Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (67559)	10/16/2008 10:03:29 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Re your interest in US domestic politics, do you wish you were an American or something? Sometimes I've wished I lived in America (note - subtly different... I doubt I'd ever be American) but that's rarely been because of the politics.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (67559)	10/16/2008 3:17:01 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"The use of the phrase “states’ rights” didn’t spark any reaction in the crowd, but it led the coverage in The Times and The Post the next day." I knew that reminded me of something. The quote that Tim pointed out... Reagan probably exaggerated things when he said “I know speaking to this crowd, I’m speaking to a crowd that’s 90 percent Democrat.” Message 25075725 So it might well have sparked little reaction in the crowd, if most of the crowd was (presumably) not predisposed to recognise the phrase. The best analogy I can think of is that most audiences here wouldn't particularly prick up their ears if a candidate said in a speech on healthcare "I believe that a woman's health is of over-riding importance" or some such formulation. Because in the UK abortion is still not a particularly controversial issue, although sadly some (mainly RW and/or Catholics) are trying to make it one, that phrase simply wouldn't resonate. However I suspect the same comment to a US audience would have far more impact. [I might not have the wording exactly pat but I hope you see what I mean]. BTW Brown wasn't about states rights per se. It was about overturning the "separate but equal" principle established by Plessy. Agreed, but it was the state laws (not federal laws) that were in question. My understanding is that segregation etc was applied very much on a state-by-state basis, i.e. in the states (basically the old South) that still wanted to apply such laws, and did so as long as the matter wasn't really raised too hard... So by overturning the specific law, Brown overturned the way the South had implicitly continued along segregationist lines as each state desired. But it's a minor point of interpretation.