Senator Edwards solidifies conservative voters

MSNBC ^ | Oct. 5, 2004

[lady lawyer]

But you could make that argument about many people who fought for the interests of their own group. That's my point. I.e,

Cesar Chavez helped end exploitation of Mexican migrant workers, which, though it didn't happen everywhere, was a cancer on the entire country.

Brigham Young led the Mormons when they were "segregated" by violence against them because of their religious beliefs. This only happened in Missouri and Illinois, but in a country founded on freedom of religion, this was a cancer on the entire country.

Every group has its heroes.

And King didn't end segregation. Brown v. Board of Education, ending school segregation, came down in 1954, while King was still an obscure preacher. This was a movement that was well under way before King gained prominence.

King probably did influence the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- which was supported mostly by Republicans, by the way. One can argue whether that law has made the country more fair or less fair. While the ending of segregation was supposed to unite us all, regardless of race, the things that came after, promoted by King, have tended to divide us by race, bestowing special privileges, protections, and preferences on certain groups, subjecting employers to endless ridiculous lawsuits brought by bad employees who happen to fall into particular groups, making it impossible for employers to set standards for their workplace -- like making a high school diploma a minimum requirement -- because that "discriminates" against certain groups, etc., etc., etc.

My sense is that, before King rose to prominence, the majority of Americans, out of a sense of fairness, were already moving toward a color blind society.

Think about it. America had been steadily moving in that direction since its founding. Slavery, for example. Slavery had existed in the world since the beginning of time. Powerful groups routinely enslaved weaker groups.

In the nineteenth century, for the first time in recorded group, Europeans and Americans said, "We are strong enough to enslave others, but it is wrong, and we are not going to do it." Then, they forced the rest of the world to do it, with certain holdouts in parts of the Middle East and Africa. Slavery was legal in Saudia Arabia until 1916 or 1917, I believe.

Much of the stuff that came out of the "civil rights movement" led by King and other has led us in the opposite direction, and has set back the cause of individual rights and "color blindness," in favor of group rights and preferences. These group rights, in my opinion, have created as much or more unfairness as they have prevented.

[lady lawyer]

. . .that's "recorded history." I should proofread.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

I think vacant seats in committees are a bipartisan phenomenon. Politicians in Washington spend most their time on the grift. They certainly don't like the attention drawn to this attendance thing. I personally think we should just pay them to stay at home unless called into emergency session based on matters of constitutional relevance. A vote on Head Start and a new funding to study lemming migration patterns is not what they are supposed to be doing.

I agree BUT, Edwards was on an intelligent Committee! Isn't that what the main argument for this election is turning out to be????

The little pr#&K is complaining about the WAR! Exatcly how can he complain if he's not even up to date on the facts?

I know we here running our mouths are not senators or reps but, if you had the job, at this point in our history, would you miss these meetings?

I hink not!!!!!!

I'll try to refresh my HTML so these are a little easier to read. Been into VB for apps for a coupla years now and my HT is rusty as hell! Sorry in advance. FYIYCTAJ (know what I mean? iTS GOOD TO SEE SOMEONE RESPOND!