I’m going to print this and put it on my fridge to keep me from being liberal.
Then how the fuck did Nixon ever manage to get elected?
Hey Hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today
Oh yeah, that’s right Nixon promised to get us out of Vietnam and parents got tired of their sons coming home . . . in boxes.
In Starving Artist’s universe Phil Ochs doesn’t exist and never tried to shame the people who said the right words but didn’t do a goddamn thing to actually make things change with a song. (Love Me, I’m a Liberal)
You might want to take a look at the Wiki page about '68 Democratic National Convention and pay attention to all the protesters that didn’t show up and just how few there actually were. But I’m sure you won’t, so,
~1,000 protestors and ~9,000 Chicago spectators hoping they might get to watch a real riot, oh, wait thay actually had already had a real riot,
See, that’s a riot. The Convention was just the [DEL]Yippies[/DEL] Abbie Hoffman scaring the shit out of Richard Daley with a pig,
I guess “The Silent Majority” wasn’t just a figment of Tricky Dick’s imagination!
Kindly point to large numbers of Norman Lears all across the country on just three networks. Clearly you’re talking about him and specifically Archie Bunker who was the object a bemused head shaking (at someone who’s brain kept getting in the way of his heart), not hate and derision. (And I guess you just missed all those times the “Meathead” was treated exactly the same way.)
Large numbers of liberals nationwide did all that? Right, that was after Nixon got re-elected the third time. And then Dr. Manhattan .. .. ..
CMC fnord!
Oh, come on now. We all know that the minute conservatives develop a sense of humor they’ll do the same thing.
You would be well served to do so.
What the hell does that have to do with my point - which, as you may recall, is the propensity of left to engage in the politics of hate? Maybe people were so disgusted by what they saw coming from lefties of the time that they voted for Nixon out of spite. Who knows? What I do know is that is has nothing whatever to do with what I’ve been talking about.
Why? Again you’re trying to reframe the argument to your advantage. The point is that the show got on the air and had a wide audience eagerly lapping up the Archie hate.
TLDR it seems.
CMC fnord!
:smack: Why did I even bother? Some one talk me down next time, PLEASE?
He asked you emacknight, NOT me! 
Why? Again you’re trying to reframe the argument to your advantage. The point is that the show got on the air and had a wide audience eagerly lapping up the Archie hate.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t say that, please correct the error and refrain from misquote me in the future.
Oops. It’s hard to keep things straight when having to scroll through encyclopedic posts to keep track of who said what.
Believe me, mac, it’d be a compliment if someone were to confuse you with crowmanyclouds. 
Y’know, I thought we’d made a breakthrough of sorts in the civility thread a little while ago, but here we are again with the same old Starving. Why anyone bothers to engage him, I don’t know–you know exactly how he’ll respond, every time. You know his tactics. You know he’s expressly said he refuses to cite anything except personal experience and anecdotes. He reminds me of my dad, only my dad is intelligent enough to listen to facts…and tellingly, coherent enough to actually convince me back the other way once in a while.
I have never, ever, ever said any such thing. Since you’re so big on facts, hows about you cough up an instance of my saying that.
I’m perfectly amenable to facts, if they are conclusive. I’m not very likely to admit “facts” that are cherry-picked, or tell only part of the story, or are incomplete, or are misleading, or open to debate (i.e., inconclusive)
And so who’s fault is that? Just upthread I thoroughly refuted the commonly believed assertion that women in the fifties couldn’t own property and couldn’t have a checking account without some man’s permission. I rattled off three women just from my own experience who disprove that claim, and how much believing back the other way has that resulted in? Absolutely none, so far as I can tell. Instead it gets utterly ignored and people go back to splitting hairs over how many Norman Lears put shows on television and pretending a few individual murders caused by lone wackos equate to decades of hatred by the left. There have been countless times when I have posted conclusive cites not even of my own experience, and one of two things invariably happens. One, people roundly ignore it, just like they have in this thread. Or two, they extrapolate some nonsensical meaning from it and attempt to argue with me over that. Either way, they don’t accomplish a friggin’ thing. So don’t give this “Starving Artist ignores cites” bullshit. I am a long, long way from being the only person that refuses to accept cites or evidence around here. Still, show me an incontestable cite and I will accept it. Show me cites that are inconclusive or open to debate or misleading - which, btw, are the type I am almost invariably confranted with and treated as gospel here by the ilk - and I’m not likely to accept them. If you want me to accept a cite, you better be sure it can prove what you claim it proves. Can you show me an example where you posted a irrefutable cite and I refused to accept it? I don’t think you can.
Can I just put your name in a quote and claim it’s you?
You just keep getting better with age.
The cite is refutable because you choose to refute it. Hence, any cite you reject is refutable. Perfectly circular, perfectly Starving.
And were these women married at the time? And did they have connections?
Here, I’ll play along. Back in the 80s, I had a pretty small checking account at a neighborhood bank. My husband had a savings and checking account in the same bank. He’d frequently write me a check for an amount that was over my balance, and usually, the tellers would cash it, even though technically it was against the rules, because they knew me. One teller, though, went by the rules. Even though the check was drawn on that bank, he would NOT release more cash than I had in my account. So, even though it was against bank regulations and possibly even illegal, I managed to get a service that I should not have been entitled to. I strongly suspect that the three women in your experience were also getting something that they technically weren’t supposed to. It’s also possible that these women all lived in a state where it was LEGAL for them to do these things. Just because a few women were able to do these things, doesn’t mean that all women were legally able to do so. Different states had different laws.
Societal changes are difficult to effect without publicity hence the large demonstrations of the sixties. You do not change the course of a battleship with one person protests in the woods. However I do take the point that things got out of hand sometimes. There were a lot of strong feelings generated by the issues of the day. There WERE injustices and surely you can see that, Starving Artist.
As for the comedy, I would love for Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck and the other corporate shills to have a sense of humor. Instead what we get is a steady stream of hatred and lies. I heard Limbaugh say that the top 5% of the tax bracket is supporting the other 95% of us. Astounding. The top 5 are scraping the cream of the labor produced by the majority. The top 5 are willing to cut social programs for the poor instead of paying pre Bush tax cut rates which would cut the deficit drasticly, and yeah, they were still doing well in the 90s pal.
Conservatives just do not understand that an extra yaht or mansion is not equivalent to being able to pay medical bills or eat. I understand arguing over foriegn wars and abortion (though deliberate misquoting of the 97% of activities being abortion rather than 97% being cancer screenings and such is perplexing) but to hit the poor in tough times rather than take a hit they can afford is mean and there is no other way around it. Perhaps it produces a “thrifty working class” eh, Mr. Potter?
One difference that may exist is that these women were all go-getters and pretty much made their own way in life. I imagine that, yes, for a woman who was married and living the stereotypical housewife’s life, that yes, she may have had a hard time opening a bank account or getting credit without her husband’s permission. But again, there were sound reasons for that which had nothing to do with oppressing women and everything to do with who was on the hook financially. And don’t forget, all a woman with a bad credit or bad checking history (whether her own or through her husband’s) had to do in those days to completely escape it was simply to marry someone else. Would you want to loan money or pay out on checks for someone who could literally disappear overnight by the simple expedient of marrying someone else?
There was nothing legally exceptional about the circumstances surrounding the lives the three women in my family lived. They simply made their own way, and, once they had acquired property and a credit history of their own, they got credit and bank services just like men of those days did. I don’t where you were living at the time, and I don’t know what our individual state laws were at the time, but like I said, I live in the midwest, which I would assume did not have the most liberal statutes on matters of this kind. Still, stop and think for a moment. There were millions of women back then who had no husband, either by virtue of being divorced, widowed or having never married. Is it really your contention that they all had to rent their homes and pay for everything in cash kept under the mattress? What about the women who started cosmetic, perfume and fashion companies. Or operated hair salons or antique shops? Or were renowned artists like Georgia O’Keefe or photographers like Diane Arbus. What about Amelia Earhart? Or Julia Child, who was married but by far the major breadwinner for most of her married life. Clearly women who wanted or had to make their own way in life in life back then were able to do so, regardless of the decade or state where they lived. It was mostly women who married under circumstances where the husband was responsible for the family’s debts who, again, found themselves having to get their husband’s permission to incur debts that he was responsible for.
Why is this a bad thing? I mean, it’s not like we don’t have conservatives holding rallies and burning Korans. Not that I approve of burning Korans just to get a rise out of Muslims, but still, my original question still stands.
I was living in Texas at the time. My grandmother had some property that she had inherited. My grandfather was allowed to sell this property, without her knowledge or permission, because he was her husband. She could not sell her own property without his knowledge and permission. And this was legal, according to the lawyer she consulted.
And, I notice that you don’t mention whether or not these women you reference were married or single, or what state they were in. Different states had different laws. I’ve lived in the Midwest, and I’ve lived in the South. The South tends to be much more conservative, and have much more conservative laws.
And, again, sometimes people don’t follow every little jot and tittle of the law. If a bank is willing to extend credit to a woman, it can list her under her initials, for instance. Or it can refuse to extend credit, if the law allows it. And many banks DID refuse to do business with a married woman unless she had her husband on board with her plans. If the women in your examples were married, do you KNOW whther or not their husbands signed some paperwork for them? My other grandmother bought and ran a candy store. That is, she put up the money, and she worked in it. But my other grandfather was the one who technically owned it, as it had to be HIS name on the paperwork. Never mind that he was a commercial fisherman/rumrunner, and spent 10.5 months of every year out on the sea. Never mind that she was the one who ran that store. She couldn’t BE the owner of it, legally.
Why should it be legal for ONE sex to not be allowed to function as a full adult? Just because a few women were able to do certain things, does not mean that all women were legally able to do so.
It’s like someone else said, you’re trying to prove something similiar to “slavery was actually a benefit for blacks, as it gave them free room and board and a job for life, and most ob dem darkies liked that situation jus’ fine, jus’ fine, and the ones who had get up and go were able to make something more of themselves. Nope, dem darkies wasn’t oppressed A TALL.” I’ve seen that argued, in much the same terms.
There’s no excuse for NOT allowing adult humans to have adult human privileges. And any time or place where they don’t have all privileges, well, that IS oppression, no matter how you spin it.
Dude - the good old days are gone. Accept it.
We don’t lynch uppity niggers anymore. We don’t blacklist people because good old Joe McCarthy labels them “commies”. We don’t segregate schools, and we don’t deny women access to financial institutions.
I know you pine for the “good old days” but a lot of us are very happy to see them go.
deleted
Certainly, I can. But there were no injustices comparable to the ones blacks had been subjected to, yet look how they demonstrated in the early to mid sixties. They were well-dressed, dignified and non-violent, and sought to acheive equality through the simple expedient of their humanity. And they had made great strides prior to the late sixties, thereby proving that screaming obscenities and burning things was not necessary in order to bring about change.
Now, contrast that with the behavior of leftist students on the college campuses of the time. Or at the 1968 Democratic convention. And look at what has been the nature of the dialog with regard to women’s rights, abortion, social programs, welfare, universal health care, taxes and redistribution of income. In each and every case, the left has approached the issue with hatred toward their opponents. Anyone not toeing the party line on these issues is subject to accusations of selfishness, stupidity, greediness, evil, a desire to beat or keep people down or see them dying in the streets, etc., etc., etc.
It is simply impossible in this country to oppose anything the left favors without coming in for this type of behavior from the left. And it’s going on perhaps even moreso to this very day as the OP of this thread clearly demonstrates, where you have the leader of the Senate and a member of the House of Representatives claiming that Republicans are wanting to kill women.
It is that hatred and intolerance by people of the left for anyone who disagrees with them that I was talking about and not that there weren’t injustices that needed to be addressed.
Do you know how many conservatives have a yacht or mansion? Do you know how many work at normal, everyday jobs, and struggle to pay their bills and educate their children? And do you know how large of a proportion of their income goes to fund services for people who don’t pay any income tax, which is now said to be fully half the working population? I doubt if two out of every hundred conservatives is even a millionaire, and of those who are I’d wager that most of that wealth lies in the value of their homes and/or businesses, and that less than two out of a hundred of them even has a yacht or mansion. So why then are conservatives so overwhelmingly in favor of reduced government spending and lower taxes? It’s because 98% of them aren’t wealthy, and because they are philosophically opposed to government-enforced redistribution of income. It is very difficult to make large amounts of money. If it weren’t, everyone would be wealthy. So conservatives think it is deeply unfair and unjust to take money from people who’ve fought the battles and managed to earn it, and then just give it away to somebody else just because they’ve opted for the 9-to-5 worker drone life and that doesn’t pay for their needs, which usually includes at least two cars, big-screen televisions, plenty to eat, weekends at the lake and…well, you get the picture.
There is simply no excuse for the fact that 50% of working Americans have been deemed so poor by their government that they need to have their way paid by the other 50%. And yet we still have Democrats demanding that more and more people have the cost of running the government shifted to someone else.
It is as ridiculous as it is unfair.
And this stuff about the upper 5% “skimming the cream” off the labor of the rest of us is just so much class war horsecrap, if you’ll pardon the term. The wealthy make the money they do by providing goods and services that people want badly enough to turn loose of the money to pay for. They invest their money and take the risks and strive to economize and innovate in order to stay in business. They amount they pay for labor is a balance between what those people will work for and what they can afford to pay and still stay in business and make a profit. Most businesses, if they are successful, earn a net profit before taxes of around 8 to 10%. When you consider that amounts at risk and the effort it takes to stay abreast of regulations and market forces while at the same time trying to innovate and keep up with and contend with the competition, that is not an excessive profit at all.
This stuff about the upper 5% taking advantage of the lowly worker is just another example of the kind of rhetoric I was talking about before. Why not just argue that you think govenment-enforced equality of pay for everyone is the way that societies should operate? Because that’s all it boils down to. There is no truth whatsoever to the liberal conceit that wealthy people are taking unfair advantage of the working class and seeking to keep them down. This kind of rhetoric is almost the exact same rhetoric the left used in claiming men of the past sought to take advantage of women and keep them down, when the reality was nothing of the sort.
I can assure you that conservatives in this country are angry as hell. They think that everything that has made this country great is being destroyed, both socially and economically. They look around at the state this country is in and absolutely cannot believe it. But you don’t see us taking over buildings and burning tax forms and calling our opponents evil and selfish and stupid and marching in front of IRS buildings chanting “Fuck you, BHO, how much of what’s ours are you gonna steal today?” And in my opinion the liberal propensity to act that way is a large part of the reason for the hatred that exists in politics and American society today, and worst of all, most of it is blatantly dishonest and deliberately intended to falsely inflame the passions of the masses - as the behavior of Reid and Slaughter in the OP so illustrate so well.
I don’'t think you understand. The problem isn’t that I don’t know the good old days are gone. The problem is that they are. We literally have millions of people dying or having their lives ruined for reasons that didn’t exist in this country prior to the late sixties, and nobody on the left seems to give a shit. So how about waking up and admitting that your way of thinking about things causes far worse problems than it solves, and start taking steps to correct them?
You’ll hear far less from me if and when the time ever comes that you start taking positive steps to correct these problems instead of endlessly lobbying for things that make them worse.
This is not in league with the examples Lynn cited, but I’ll relate it anyway:
When I got married, both of us owned houses that we had bought before we met. When we decided to sell hers a year or so later, we found that my name had automatically been added to the title and I had to sign all the paperwork. When we sold mine, the reverse was not true.
To recapitulate: she could not sell something she had acquired, under her own name and using her own assets only, without my consent. And it pissed both of us off no end.
This was in the mid 1980s, in Washington State, that [DEL]wretched hive of scum and villainy[/DEL] bastion of liberality. If it happened there and then, I shudder to contemplate what things were like for women in earlier times and other places.