...
- that any large part of the GOP played any role in
backing the drives for civil rights, gender rights
or environmental protection.
Dr. Brin, it's you, not me, that needs to offer some
evidence. You're making some remarkable claims about
my ignorance. On that, btw, I challenge you to find
_one_ other person on this list who agrees with you.
You're looking for someone to agree with him that you're ignorant? When I started typing that sentence, I thought you were asking about agreement for your statement above, but if it has to do with ignorance in general, I'm not volunteering. But David isn't claiming general ignorance on your part, it's about specific issues.
I don't think it's ignorance. At worst it's spin and at best it is a mischaracterization.
The statement above is an assertion. It is _not_, in
fact, backed by anything more concrete than your
opinion. In fact large portions of the GOP did play
significant roles in all three. As I've mentioned -
and you completely ignored - GOP Senators (and
Congressmen, I'm virtually certain) were _more_, not
less, likely to support the crucial Civil Rights bills
than their Democratic counterparts. Without that
support, none of those bills could have passed,
period.
That isn't evidence for party support. As a student of government, you probably have good insight into how often any major change take place without *some* support from the opposition? I don't think it's logical to point out some support and equate that with party-wide support. If nothing else, it completely ignores *when* that support arrived. Isn't it human nature -- and political nature -- for opponents to jump on the bandwagon when they foresee the inevitable? Surely there was a point at which it was obvious that, for example, civil rights legislation would pass. At that point, what fool wants to vote against it? And who knows how deep that support really goes?
What can you tell us about the pattern of GOP v. democratic support for these changes? David is clearly saying that the dems initiated them. Disputing that assertion, which certainly rings true to me, though I really haven't studied them in any depth, begs the question of when the supporters joined the bandwagon, so to speak.
On its face, your earlier claim that the Republican Party - I don't remember the exact words, something like vehemently opposed - Civil Rights is not true. The same with gender rights or environmental protection. Just because someone disagrees with you on any of those issues doesn't mean that they oppose the issue itself.
I don't grok that last sentence. Who is the antecedent of "you" in it?
I'm sorry that I called your American history very
poor, although it does seem to have gotten my point
across. I studied American history with Bill Gienapp
(may he rest in peace) - he ain't Rush Limbaugh. Would you care to cite a serious historical work that
supports your assertion that the Party of Lincoln has
contributed little or nothing to American politics?
Hmm, is that what David is saying? Or that it didn't initiate any of the major steps forward, as he defines them?
Nick
-- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
