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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (8806)	12/10/2010 6:08:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Those southern dems (dixiecrats) were hard core conservatives through and through The main characteristic that made them stand out was their support of and from racists (sometimes because they where racist, sometimes because they where opportunistic and thought they could get votes that way). You can't reasonably argue that their racism (or pandering) is a sign that they are conservative, and then also argue that the "fact" that they where so conservative is a sign that conservatives are racist. For one thing that would be circular. For another each part doesn't amount to much of an argument. Racism (or pandering to racists) != conservatism they are two very different things. On other issues they may have been more conservative than the average Democrat, but "hard core conservatives through and through" is a stretch at best. But if we for the moment say they where conservatives, all that shows is that some conservatives where racist (or pandered to racists), it says just about nothing about conservatives in general even at that time, let alone 46 years later. It says even less about Republicans (and remember your initial statement, which you have not backed away from, was about Republicans not conservatives) the pubs busted their unions and sent them into the poverty they now have. If by "them" you mean the workers, they in general are much better off than they where in 1965. If you mean the unions, some of them are much better off as well. <<More to the point of my post that you responded to, voting against the bill does not imply racism, or support of or pandering to racists.>> How can you say that? Because its true. There are constitutional and libertarian reasons to oppose such an exercise of federal power, and even more so its later judicial extensions (which would be reason to oppose the specific law if you thought there would be such extension later on either by the courts, or through additional law, or through executive or bureaucratic interpretation and execution of the law). That is exactly how everyone saw it. </i. Both false and irrelevant. False because some did see it differently. Irrelevant because the issue isn't how people saw it, but what it really was.