Could the same thing have happened during Reconstruction? It could have, but aside from the occasional Thaddeus Stevens (who died in 1868, anyway), there just weren't many Northern leaders who had the patience and willpower (and true commitment to human rights) to make it happen. "Harshness" would not have helped, in the sense of hanging Confederates or permanently denying them any part in the system. But keeping troops around to make sure the 15th Amendment was enforced for the next half-century would have been extremely helpful in short-circuiting a century of segregation and "re-enslavement."

Conservatives are a special type of crazy on this issue

Global warming: A way for liberals who don't know what the eff they're talking about to seek further control over people.

I don't think you can really equate the anti-vaxxers (batshit crazy a la climate change denialists are batshit crazy) with anti-nuclear folks. There's a reasonable case against nuclear power.

Just one little detail: how come there are big important U.S. Army bases that large numbers of soldiers train at with names like Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, or Fort Polk?


Was Fort Bragg not named for Darren?

Summary of last page.

Liberal 1: You know who's really crazy? Conservatives!
Liberal 2: I know! They're the worst ever!
Liberal 3: Conservative writers are uniquely terrible.
Liberal 4: Well said Liberal #2
Liberal 5: Liberal #1 is very insightful.
Liberal 3: I totally agree with liberal #3.
Liberal 2: Be careful #1 that was very painful.
Liberal 1: Sorry, I need to clip my fingernails.
Liberal 6: You know who are terrible? Conservatives are.
Liberal 1: What insight on this important fact!
Liberal 4: Why aren't more conservatives like David Frum.
Liberal 3: Yeah, credible conservatives are those willing to do what the Democrats want.
Liberal 2: Let's talk about some awesome liberal writers. They would never do what conservatives want.
Liberal 5: Paul Krugman is awesome! The way he writes the same article 98% of the time is amazing.

You must have an amazing pokerface to be able to write that without laughing hilariously. The last few hundred posts have been *mostly* trolling, except, as usual, the always sane MCoA and Johnny SLF.

Though I guess it says a lot about you that you apparently define productive conversation as "like-minded people giggling amongst themselves as they mock their enemies."

Liberal 1: You know who's really crazy? Conservatives!
Liberal 2: I know! They're the worst ever!
Liberal 3: Conservative writers are uniquely terrible.
Liberal 4: Well said Liberal #2
Liberal 5: Liberal #1 is very insightful.
Liberal 3: I totally agree with liberal #3.
....
.....

Nothing could possibly be as insane as Democratic positions on Citizens United, in which they say with a straight face that the government should be allowed to have broad powers to censor political speech.

If there's a reasonable case to make against nuclear power, I've yet to see it. Every one more or less have to rely on the insane premise that the people of China, India, and so forth, have little to no interest in access to electricity.

Sam ######## about #### throwing is like, well, Sam ######## about #### throwing. Sam's bad enough to be the origination reference for a figure of speech.

Gentlemen, I'll leave you to it until Dan leaves. No need to sully up your discussion with a bit of #### throwing, and I assure you the man can't have anything resembling a rational conversation while I'm in the room, so, adieu. I'll check back in later after the docs give Dan his meds.

Sam ######## about #### throwing is like, well, Sam ######## about #### throwing. Sam's bad enough to be the origination reference for a figure of speech.

As we learned when the regressives ran out of Kleenex temporarily and piled onto Ray, the Supreme Court is the determinant of whether or not money is speech and the determinant of corporate personhood. So, there are plenty of Democrats being factually wrong.

I assume you guys had to pay for the hand lotion and Kleenex, did you not?

Nothing could possibly be as insane as Democratic positions on Citizens United, in which they say with a straight face that the government should be allowed to have broad powers to censor political speech. The rantings about the corporate overlordship that resulted was ridiculous, over-the-top, and strident beyond belief. Democrats that disagreed, like Glenn Greenwald, faced a lot of vitriolic friendly fire.

Or, shall we get into the Columbia University research that found in polling that 32% of Democrats (nearly twice the Republican rate) blamed "the Jews" a "moderate amount" to "a great deal" for the financial crisis?

Or perhaps that two of the Democrats here who talk about the batshit opposition either threaten to stab people (Hutcheson) or justify killing them (Andy)?

As we learned when the regressives ran out of Kleenex temporarily and piled onto Ray

Preach on, Freisler!

I assume you guys had to pay for the hand lotion and Kleenex, did you not?

Well, I don't think one can totally discount the problems of a nuclear catastrophe -- the Japanese were supposedly, if not the best, among the best regarding safety and preparation and Fukushima was still a pretty big disaster.

As we learned when the regressives ran out of Kleenex temporarily and piled onto Ray, the Supreme Court is the determinant of whether or not money is speech and the determinant of corporate personhood. So, there are plenty of Democrats being factually wrong.

I'm simply playing your game by your rules. You and Sam and others just spent hundreds of posts acting like childish brats, mocking others and hurling smears and insults at people not present. You're only interested in calm, measured debate so long as the other side consists of people that don't disagree with you.

Same-sex marriage: I support it. Even though I believe the word "marriage" means man and woman. (I mean, I don't think it's "marriage" within the true meaning and usage of the word but I don't care and I'm happy to call it that.)

Your use of "happy" is somewhat doubtful here, considering your definition of marriage. But if so, well, great.

I disagree with many of my fellow liberals in that I'm not sure CU was wrongly decided as a matter of Constitutional law. But the reason I disagree is that I think it's a close call and could have easily gone either way. I hate the decision on policy grounds, but the argument that money=speech is hardly crazy (unlike the right's position on ACA). But it's hardly a slam dunk either. Reasonable people can disagree about the scope of the first amendment in this area.

(oh, and Greenwald isn't a liberal. He's a libertarian.)

I'm more than happy to declare this awesome.

Just, er, don't let Dan catch us agreeing.

The same can't be said of global warming deniers.

Yes. You or I don't have any more right to know who a private party supports than you or I have the right to demand someone disclose their religion, their desires, or what sexual positions they used last night.

That's why I'm in favor of very high barriers for filing SLAPP lawsuits and very high awards to the defendant if the plaintiff can't come close to demonstrating that they're likely to prevail (and some spin on loser pays, possibly capped at the other party's legal costs or something).

CU had nothing to do with SLAPP, though. The government indicated, which they argued in court, that the government has the power to remove publication of a book if it even mentioned a candidate in one place. That's abhorrent. I don't like some of the things that the ACLU gets involved in, but I'm still a member because at the very least, they'll generally take the correct position on protecting our freedom of speech.

The most practical route to rehabilitating individual's freedom of speech probably comes from either pushing back the "corporations are people, except when someone tries to hold them accountable for what they do" position, or the "money is speech" position. Both are pretty difficult, and lofty goals, but either one would do a lot to promote individual liberty, in the limit where individual refers to an actual person. Things are only impossible until they're not.

It's not. It would be perfectly reasonable to consider disclosure or non-disclosure a reason to support that person's ideals, cause, or campaign. I don't have a right to know, say, whether or not a candidate had an abortion or not, even if knowing whether or not the candidate had an abortion would affect my view of their candidacy.

I thought you were leaving, anyway?

You, with all seriousness (as even some of the liberals commented on) accused others of being murderers. You threw your gauntlet down and you can't get it back to throw down a second time until you directly answer why you're not a murderer.