Let's take these one by one.
Quote:During the counter culture revolution of the 60's and 70's, the more radical left wing took control of the Democrat party and have steered it way left of center ever since.
This is false. In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite. Political scientists Keith Poole, Howard Rosenthal and Nolan McCarty have done quantitative measurements on votes (in Congress and Senate) against a right/left spectrum over time. By these measurements, the Clinton government is considerably more right wing than was the Eisenhower government. That trend, to the right, has been steady.
Quote:
Unfortunately the far left views traditional values with derision and contempt and thus separates itself from the center and right who aren't ready to dissolve all they value and hold dear.
There is no 'far left' left. When was the last time anyone you've read described themselves as a Marxist/Leninist? Or when was the last time you saw a copy of "The Daily Worker" being handed out on a street corner. Union membership is down to something like one fifth of what it was thirty-five years ago. Who's got a Che tshirt in their college dorm drawers today? Now, folks like foxfyre will repeat statements such as those above and describe 'far left' as being against a war, or being in favor of union bargaining power, or for speaking out against threats to separation of church and state. All quite centrist positions thirty five years ago.
As to treating traditional values with derision and contempt...what traditional values? That whites are superior to blacks? That was a traditional value once. That Christianity is superior to other faiths? That was a traditional value once, and the attempt to make it one again is in resurgence. That a man had the traditional right to rape his wife? That abortionists ought to be jailed or put to death? That was a value once, and hello. That Genesis ought to be taught in science classes in school? That oral/genital contact is criminal? That homosexuals are less equal? There is every reason to treat each of these traditional values with derision and contempt, and anyone who holds them dear.
Quote:
Whatever side you are on in the gay marriage issue for instance, some gay rights groups abetted by some activist judges are pushing for the definition of marriage to be changed. That isn't hype. It is a reality.
Some civil rights groups, abetted by some activist judges, dismantled segreation and institutional racism. Where congresses and electorates thought racism a jimdandy phenomenon, the courts acted as a bulwack to protect the rights of those disadvantaged and held to be half-citzens.
What, inherently, is wrong or inappropriate or undemocratic about 'changing definitions'? Marriage was once defined as between two white or two blacks but not one black and one white. Were we to never redefine definitions, then wives would be still be property.
Quote:
Sometimes change is beneficial, important, necessary. Sometimes it isn't. But if one side tells the other side that they are evil, corrupt, stupid, ignorant, ill informed, etc. etc. etc. because of the position they hold, you can bet you'll make a lot of those people determined to defend their position or at least mad enough to go vote.
As a pragmatic argument, sure. Alabamans got up in arms and defensive when outside folks said that their racism was evil, morally corrupt, and that those who voiced such sentiments were stupid or ignorant. But, of course, they were those things.
)
:wink:
