wedge issue to split off Catholic voters from the Democrats well before Roe v. Wade. Similarly with fundamentalist Christians -- abortion wasn't much of an issue to them until people like Jerry Falwell realized it could be useful for political power.
No dispute that there were states without restrictions on contraception before Griswold, but that doesn't change the fact that before that decision, governments could do that, which completely contradicts Paul's attempt to link "government in your bedroom" with the Civil Rights Act.
Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 so until then there was no right to an abortion and states did not allow any abortions. After the decision, Nixon and the Republicans were ranting about the decision. And that started the anti-abortion movement which eventually moved to the political theater.
Until Roe v Wade, states had varying laws about abortion. Of particular interest is
Why is that of interest? Ronald Reagan signed that (then) expansion of abortion availability into law.
Abortion was effectively legalized in New York in 1970.
They were performing abotions in the 50's 60's and 70's in hospital's all along. They called them D and C's. The MD just booked the OR and the little problem was gone. I new many women who did this. It was the poor women who had no money that was dieing in the back alleys. This is a fct. The minute that abortoin became availible to the poor it was in dipute. They did not want there dirty laundry out to air. They did not stop hospital abortion's till the mid 80's when Reagen used it as a way to get elected to office. That put focus on the hospital's and they were forced to stop the procedure.
I just saw a production of "Angels in America" and there's an interesting line about "property rights," which reminded me that the libertarian obsession with "property" is basically conservatism without the activism of "social conservatism." If "rights" are connected to property, then it stands to reason that the more property one acquires, the more rights one gains. And the less property one has, the less rights one gains. You have your own body but you can't assert ownership of it or protect it from invasion without power. It's similar to what happened to Native Americans. So, you wind up with a nation in which property ownership is consolidated within a small number and government only exists to protect that property.
Philosophically, it would appear a no-brainer. The Civil Rights Act recognized that DOI and The Constitution at its best was about individual rights not about property rights. What is morally more impressive? To state that no one in America will be turned away from a public establishment for no other reason than the group to which they belong. Or that in America, property owners are free to discriminate against citizens for no other reason than the group to which they belong.
Paul and other libertarians fail to recognize two critical things: When disenfranchisement and second-class citizenship is the law of the land, the only way to change that culture is through the law. It will not naturally "get better." The reality is that people are greatly influenced by social norms. If the social norm is prejudice, they will go along with it. If it's not, they will not buck convention for their own prejudice. Then you only wind up with the fanatics, which is usually a much smaller group.
The other thing they miss is that justice is acvtivist. This is why we have government intervention in crime prevention. The country should protect the vulnerable from the predations of the powerful. Basic rights must be acknowledged. If they are only acknowledged through assertion of strength, then you have no rights, you only have a "might makes right" society.
Social conservatives appeal to the prejudiced who are powerless enough to believe that it's the sexual, ethnic, and religious minorities who have the power and will enforce their beliefs (e.g. simply exist) upon them. They have been "useful idiots," as the term goes so you have the Gingriches and Romneys who appease them but your Bachmanns and Santorums are true believers. The Pauls are canny enough to realize that these minorities don't have the true power in the country and without government protection, their rights are easily stripped away. No more sexual harassment legislation. No more EEOC. And so on.
I saw a production of "Angels in America" also --
Roy Cohn was wearing Wings !!
There is hope for the MSNBC crew !!
There can be no HELL !!
If you read the DOI, there is a long list of abuses by King George with taxes being only one of them. The abuses all go back to lack of representation. Contrary to the libertarian view, the American Revolution was not about taxes; it was about representation in government. Taxes do not equate to less freedom. That is why the Constitution gives power to enact legislation for the common good of the country. It is the Bill of Rights that list our freedoms which are human rights and none of those listed are about taxes.
Very well said.
Reagan was a shill for whoever wanted to sell shirts or Borax. He then progressed to selling false ideas and BS on a grand scale. He was "owned" by bankers, corporations, and Wall Street. Sadly the childish little minds of many became convinced he had a brain in his head. These same idiots think Obama has to read a teleprompter to talk- hell, Reagan couldn't find his behind with both hands without instructions-
"Back to the Future" should be Repubs main campaign slogan. They believe a better future would be obtained by going back(wards). Repubs can worship Reagan all they want to. He and George W are the two worst presidents in our lifetime.
You forgot Carter and his sweater
In the right winged world, history is what you make of it.Unfettered by truth,free of the pang of guilt and egged on by their blissful base the republican candidates lie like the dogs they lie with.
Soooo,are they really that dumb or do they just think you are?
What a bunch of horse crap! The Democratic Party is the Party of the Government not of the people and you losers on the left which have given us the likes of Stalin,Hitler,Mao,Pol Pot,Castro,and every other despot of the left can continue to blame the right but the facts and truth is that "Progressive Policies" no matter how well intentioned from SS, to Medicare, Obama Care to the Mortgage crisis have been implemented by Progressive Democrats!! You can say what you want but proof can be found that in every government intitlement program a Democrat was behind it!