Sorry, but Republicans are for civil rights and that is why percentage-wise more Republicans voted for the 1964 civil rights act than did Democrats.
Highly disingenous. A large percentage of the Dixiecrats who voted against civil rights today call themselves Republicans, or would if they were still alive. That's about as relevant as saying Republicans are better on civil rights because the Democratic party was pro-slavery. Not to mention that it was the Democratic party that showed the courage and took the electoral hit for civil rights. Republicans stood back, then cynically exploited the backlash.
Sure, Republicans are for civil rights, up until those rights conflict with their business interests or political prospects. Black voter suppression, Marianas sweatshops, secret renditions, Gitmo, illegal spying, waterboarding, malicious prosecutions of political opponents, racially-based distinctions in mandatory minimum sentencing and well, I'm sure I've missed some. All overwhelmingly the doing of Republicans. This is not your Daddy's Rockefeller noblesse obligée party. This is a cabal of power- and money-mad reactionary sociopaths.
Whatever our weak, incoherent collaborationist Democratic leadership has done lately, they're not nearly as bad as these thugs. If you care enough about civil rights, there is no way to justify voting Republican.
some people commit such heinous crimes that they deserve to die. Doesn't mean that we (the state) has the right to kill them, because the justice system has too many flaws.
By the same token, disenfranchisement on the basis of stupidity is anathema to a Democracy. In a sense, it's we self-appointed smart people's failure to fail to bring the stupid along with us. To quote Frank Zappa:
It's not getting any smarter out there. You have to come to terms with stupidity and make it work for you.
Can you imagine saying "I like this guy Obama, but I don't want that woman anywhere near the WH again".
I know, most of the justifications behind such thinking are BS. But bear in mind that Hillary Clinton has a net disapproval rating. She'd bring something to the ticket for sure, but it's not clear whether it would help him.
Conservative seats in 1993 after Kim Campbell won the leadership race: 169
Conservative seats after the 1993 general federal election: 2
Campbell even lost her own seat (her main leadership rival, Jean Charest, won his), which is pretty embarrassing for a party leader. I didn't follow her policies much, but her debate performances sucked. Elle a "sucé" en français aussi. Her whole campaign seemed to be a bunch of petty sniping at the Liberals, who at least had the guts to sum up their platform in a little red book (not fearful of chairman Mao comparisons were they!).
Didn't see her on Bill Maher. I sure hope she's improved in the last 15 years.
gender gap, which wasn't explainable through other demographics.
I think the whole point here is that identity politics DO exist, and have a significant impact on elections. I'm sure we'd all prefer if voters ignored race and gender and based their preference solely on policy, experience or character. But we all have our prejudices, conscious or no, and this is how they show up.
As long as you grant there is an immediate need for charitable work and that it should be publicly funded (the more liberal view), we should focus on whether religious groups are an appropriate vessel for that.
As they say: "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Give a man a poisonous fish, you feed him for a lifetime."
Thanks for your viewpoint that mandates are better than no mandates. It's a complex issue. Is it better to enlarge the pool by making everyone contribute but creating more demand for insurance companies? Or simply subsidize health insurance and require group rates, thereby not inflating artificial demand but running the risk of healthy people opting out of the system and threatening its solvency? Time will tell.
That part of your post was fine, albeit a few too many exclamation points. As for the rest of it, shut up.
from anecdotes, unlike you and the tragedy you brought up in your first post. I only brought it up to show that anecdotes can be refuted by counter-anecdotes.
You still don't seem to understand the main argument of the original study was that wearing a helmet can increase the frequency of accidents with cars, which may offset any health benefit from having your head protected. If you can't see the logic there, you'd better wear a grounding wire whenever you go outside. It'll probably save your life if you get hit by lightning.