The Good Post Gallery

[Northeast Rep Snowball]

Nothing of this makes discrimination and bullying against fat people OK. Also, not everybody "chooses" to be fat.

.
I guess so, but if someone had some sort of legal penalty for being black vs someone having some sort of penatly for weight, I would be far more complaint with the weight one. I feel that weight is more comparable to an addiction or something of that sort then race, sex or orientation.

[Northeast Rep Snowball]

An entity has no soul. It is merely a product of the people in it. Therefore, it would stand to reason that regardless of the stance the Democrats took 150 years ago is irrelevant. One can as well easily observe the direction the Democrats took in transforming from a party of agrarians, Catholics, and Southerners, to a party of Northern liberals. Ironically, it would be a Catholic who assisted in this transformation. No conservative should believe in collective sin. That's for the affirmative action folks. Fact is, all the supporters of slavery are long, long dead. Many segregationists are dead or out of office.

Yeah, but it still matters.  Would you want to support Dems because of that, no matter how long ago it was?

You're missing the point. People who support Democrats don't support them because of what happened 150 years ago. Most people who oppose Democrats don't oppose them for what happened 150 years ago. They either support or oppose the Democrats because of their positions today. Whereas we look at the present, you dwell on the past. You would oppose a perfectly good candidate with whom you agree on the issues, is qualified for the position, etc., because he or she associates with the same political party as people who did bad things a century and a half ago, despite the fact that this candidate has no relation to any of those bad people other than the D next to their name.

I oppose Democrats both because of their history of racism and ther far-left policies today.  If I thought there was  a Dem running for office that was better than the GOP candidate, then I would vote for him/her (e.g. LeRoy Collins 1968, Edwin Edwards 1991).  But Bill Fitzgerald in 1978 (against Milliken) does not fit that bill for me, at least for now.

I can respect the bolded part. But your decision making still factors in the Democrats' history of racism, even when the candidate in question, and most current members of the party at large, have no such history. If there was a race you'd rate the Democrat with a slight edge over the Republican in terms of ideology and qualifications, you might still vote for the Republican because of things the Democratic party did 150 years ago that the Democrat in this race had no part in, and would have opposed if he/she were living during that time. You shouldn't take such things into account- you should analyze the candidates and vote for the one you think is best regardless of party affiliation.

[Northeast Rep Snowball]

I think he means this:

Naw, man, clearly Oldies has this map in mind:

Most of the Romney states lean blue here instead!  What's not to like!

I haven't followed this, but I thought that red was dem and blue was republican?