Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Why Can't We All Just Get Along?
There's nothing racist about opposing the president
C'mon, everyone knows the hullabaloo surrounding President Barack Obama is bigotry in action. The administration's policy initiatives couldn't possibly provoke any authentic anger or protest.
Proving this dastardly motive, on the other hand, has been problematic. But there are ways around this dilemma. Unearth some crazy outliers. Create caricatures. Recognize "code" words. Reduce to absurdity. And presto!
"Surrounded by middle-aged white guys—a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men's club—Joe Wilson yelled 'You lie!' at a president who didn't," declared Maureen Dowd in her Saturday New York Times column. "But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!"
Of course, it's fair. If inserting a racial epithet into a quote is wrong, I don't wanna know what's right. It is, moreover, common knowledge that middle-aged white men are bigots. If there's a problem with Dowd's premise, it's that Wilson likely lacks the intellect to string together more than two words per sentence. He is from South Carolina, after all.
Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post began to sniff out this racism when he heard "tea party" folks "shouting about 'the Constitution' and 'taking our country back.' Maybe Obama's health-care plan is an awful idea and his budget is way too big, but how exactly is any of this unconstitutional?"
For argument's sake, let's concede that "tea partiers" are collectively misinformed regarding constitutional law. Does logic not then dictate—nay, demand—that they are motivated by racism? Or perhaps demonstrators are devious enough to feign collective ignorance of the Constitution so they can be surreptitious (but not surreptitious enough to fool Kurtz!) racists.
It's true that things haven't been going smoothly for Change. And increasingly, we hear that anyone who opposes Obama too vociferously is hampered by the thought of a black man as the president of the United States. Conservatives, it seems, never have opposed a president before.
When right-wing radio talk show hosts and bloggers uncovered the past radicalism of green czar Van Jones, who was tasked with steering billions of dollars toward creating "green jobs," progressives immediately claimed racism and McCarthyism. The right, apparently, never has gone after an Anglo-Saxon administration member.
Politico reported that Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), chalked up all this anger toward Barack Obama to racial tensions. "As far as African-Americans are concerned," she claimed, "we think most of it is. And we think it's very unfortunate. We as African-American people of course are very sensitive to it."
"We"? Incredibly, Johnson speaks for tens of millions of African-Americans. ("We" Jews haven't been blessed with that kind of leadership since Moses.)
What's next? Why are all these misogynists targeting Nancy Pelosi? Why are these homophobes continuing to rail against Barney Frank?
Chuck Schumer? You guessed it: the Jews.
Who dictates what level of anger and dissent is allowable? Who decides what a clandestine racist sign looks like? Maybe someone like MSNBC's Carlos Watson, who wondered whether "socialism" is really about the nationalization of industry and hyper-regulation of the private market or whether it's just "becoming the new N-word."
None of this has anything to do with the left's paranoid belief that America is an inherently racist nation. It's just that if you oppose more government dependency and expansion, you might as well be a Confederate infantryman. No, it doesn't matter what you say, because we know what you really mean.
David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his Web site at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.
COPYRIGHT 2009 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
|9.16.09 @ 12:10PM|#
If we change the name for the plan from ObamaCare to PelosiCare will everyone shut up? Or will it then be sexist? DemCare?
Tony|9.16.09 @ 12:12PM|#
Of course the only reason Rep. Wilson's side of the aisle is a sea of lily white is because blacks are too dumb to see the great promise the GOP offers them, right?
Mike M.|9.16.09 @ 12:15PM|#
Remember when Obama was going to be the "post-racial" president? It seems like, gee, only eight months ago or so.
Tomcat1066|9.16.09 @ 12:17PM|#
Of course the only reason Rep. Wilson's side of the aisle is
a sea of lily white is because blacks are too dumb to see the great
promise the GOP offers them, right?
And what in this article is a defense of the GOP?
It's about how those who oppose Obama are labeled as racist without
cause. Period. How blacks vote and run doesn't mean the other side
is racist, it just means that they've chosen a different
tact.
Of course, you really don't give a shit about that, do you?
Barry Loberfeld|9.16.09 @ 12:17PM|#
"It's just that if you oppose more government dependency and
expansion, you might as well be a Confederate infantryman. No, it
doesn't matter what you say, because we know what you really
mean."
The ad hominem as left methodology.
Freddie|9.16.09 @ 12:20PM|#
Of course, what you really intend to convey is, "No one racist opposes the president." Which is, well, less true.
Neu Mejican|9.16.09 @ 12:21PM|#
That may be the least insightful discussion of this issue yet
posted here at H&R. Impressive.
CNN had a discussion of this issue last night.
All of the sane outsider-supporters defended the tea party against
the racism charges using a simple technique...condemning the
obviously racist messages (Obama as witchdoctor,etc...) and moving
on.
The tea party organizer in another segment (can't recall his name)
however, came across like an idiot because he wouldn't condemn the
same sentiments ("I can't tell people how to feel"). As a result,
his whole segment was spent defending against the racism charge
rather than talking about the issue of government spending. The
persistence of the racism charges results, in part, from the inept
response to that charge.
|9.16.09 @ 12:23PM|#
What I'd like to know is whether all of this race-card playing
is just a defensive tactic to fend off a sea of troubles (I can mix
the same metaphors the Bard did), or whether they're actually so
deluded in DC as to believe that most opponents of the president
(and, naturally, all Republicans) are racists.
Either way, they are wrong.
Xeones|9.16.09 @ 12:25PM|#
The tea party organizer in another segment (can't recall his
name) however, came across like an idiot because he wouldn't
condemn the same sentiments ("I can't tell people how to
feel").
It's idiocy to not think you can know and control the
thoughts and motivations of every individual in a diverse
crowd?
|9.16.09 @ 12:28PM|#
Not racist to oppose the president, and yet you show that
picture? Tsk tsk.
Help me out here: depicting the President as a (white) movie
character is racist, how, exactly?
The persistence of the racism charges results, in part, from
the inept response to that charge.
No, it persists because those making the charge believe it is an
effective smear on their opponents.
Tony|9.16.09 @ 12:30PM|#
Perhaps the race card is played too much. By both sides, I might add. How quickly we forget how much of a racist Justice Sotomayor is supposed to be. I take it we're supposed to ignore actual racism as a fringe element of a generally well-mannered and rational group of people. Okay fine. Now carry on with calling anyone and everyone who supports Obama a socialist/statist/fascist.
|9.16.09 @ 12:31PM|#
obviously racist messages (Obama as
witchdoctor,etc
Wow, that one's not obvious to me. I would have seen that one and
thought the message referred to Obama's claim that he will expand
medical coverage by 46 million people, while keeping costs down
(budget neutral), and without cutting services. Sounds like magic
to me.
But I could be wrong. Please explain.
Barry Loberfeld|9.16.09 @ 12:32PM|#
RE: "the left's paranoid belief that America is an inherently
racist nation":
For Leftists, all evil is mass evil -- "systemic," "institutional" evil -- against which only they stand. Just look at how over these past decades American racism has contracted in practice (largely because of the revolt against government-imposed segregation) but exploded in Leftist theory. The [feminists'] "rape culture" has also become a "racist society." It's gone from bigotry being the province of an Archie Bunker to this being a nation of Archie Bunkers -- and worse. Contemporary America is routinely described by such figures as Julianne Malveaux ("two hundred million white racists"), Joe Faegin ("every major aspect of life [here] is shaped ... by racist realities"), and Maulana Karenga ("increasing racism and continuing commitment to white supremacy") in terms honestly applicable to only apartheid or Nazism. But it's a progression not without its own logic: The greater the evil of the social masses, the greater the good of the socialist elite.
From here
!|9.16.09 @ 12:33PM|#
Help me out here: depicting the President as a (white) movie
character is racist, how, exactly?
Because a whiteface minstrel show is just as racist as a blackface
minstrel show, of course.
!|9.16.09 @ 12:35PM|#
How quickly we forget how much of a racist Justice Sotomayor
is supposed to be.
Fixed.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 12:37PM|#
NM, we talked about this yesterday and you're flirting
dangerously with thought crime here. It's none of my business what
other people think or are motivated by and it's certainly not my
job to go police their opinions - especially in a crowd of
thousands or hundreds of thousands of people. If people are racist
in front of me - I'll mock them and tell them to shut the fuck up
as anyone should, but when some reporter finds some fringe
douchebag half a mile away down the Washington Mall, and then
interviews some unrelated person trying to make the link...
C'mon.
Beyond that, you may have noticed that everyone accusing people of
racism have dick all for concrete examples to back up their
assertions, most of the time they play weasely word-games like
Dowd. "I can't but help but hearing the implied boy". No
shit... People like her can't because everything they hear is
tinted by bizarro 1960s reality. But what newspeople hear in the
abyss of their own vacuous brain-holes isn't evidence of racism on
the part of the people they're reporting on. If anything it's
evidence of their OWN racism - like Tony's.
The Extispicator|9.16.09 @ 12:37PM|#
That's the great thing about ad hominems and why they will
continute to be the #1 most popular logical fallacy: it's just so
easy!
"I don't like this policy for reasons A, B, C."
"You're just a racist!!" (no need to respond to A, B, and C).
The true genius of this ad hom is the fact that you can just say
they are secretly racist. That means not only can you
ignore A B and C, you don't even have to prove the ad hom itself.
Why didn't I think of this first?
economist|9.16.09 @ 12:38PM|#
"How quickly we forget what a racist Justice Sotomayor is
supposed to be"
Yeah. Saying that the results of a test should be thrown out
because too many many of the people who did well on it are of a
particular race isn't racist. But calling Barack Obama a liar is.
It's obvious.
Xeones|9.16.09 @ 12:39PM|#
Now carry on with calling anyone and everyone who supports
Obama a socialist/statist/fascist.
Oh come on, Tony. Not everyone who supports Obama is a socialist, a
statist, or a fascist. There are also well-meaning idiots.
|9.16.09 @ 12:40PM|#
It is not racist to oppose the President. But Joe Wilson is a racist, separate and apart from any opposition or support for any president. There, I said it.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 12:41PM|#
Wow Tony... there you go again being retarded. See why I include
you in these things?
1. Sotomayor very clearly is racist. Unless you suddenly
forgot.
2. Fascism/Socialism/Communism are sociopolitical theories &
philosophies you moron. If you are exhibiting the exact set of
beliefs that are best described by one of those words than those
words apply. Just because there's some well-earned stigma attached
to them doesn't make it less a specific ideology to which people
(like you) can subscribe. I could reduce all three of those to
state collectivism, but most people have even less understanding of
what that might mean. More to the point, picking a philosophy is a
goddamn choice. The color of your skin or what chromosomes you were
born with isn't. See the difference?
Tomcat1066|9.16.09 @ 12:42PM|#
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, and this time I won't. But it's so damn hard when someone has their head shoved as far up their own ass as Tony does, not to point it out.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 12:43PM|#
Also - perhaps you should ask yourself why you're so insulted to have your political philosophy correctly identified as socialist? If you think the socialist ideas are fantastic, wouldn't you publicly claim your socialism?
Tomcat1066|9.16.09 @ 12:43PM|#
"But Joe Wilson is a racist, separate and apart from any
opposition or support for any president."
[Citation Needed]
Phantom Limb|9.16.09 @ 12:45PM|#
Freaking brilliant:
"We"? Incredibly, Johnson speaks for tens of millions of African-Americans. ("We" Jews haven't been blessed with that kind of leadership since Moses.)
|9.16.09 @ 12:47PM|#
I just don't get it. The president won the election by a comfortable margin. He started off with high approval ratings, but has made a number of contradictory statements, has done very little to undo the abuses of the previous administration, has increased the deficit to dangerous levels, has attempted to expand the scope of government beyond what most Americans are comfortable with, has associated with and appointed people way outside the mainstream, and seems overall very much a not-ready-for-prime-time player. Either the country just noticed that the man is black, or the other factors have something to do with the opposition.
!|9.16.09 @ 12:48PM|#
Oh come on, Tony. Not everyone who supports Obama is a
socialist, a statist, or a fascist. There are also well-meaning
idiots.
And Communists, terrorist sympathizers, college
professors (oops, redundant) . . .
¢|9.16.09 @ 12:50PM|#
Remember when Obama was going to be the "post-racial"
president? It seems like, gee, only eight months ago or
so.
More like ten years ago. That's an image Obama abandoned after he
got creamed by a super-black guy who explicitly beat him as
such.
Since then, instead of being "post-racial," he's taken advantage of
the fact that white(r) people don't listen to him. They believe
he's whoever they decide he is, no matter what he says, so he
directs his pandering at constituencies he can't secure without
being theatrically racial, while white(r) people run
"post-racial"/"Racist!" interference for him.
I doubt he planned it that way, because he's stupid, but it's some
impressive game.
Art-P.O.G.|9.16.09 @ 12:51PM|#
Because a whiteface minstrel show is just as racist as a blackface minstrel show, of course.
I still think White Chicks was funny. Wrong, but funny. And the first 2/3 of Bamboozled was genius. And I'm going to have to recommend ego trip's Big Book of Racism even though I seem to be the only person ever to have read it.
economist|9.16.09 @ 12:58PM|#
"You guys are all just racist against Tony."
Yeah, it's true, I have a deep and abiding for arrogant
assholes.
Average Lefty Troll (Tony-bot)|9.16.09 @ 1:01PM|#
"has done very little to undo the abuses of the previous
administration"
THAT'S A LIE! HE'S JUST CLEANING UP THE MESS MADE BY THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION. BY DOING MORE IT! IF YOU WEREN'T SUCH STUPID
FREE-MARKET FUNDAMENTALISTS YOU COULD FIGURE THAT OUT!
ASSHOLEZ!
BakedPenguin|9.16.09 @ 1:04PM|#
But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air...
Fair or not, I read unwritten words in Dowd's column: "I'm a
middle-aged c**t who will say anything to discredit those with whom
I have political disagreements".
Is that fair?
Tman|9.16.09 @ 1:08PM|#
I've been trying to compare the Tea Party protests to the the
anti-war protests from a few years ago. They both have their fair
share of extreme far left/right wing lunacy, and the fringe
elements from both groups are nothing to be too proud of.
But what amazes me is how quickly the Tea Party protests are
discounted because of their fringe, while the left seemed to able
to avoid being smeared by their associated fringe.
And I'm not sure what the the lefty protesters were called instead
of racists. Was there anything as remotely smearing as this being
bandied about?
Neu Mejican|9.16.09 @ 1:10PM|#
R C Dean | September 16, 2009, 12:28pm | #
...
The persistence of the racism charges results, in part, from the
inept response to that charge.
No, it persists because those making the charge believe it is an
effective smear on their opponents.
I am glad we are in complete agreement.
Sean W.,
All the race-baiting needs to be condemned as strongly as the
actual racist messages. I found the contrast between the discussion
where the tea party supporters derailed the race-baiting with
condemnation of the racist messages and the one where the tea party
supporter tried to defend the movement against the charges stark.
One moved onto the issue the tea party is nominally organized
around, the other did a tit-for-tat game of "you're a racist,
you're a race-baiter" and never discussed the issue.
It is not thought crime to say: "Racist messages are not welcome at
your rallies."
Freedom of association includes freedom to disassociate yourself
from others.
|9.16.09 @ 1:18PM|#
"But Joe Wilson is a racist, separate and apart from any
opposition or support for any president."
[Citation Needed]"
That's trick. Whatever citation I provide will be insufficient for
you. Despite his love affair with Strom Thurmond and his feelings
of pride for the confederate flag, it does not appear that Wilson
was involved in the KKK.
More importantly (separate from Joe Wilson's profane personality),
Joe Wilson's complete assholery has made it more difficult to
convince sane people that Obama's health care reform is a bad
idea.
|9.16.09 @ 1:24PM|#
obviously racist messages (Obama as
witchdoctor,etc
I just realized that when Bush 41 referred to "voodoo economics,"
he was being obviously racist.
|9.16.09 @ 1:24PM|#
"Either the country just noticed that the man is black, or
the other factors have something to do with the
opposition."
The Republicans spent 8 years screaming at the top of their lungs
that you CANNOT criticize the president, especially during a time
of war! Then they turn around and treat the next President like a
hobo with a soap box. I believe it is pure hypocrisy rather than
racism. They were disingenuous back then, and they continue to be.
The Ron Paul fringe is the only part of the party worth saving.
|9.16.09 @ 1:28PM|#
Pro Libertate,
Obama won an election against a President who had an approval
rating in the 20% range. Yeah, I am saying he was running against
Bush, because that was basically the case. And he still only
garnered 53% of the popular vote. I was singularly unimpressed with
that.
|9.16.09 @ 1:32PM|#
I would say that the more most of the pundit class tries to push this meme about racism and criticism of Obama the worse it is for Obama's Presidency. People quickly get fed up with that sort of stuff after a while and it doesn't rub off well on the person which it is ostensibly meant to protect.
Alice Bowie|9.16.09 @ 1:34PM|#
The administration's policy initiatives have provoked authentic
anger and protest.
Yea right. These people were a-ok with $11billion a month on war
and Bushes other policies. In fact, Bush was the FOUNDING
FORE-FATHER of BANK bailouts.
What i find is sad for the conservatives/libertarians that are not
racist is that they are associated with ones that are. In fact, the
majority of the protestors on TV are.
Keep in mind, White America voted in the Nigger. That was pretty
big.
What u r seeing on TV is the White America that didn't. And it
wouldn't be america without those people. And as much as I woulod
hate to see it ... it wouldn't be america if one of those people
didn't try to take Obama out. And I hope that doesn't happen. Many
on TV said that they don't wish for his assassination because they
are afraid of getting another black paid holiday out of it...and it
would be bad for business.
Alice Bowie|9.16.09 @ 1:36PM|#
I'm all for Obama. I hope he succeeds.
But many people in America...the classic America really hates the
guy.
I know that many libertarians don't hate him bcause he's
black...they hate his policies. That argument is marginalized by
the fact that they are associated with likes of the Nigger
haters.
Go-Obama. Do your best !!!
|9.16.09 @ 1:38PM|#
Lamar,
I think that's not entirely fair. The GOP rank and file weren't
exactly thrilled with Bush's spending, especially the bailout. And
Obama and Congress have really left the reservation on what they
have done and want to do with government spending. As much as the
Bush administration disturbed me, this administration, with a
largely compliant Congress, is beginning to frighten me. Of course,
today's government is built upon the abuses and expansion of power
of its predecessors, particularly the most recent.
Seward,
He still had relatively good approval ratings at the outset, though
I agree that the idea that he was ever hugely popular with the
center (let alone the right) is a myth.
I've seen a few of the resident leftists try to conflate this
situation with Bush's. Again, it's not the same. We have all the
badness of Bush, with spending that is many times higher than
anything that occurred then. USA Patriot renewed, rendition
ongoing, taking over the auto industry, attempting to socialize
medicine, driving the deficit through the roof, frequent lies,
constant fear-mongering, etc.
Bush sucked. Now we've got Bush++.
Art-P.O.G.|9.16.09 @ 1:39PM|#
Jeebus, Alice, you sure say "nigger" a lot. Are you trying to be an 'honorary black man?' :p
tekende|9.16.09 @ 1:41PM|#
In fact, the majority of the protestors on TV
are.
Many on TV said that they don't wish for his assassination
because they are afraid of getting another black paid holiday out
of it...and it would be bad for business.
I assume you have unassailable proof for both of these ridiculous
statements, yes?
|9.16.09 @ 1:41PM|#
Pro Libertate,
He still had relatively good approval ratings at the
outset...
Most Presidents do. It is the tactful thing to do; to be less than
honest with the President in his first few months in office.
I think the 2008 election was the anti-Bush election, not the
pro-Obama election.
|9.16.09 @ 1:42PM|#
"Yeah, it's true, I have a deep and abiding for arrogant
assholes.:
You may be in the wrong place.
|9.16.09 @ 1:43PM|#
"I think that's not entirely fair. The GOP rank and file
weren't exactly thrilled with Bush's spending, especially the
bailout."
I agree, but I think they generally adhered to the Reaganite 'never
speak ill of another Republican' mold. They weren't going to speak
out against the President, and they were going to call it treason
if the Democrats did.
Alice Bowie|9.16.09 @ 1:44PM|#
What I find sad is how so many libertarin/conservative people
who are not racist play down the racist claims. The claims are
real. The People at the TEA PARTY did NOT vote for Obama.
It is obvious what this is. And, many of them are hiding behind the
'just because i'm against his policies doesn't make me a racist'
argument.
|9.16.09 @ 1:45PM|#
Oh, and I'm still of the opinion that we will have three one term Presidents in a row.
|9.16.09 @ 1:49PM|#
Lamar,
Well, enough votes could not be gotten to bail out the autos. Now,
I am not quite sure how that split by party line, I would imagine
that a lot of Republicans opposed it.
Tomcat1066|9.16.09 @ 1:49PM|#
"That's trick. Whatever citation I provide will be insufficient
for you. Despite his love affair with Strom Thurmond and his
feelings of pride for the confederate flag, it does not appear that
Wilson was involved in the KKK. "
Really? You know me that well? That's fucking hysterical.
I want a fucking citation because I know dick about Wilson and, if
he's actually showing something that is akin to racism (and the
confederate flag ain't gonna cut it by itself, but the Strom
Thurmond might), I'd like to know.
So fuck you for just assuming that you know my motives.
|9.16.09 @ 1:51PM|#
Lamar,
In my opinion, one big problem with U.S. politics and government is
the unwillingness of voters, commentators, and politicians to call
out their own when they've done something wrong. If the GOP had
turned on Bush over the spending issue alone, they likely would've
retained control over the government. Instead, they just said
rah-rah. Like the Democrats are doing now.
Tman|9.16.09 @ 1:51PM|#
Alice,
What about all the black people at the Tea Party rallies? Are they
racists too?
Ramal|9.16.09 @ 1:53PM|#
The Republicans spent 8 years screaming at the top of their lungs that you CANNOT criticize the president, especially during a time of war!
And the Dems spent those same years booing and heckling Bush during
his State of the Union addresses, calling him a "liar" over every
little disagreement while playing up the patently phony accusations
of a certain traitor and liar named Joe Wilson and those of his
seditious wife Valerie Plame. So, when are Stark, Pelosi, Reid,
Frank, and all those other Social Security reform-blocking
hypocrites going to be rebuked for their scandalous lack of decorum
and refusal to apologize?
Lamar, you and all leftists are known traitors and liars. That's
why you always support the likes of Hussein and Zelaya against more
honorable men (such as Bush and the Hondurans, respectively) who
remove them. Now sit down and shut up, you commie hypocrite; I know
your pants are on fire, but I still won't piss on you even to put
them out.
Here's hoping those tea partiers throw out all the Democrats and
half the Republicans (the
Buchanan/Paul/Greenwald/Raimondo/Sullivan/Specter/Powell half,
specifically).
Antalice|9.16.09 @ 1:54PM|#
Keep in mind, White America voted in the Nigger. That was pretty big.
Bitch, please.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 1:57PM|#
Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..... Also, the media *DID* criticize Bush all the time, which I think is also why a lot of Republicans probably didn't feel the need to be so vocal. Newspeople were equally incompetent at asking anything substantive, likely owing to their inbreeding, but they at least tried. With Obama, the only way anyone who's pissed off feels like they get a voice at all is by going to protest rallies. Most of these people probably never considered going to one until last year anyway.
!|9.16.09 @ 1:57PM|#
What about all the black people at the Tea Party rallies?
Are they racists too?
The non-racist Leftoids call them Uncle Toms and house negros. Ask
Harry Bellefante.
matt2|9.16.09 @ 1:58PM|#
(the
Buchanan/Paul/Greenwald/Raimondo/Sullivan/Specter/Powell half,
specifically).
One of these things is not like the others.
tekende|9.16.09 @ 1:58PM|#
What about all the black people at the Tea Party rallies?
Are they racists too?
Oh yeah, that reminds me. I went to a Tea Party/protest/whatever on
Sunday here in Oklahoma City. The guy who seemed to be running
things (or at least, he was the one introducing the speakers), was
black.
But I guess he's a racist too.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 1:59PM|#
Course, it also occurs to me that "Bush doesn't care about black
people" was some kind of meme a few years back too ;)
Some people are just interested in finding racism wherever they go.
Most of the asshole pundits for example.
|9.16.09 @ 2:01PM|#
Pro Libertate,
I think the major problem is that most people have such bizarre
ideas of what are and are not good policies. Of course I am a
devotee of Bryan Caplan.
So like, don't vote:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/mercatus-center-scholar-bryan-caplan-on-abcs-2020/4039668280/?icid=VIDURVNWS04
Twisted Nerve|9.16.09 @ 2:02PM|#
Alice, you're right, libertarians shouldn't be playing down
racist sentiments.
Let me start…. Alice Bowie, you racist ass. I condemn you!
Two racial epithets and one racist "joke" in the span of a few
short minutes, pathetic.
In fact, the comfort with which you utter this ugliness, convinces
me that not just you but your family are all racists. Shame and
calumny be upon you.
The Man|9.16.09 @ 2:07PM|#
The idea that disagreement with Obama is racially motivated is
laughable in the face of the results of the 2008 presidential
election.
A black president was elected by 43% of the white voters and 95% of
black voters. The losing white candidate lost with 55% of the white
vote and 4% of the black vote. The black candidate split the white
vote almost equally so in order to call racism on the white voters
who voted McCain we would have to assume that policy meant nothing.
That's just stupid. The US is not a racist state and the recent
election demonstrates that pretty conclusively.
Racism does not play well in white America. Whites were about 1.3
times more likely to vote white than black (55% to 43%). Blacks
however were 24 times more likely to vote black than white (95% to
4%), i.e. blacks voted race 18 times more frequently than
whites.
Using charges of racism to support the president's agenda will not
win him any new white supporters or lose him any idealogical fellow
travelers but it *is* likely to shore up wavering support among
those black voters who see a clansmen under every bed. It's a
relatively risk free tactic that plays to the progressives'
continuing narrative of white racism. Business as usual, yes.
Change we can believe in, not so much.
|9.16.09 @ 2:08PM|#
Okay fine. Now carry on with calling anyone and everyone who
supports Obama a socialist/statist/fascist.
Nope, just the ones like you who actually understand what's going
on and support it.
What you hate is that most people are not like you and can
be educated. It's why you have to rely on things like false claims
of racism to try to stop people from hearing the truth.
What I love is how easy it is to refute and how easy it is to see
through by everyone. It's not flying anymore.
So please keep at it:)
|9.16.09 @ 2:14PM|#
The claims are real. The People at the TEA PARTY did NOT
vote for Obama.
Jeepers you're confused. Stupid less please.
By your logic everyone who voted for Obama is a racist too because
they didn't vote for McCain. And agist too cus McCain is old. And
every voter is sexist because Hillary wasn't on the ballot.
And anyway lots of Tea Party people did vote for Obama. They just
finally figured out what the hell Obama is.
There needs to be an IQ test to post here.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 2:15PM|#
The man:
While, I do think it's fair to say that race was a much greater
factor in the way that most blacks voted than whites, merely
presenting election numbers doesn't support that, since you are de
facto concluding that race was the motivating factor for everyone
involved. If 55% of White voters preferred Obama, that could simply
mean that they preferred what he represented to them in terms of
policy.
Frankly, I think that's a load of horseshit, and I do
think that race was a positive factor for Obama in both black &
white communities, and I believe that the majority of Obama's
campaign success can be explained by clever sloganeering and
Will.I.Am... That said, merely citing election results doesn't
support such a claim.
|9.16.09 @ 2:19PM|#
Because a whiteface minstrel show is just as racist as a
blackface minstrel show, of course.
Batman was a minstrel show? I don't recall any musicals
done by the Joker, although maybe he did kind of sing in a scene or
two.
CH|9.16.09 @ 2:23PM|#
When someone dislikes Liberal policies, especially with a black
man in office, that person is going to be called a racist.
When someone dislikes Conservative policies, especially with a
white Jesus-freak in office, that person is going to be called a
Godless terrorist.
This is the state of political discourse in this country, and as
much as I'd like to blame Liberals or Conservatives or the
mainstream media or the Freemasons or Bildeburgers or whoever it is
that people are currently blaming, the real problem is that America
is absolutely crawling with semi-retarded morons who nonetheless
insist on voting.
The most racist thing the GOP has done this year? Appoint Michael
Steele to be the head of the RNC, AFTER Obama was elected. "Oh, you
want black guys? We've got one too!"
Cunts. Failures.
Alice Bowie|9.16.09 @ 2:25PM|#
The black guy in the Tea party is the same as the 95 year old
uncle of Morton Downey Jr who smoked 2 packs of Luckies per
day.
The VAST majority of people at the Tea Party did NOT vote
Obama.
That's what I'm saying. And, these same people have no problem with
Bush spending $11billion per month. They are more concerned with a
Liberal Black Guy in Office.
It just wouldn't be america without these people.
Tony|9.16.09 @ 2:28PM|#
1. Sotomayor very clearly is racist. Unless you suddenly forgot.
You moron. Are you just fucking with me or are you actually able to
hold this thought in your head while simultaneously pretending
there's not a racist among the teabaggers and trashing anyone who
dares point out there might be? Jesus Christ lay off the
Limbaugh.
2. Fascism/Socialism/Communism are sociopolitical theories & philosophies you moron. If you are exhibiting the exact set of beliefs that are best described by one of those words than those words apply. Just because there's some well-earned stigma attached to them doesn't make it less a specific ideology to which people (like you) can subscribe. I could reduce all three of those to state collectivism, but most people have even less understanding of what that might mean. More to the point, picking a philosophy is a goddamn choice. The color of your skin or what chromosomes you were born with isn't. See the difference?
Not very much difference when you're just throwing
emotionally-laden labels out in order to discredit someone.
|9.16.09 @ 2:31PM|#
Here's the logic of progressives:
Basically, they think everyone should feel a moral obligation to
provide welfare programs for the poor, and that the simple obvious
solution is for it to be provided by a government program from tax
dollars. Secondly, many of the protestors would not be the ones
paying most of the taxes (they think), so they can't be opposed to
it based on self-interest. Thirdly, a disproportionate number of
the recipients are minorities. Hence, the only likely reason for
poor or middle class white people to oppose state-run welfare
programs must be racism. Finally, there's also the academic
position in ethnic studies deparments that an action is racist if
the EFFECT is racist even if the motivations of the individual are
not... so the protestors are racist because they have the EFFECT of
denying benefits that would disproportionately accrue to
non-whites.
Now, obviously, we vcan see shades of "false consciousness" in
that. And so forth.
But what's really missing in any serious consideration of the
possibility that there might be other rational reasons to oppose
government run welfare programs aside from sheer self-interest. A
near total blindness to the unintended consequences of such
programs, the possible alternative ways of delivering aid to the
poor, and the effect on the overall economy that results from
enlargement of the public sector.
Are most of those protestors intellectual enoguh to get all that?
Probably not. But they do get the very basic common sense
proposition that you cannot spend your way to prosperity, and you
cannot borrow money indefinitely without having to pay it back at
some point.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 2:33PM|#
"That's what I'm saying. And, these same people have no problem with Bush spending $11billion per month."
I for one, and most everyone I know who is
republican DID have a problem with that though
Alice!
Everyone was pissed. Fuck, even Limbaugh railed against it. Bush
closed his presidency with a 22% approval rating for godsake. NO
one thought he was good, or did good things, and everyone
I know who have republican tendencies, excepting a few morons, were
furious with the bailouts, etc.
They are concerned with the fact that every single person; man,
woman or child in America is on the fucking hook for over $300,000
of government debt & unfunded liabilities and the president who
just showed up seems intent on not only not fixing
that problem, but actively making it worse.
The fact that you see racism in that highly justified anger says
more about you than it does about anyone else.
|9.16.09 @ 2:35PM|#
And, these same people have no problem with Bush spending
$11billion per month. They are more concerned with a Liberal Black
Guy in Office.
How do you know that? How do you know these weren't the Republicans
who stayed home in disgust or voted Obama because they were sick of
the spending under Bush?
Tony|9.16.09 @ 2:40PM|#
Okay, you're a delusional hypocrite if you can out of one side of your mouth call Justice Sotomayor a racist and then bitch about the race card being played out the other.
anonymous|9.16.09 @ 2:45PM|#
"Yea right. These people were a-ok with $11billion a month on
war and Bushes other policies. In fact, Bush was the FOUNDING
FORE-FATHER of BANK bailouts."
Yeah, plus, where was all the outrage from the GOP when Bill
Clinton tried to implement a big healthcare plan? Oh, but now that
a black president is doing it, suddenly Big Government is
a bad thing. The racism is so obvious it's laughable that anyone
protests.
|9.16.09 @ 2:46PM|#
Okay, you're a delusional hypocrite if you can out of one
side of your mouth call Justice Sotomayor a racist and then bitch
about the race card being played out the other.
Alternatively, your a delusional hypocrite if you bitched about
Sotomayor being called racist, and then proceeded to play the race
card against Obama critics.
Hypocrisy abounds.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 2:48PM|#
Tony, do you honestly not understand what racism is?
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
-Sotomayor
Are you honestly so retarded that you can't understand that someone
saying that - as a product of their racial background - they would
make better decisions than someone who is of a different racial
background, is racist?
By fucking definition?
Shorter Sotomayor: My race makes me more qualified than that guy's
race.
WTF.
If you don't even know what the word racism means, then maybe it
explains why you are so often racist without even recognizing it,
Tony.
|9.16.09 @ 2:49PM|#
I know that many libertarians don't hate him bcause he's black...they hate his policies. That argument is marginalized by the fact that they are associated with likes of the Nigger haters.
And the antiwar folks were associated with the likes of Jew haters.
Therefore, unless you're pro-Iraq war, you're a Nazi. Stupid
argument? Yes.
Tony|9.16.09 @ 2:58PM|#
Sean,
It's so rich when people who deny racism exists at the levels it
does finally decide to get up in arms about racism when they
perceive it against white people.
If you actually think Justice Sotomayor is racist against white
people you are a moron who listens to too much right-wing
propaganda.
anonymous|9.16.09 @ 2:58PM|#
"Shorter Sotomayor: My race makes me more qualified than that
guy's race."
Strictly speaking, I think she's saying that growing up on the ass
end of society (which she attributes to her race in part) gives
more of a sense of fairness than growing in privilege and wealth.
The fact that she assumes elderly white justices must have been
trust fund kids may be racist, but the sentiment itself is less
racist than it appears.
Jordan|9.16.09 @ 3:04PM|#
Yeah, plus, where was all the outrage from the GOP when Bill Clinton tried to implement a big healthcare plan?
Is this a joke? Clinton's healthcare proposal went down in flames.
Oh, and you might also remember that at the time Clinton made his
push for healthcare, he hadn't already saddled us with crushing
debt and nationalized an entire industry and 2 car companies.
|9.16.09 @ 3:04PM|#
When one looks at the entire history of this country it is hard to escape the fact that no single entity has promoted racism more than the Democratic Party (slavery, KKK, Jim Crow).
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 3:11PM|#
"It's so rich when people who deny racism exists at the
levels it does"
That's not my point though Tony. My point was always, and remains
that the tea party thing isn't motivated primarily by racism - and
it isn't. It's motivated by an endless stream of what the fuckery
by government. Now including Obama. Also including Bush.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 3:11PM|#
"Strictly speaking, I think she's saying that growing up on
the ass end of society (which she attributes to her race in part)
gives more of a sense of fairness than growing in privilege and
wealth."
Than she should have said that. This is not what she said. She made
it a race issue, and not a life-experience or wealth issue.
The Man|9.16.09 @ 3:13PM|#
Sean W. Malone:
The raw figures indicate that blacks, in the 2008 presidential
election, voted race 18 times for frequently than whites. This is
historical fact. With regard to the underlying factors that lead to
this result there certainly can be legitimate differences of
opinion and I agree that race could be a positive factor for some
whites and some blacks. It is also possible to envision a situation
where 95% of blacks and 55% of whites agreed, on the basis of
policy, that Obama was the best man for the job.
But the last 30 years of election results indicate that the US
electorate is almost evenly split between conservatives and
liberals and giving even moderate weight to these historical
political positions still leaves a substantial "race differential"
with blacks voting race more frequently than whites. I could be
more quantitative, but I suspect that won't be persuasive.
The claim I made was simply that accusing people who disagree with
the president of racism is good politics. I think that the fact
that it is a tactic used so frequently by very skilled politicians
supports *that* claim.
Tman|9.16.09 @ 3:15PM|#
I find it hilarious that Alice can sit here and call all the
black people who attended the Tea Parties "the same as the 95 year
old uncle of Morton Downey Jr who smoked 2 packs of Luckies per
day." - and somehow WE'RE the racists.
The hypocrisy is simply overwhelming.
Good times.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 3:16PM|#
Also - in any event, Polylogism is fucking retarded. The correctness of an idea does not depend on who is saying the idea or what their background is. That's straight up Marxism yo.
Douglas Gray|9.16.09 @ 3:20PM|#
I'd much rather have Larry Elder, the black, conservative talk show host, as president than Obama, his color is no issue at all.
|9.16.09 @ 3:21PM|#
It isn't bad enough that these fucking jerkoffs have to play amateur psychiatrist. But they're "practicing" on people they've never met and wouldn't even consider talking to.
Tony|9.16.09 @ 3:23PM|#
The raw figures indicate that blacks, in the 2008 presidential election, voted race 18 times for frequently than whites. This is historical fact.
Blacks vote Democratic in huge numbers regardless of race. If
slightly more voted for Obama than usual, is it all that shocking?
Were all the whites who voted for the previous 43 presidents voting
on race too?
Tomcat1066|9.16.09 @ 3:29PM|#
Seriously Sean, why do you do this? You and I both know that Tony has his head so far up his ass, he has to fart to see the computer screen, so why even pretend he's worth debating?
|9.16.09 @ 3:33PM|#
"Really? You know me that well? That's fucking hysterical. I
want a fucking citation because I know dick about Wilson and, if
he's actually showing something that is akin to racism (and the
confederate flag ain't gonna cut it by itself, but the Strom
Thurmond might), I'd like to know."
If you needed a citation, then you don't really know much about Joe
Wilson. Nevertheless, I cited to his relationship to Strom Thurmond
and his support for the Confederate flag. He also publicly went off
on Strom Thurmond's black daughter. And while his membership in the
Sons of Confederate Veterans doesn't mean he is racist, that
organization has been criticized as "thinly veiled"
white supremacists. Let's also not forget that Wilson comes
from a time when racism was acceptable, and he clearly wasn't on
the leading edge of civil rights reform.
Tomcat1066|9.16.09 @ 3:38PM|#
A relationship to Strom Thurmond is, in and of itself,
irrelevant. What kind of support for Old Strom did he give. Quotes?
I mean, he could well have a relationship with a racist without
actually being one. Especially since, IIRC, Strom has said that he
changed his mind.
And I know a lot of members of the Sons of Confederate
Veterans...some of which are indeed racist, and some of them
aren't. (I can't open that particular link at the moment, but I do
intend to check it out and see what they're saying)
As for Wilson going off on Thurmond's black daughter, that would be
a big step in that direction. However, you just saying it doesn't
make it a citation. Got a link or something other than your
word?
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 3:41PM|#
" I want a fucking citation because I know dick about Wilson"
then...
"If you needed a citation, then you don't really know much about Joe Wilson."
Isn't that what he just said? Funny. Can I just throw this out
there though? Let's just theorize that Wilson is a racist. Does
that have any bearing on whether or not Obama's speech was chock
full of lies? Does that have any bearing on whether or not it
should be ok for our elected representatives to criticize the
president?
Say he wasn't a racist. Would it matter then??
The thing that pisses me off personally about constantly having to
deal with charges of racism flying about is that there are
legitimate arguments being made. The President did spend an entire
speech talking out of both sides of his mouth and dare I say it,
yes, did lie. Politicians lie all the time - and now you can't even
say that they do in the halls of congress? And if you say that this
one does you're a racist? Wtf.
Andy|9.16.09 @ 3:43PM|#
I agree that Wilson isn't racist, but the same can't be said of the tea-baggers. Why weren't they protesting when AIG was given $85 billion? Why didn't they ask for the birth certificate for Bush? Why was it only when Obama took office did they start protesting on the street, when really it was Paulson, under Bush, who instigated the bank bailout?
Tomcat1066|9.16.09 @ 3:44PM|#
Isn't that what he just said? Funny.
Yeah, I just chalked it up to Tomcat's Law.
DGB|9.16.09 @ 3:49PM|#
OK, how about when Sen. Chambliss called Pres. Obama
"uppity"?
How about when Limbaugh played "Barack the magic negro"?
How about when a California R party official sends e-mails of
"Obama food stamps" with pictures of fried chicken &
watermelon?
How about when a Tennessee R party official sends an e-mail with
pictures of all the presidents, and in the 44th spot is nothing put
a pair of eyes against a black background?
How the crazy lady who said a "big black man" carved a "B" on her
forehead?
How about the signs that said, "N***** please, it's called the
WHITE house!"?
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Race Baiting for Dummies|9.16.09 @ 3:51PM|#
"The President did spend an entire speech talking out of both
sides of his mouth and dare I say it, yes, did lie"
Racist!
|9.16.09 @ 3:51PM|#
Tomcat1066 - Sean W. Malone has correctly pointed out that I
misread your post. I had it 180 degrees backward.
You've said a couple of times that X or Y "in and of itself"
doesn't mean he's a racist, and I agree. But Joe Wilson has been a
huge Strom supporter, an attack dog against his black daughter,
affiliated with the 'is it or isn't it' Sons of the Confederacy.
And call me cynical, but I don't think Strom Thurmond changed his
mind about anything except what it took to get elected. Perhaps
that's why Joe Wilson loves Strom so much, he was successful in
getting past his racism to be successful in office.
|9.16.09 @ 3:53PM|#
Sean W. Malone - at 12:40pm I stated that whether Joe Wilson is racist (and I think he is but hides it as he should; no macaca moments yet) has nothing to do with his contempt for a Democratic president.
Race Baiting for Dummies|9.16.09 @ 3:55PM|#
"Because a whiteface minstrel show is just as racist as a
blackface minstrel show, of course."
But we have the right minstrel in charge now, right?
Tony|9.16.09 @ 3:55PM|#
The stupid thing is if Wilson had a (D) after his name and were black Sean would have no problem calling him a racist based on the flimsiest of evidence.
|9.16.09 @ 4:01PM|#
I agree that Wilson isn't racist, but the same can't be said
of the tea-baggers.
Yep, every single one of them, a racist. Including the black
ones.
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Clearly, in a nation of over 300 million people, a handful of
anecdotes are all the evidence anyone needs.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 4:04PM|#
Lamar - you could very well be right... I don't know Joe Wilson
or his internal beliefs on race or anything else for that matter. I
hadn't even heard of him until the other day, as I'm sure many
people didn't. But I keep trying to figure out why it even
matters.
And sort of - towards stuff NM has been talking about on this and
other threads - what I really don't get is the racism as ad
hominem.
I mean, we get into pretty heated debates on Hit & Run all the
time, and we all call each other names. I called Tony a moron
earlier (a particularly weak epithet for how I usually think about
that guy) - but I still explain WHY he's wrong.
If someone's a racist - ok... Fine. But did Obama lie? Yeah. Sure
did. So I guess I just don't get why we can't talk about that. Even
if Joe Wilson was racist - even if EVERYONE is racist... Isn't it
still important to actually debate what people are talking
about??
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 4:05PM|#
"The stupid thing is if Wilson had a (D) after his name and
were black Sean would have no problem calling him a racist based on
the flimsiest of evidence."
Right, because that's clearly what I've done.
Tony|9.16.09 @ 4:07PM|#
Right, because that's clearly what I've done.
What you've done is bend over backward to defend Wilson from the
race card despite the evidence presented while on the same thread
claiming it's patently obvious that Sonia Sotomayor is a racist
based on a single comment.
Race Baiting for Dummies|9.16.09 @ 4:07PM|#
@ Alice Bowie
I've read enough of your posts to determine that you are really
quite creepy. How sad for you.
|9.16.09 @ 4:08PM|#
Sean W. Malone, I agree with that. I was saying the same thing. Joe Wilson's racism (whether it exists or not, and you know my position on it) is separate and apart from his lack of etiquette.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 4:08PM|#
Also, it's clear that I love the Republicans. That's why I
voted for Bush spent the last several years railing
against everything from the Patriot Act to excessive spending by
Republican assholes to the laughable calls for corporatism in the
guise of "free market" economics. Fail Tony... Fail.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 4:09PM|#
"What you've done is bend over backward to defend Wilson
from the race card"
Find me one fucking instance where I've done this. Jesus you're a
fool.
Ben Rast|9.16.09 @ 4:10PM|#
In 1775, the Englishman Samuel Johnson made the famous
pronouncement, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a
scoundrel."
Today, scoundrels can't rely on patriotism. It is too out of favor
to provide much of a refuge.
Were Mr. Johnson alive today, he would most likely say "A charge of
racism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 4:12PM|#
And the comment of Sotomayors was NOT an isolated comment as
anyone who was alive a few months ago could remember. It also was
backed up by the Ricci v. DeStefano case.
It's also a clear exposition of a philosophical position in her
own words, whereas "You Lie" isn't. At all.
And on top of that, I repeatedly said that I don't know what Wilson
thinks about anything cause I've never heard of the dude until the
other day - and I specifically agreed with Lamar that he "very well
could be" racist. So... Yeah, Tony. STFU.
Race Baiting for Dummies|9.16.09 @ 4:13PM|#
"e guy who seemed to be running things (or at least, he was the
one introducing the speakers), was black.
But I guess he's a racist too."
All blacks are. It's in their DNA.
Race Baiting for Dummies|9.16.09 @ 4:24PM|#
"I'd much rather have Larry Elder, the black, conservative talk
show host, as president than Obama, his color is no issue at
all."
The darker the Larry, the sweeter the juice.
Neu Mejican|9.16.09 @ 4:32PM|#
Sean W.,
And the comment of Sotomayors was NOT an isolated comment as
anyone who was alive a few months ago could remember. It also was
backed up by the Ricci v. DeStefano case.
This is pretty thin gruel, I must say. The case for the Justice as
racist is just so much confirmation bias. Similar in terms of
validity to what is happening when people use the "you didn't vote
for Obama, therefore you were motivated by racism" charges.
Paul|9.16.09 @ 4:34PM|#
I heard President Carter's remarks on NPR, today. President Carter can go fuck himself. That is all.
|9.16.09 @ 4:35PM|#
Why can't both sides see the grain of truth in what the other is
saying?
I mean, it's seems completely plausible that the worst of the
opposition to Obama is motivated by race. By the worst, I mean the
ugliest, most vile stuff (I would disagree with President Carter
that this represents an "overwhelming portion" of the opposition).
Even if it can't be shown with enough confidence, it certainly
should be acknowledged that much of the rhetoric coming from
protesters is over the top stuff, which shouldn't be swept under
the carpet.
It's also true that the left is willfully ignoring or dismissing
sound arguments offered by those with skeptical concerns in favor
of focusing on sideshow acts.
Paul|9.16.09 @ 4:38PM|#
The persistence of the racism charges results, in part, from
the inept response to that charge.
On NPR during the BBC segment, the British reporter noted that
racism has existed in America's history, therefore...
With reporting like that, I weep for journalism.
Neu Mejican|9.16.09 @ 4:40PM|#
Jay J,
Beyond that, those making sound arguments associate themselves with
the more vile stuff at the peril of their message.
A cynic would point out that the more the opposition is afraid of
the sound arguments, the more they would WANT to deflect attention
to it towards the sideshow. When you have your sound argument
firmly ensconced with or surrounded by the side show, you make the
oppositions job just that much easier.
Paul|9.16.09 @ 4:42PM|#
I mean, it's seems completely plausible that the worst of
the opposition to Obama is motivated by race. By the worst, I mean
the ugliest, most vile stuff
By the worst I would assume you mean depictions of Obama with the
word "nigger" below them, and visages of Obama being lynched by
hood-wearing Klansmen? Yeah, that's motivated by race. But when a
guy is carrying a sign which reads "I'm not your ATM", I'm really
trying to see the irrefutable proof that it's motivated by race.
*looking menacingly at President Carter*
|9.16.09 @ 4:42PM|#
On NPR during the BBC segment, the British reporter noted that racism has existed in America's history, therefore...
Well, see, Paul, it shocks them, of course, because there's
absolutely no racism in Britain.
Paul|9.16.09 @ 4:44PM|#
because there's absolutely no racism in Britain.
Or Europe as a whole, really...
|9.16.09 @ 4:44PM|#
To clarify, why doesn't someone in a leadership position on the
right do some Sista Soujah stuff on the people who are hateful
toward Obama? That would clear up any confusion, and then this
person could ask why the Dems are ignoring sound arguments offered
by those worried about this brand of health care reform.
You know, like, "those still confused about whether Obama is a
citizen are out to lunch, he's not a Muslim (not that there's
anything prima facie wrong with that), and he seems like a nice
family man. Now, our concerns are A, B, and C, and no good response
has come from proponents of this brand of health care
reform."
If no major republicans are willing to risk a backlash from the
crazies by slamming their cherished delusions, then this is at
least partially why this cloud of accused racism hangs over us.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 4:46PM|#
"This is pretty thin gruel, I must say. The case for the
Justice as racist is just so much confirmation bias."
Meh. This may be a broad stroke, but anyone who clearly expresses
polylogism as a legitimate epistemological foundation for her
ideas, that generates my immediate suspicion. And sure, after that
point, I'm obviously more aware of subsequent statements &
actions. But I think it's important to understand the philosophical
underpinnings of racism - and one of the biggest of all is the idea
that people of different races or cultural backgrounds experience
entirely different "truths" than other people. From there, it's
only a short step to say that "my" truths are better or somehow
more valid than "yours". From there, it's even easier to start
trying to force mine on you or make decisions based on those
ideas.
When someone says that by nature of their race, that they should be
lauded for making different decisions than others, that's a massive
red flag.
|9.16.09 @ 4:49PM|#
Paul,
You offer obvious examples of racism. Then you offer a relatively
benign political message. I've seen quite a bit that rises way
above the benign example you offer, but falls short of the
obviously racist one you offer.
Neu,
I agree that the Dems are motivated this way, and that is cynical.
It's also cynical of the right to be afraid of their crazies (it
seems to me that even this Blog is going out of its way lately to
avoid acknowledging the seemingly permanent presence of the crazies
at these events lately).
Tony|9.16.09 @ 4:49PM|#
Good post Jay J. But I think the problem is there is no real leadership on the right, on a national level. You do the Sistah Souljah thing when you're trying to appeal to moderates. Congressmen in districts they likely got gerrymandered for themselves have every motivation to appeal to the prevailing sentiment of those who inhabit those districts and are reliable voters.
Tony|9.16.09 @ 4:51PM|#
Sean,
I think Sotomayor was arguing that one's experiences are the
important factor in informing wisdom--race being one of those
experiences.
|9.16.09 @ 4:53PM|#
Tony,
Agreed on your post in response to me.
As for the one in response to Sean, well, do you agree that if
that's what Sotomayor was going for, that she said it rather
inelegantly?
Tony|9.16.09 @ 4:56PM|#
Yeah and she said as much. That said, if that's the best Obama's enemies could come up with I'd say his vetting is darned impressive.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 4:57PM|#
If that's what she was going for, then it was spoken incredibly
poorly. But I still reject the idea that sound reasoning is somehow
a product of culture. The annoying thing is that that is
the actually anti-racist position to take.
If some white guy came up to me and said he was intrinsically
smarter or more wise than a comparably qualified dude from
Columbia, it's just as stupid and incorrect. Everyone has rich
experiences, especially those who take the time to learn from
them.
|9.16.09 @ 4:59PM|#
"Yeah and she said as much."
Agreed. The literal meaning of what she originally said was
actually rather inelegant, to say the least. But she virtually
disowned the statement in her hearings. So I don't see an issue
here, though I have had some on the left defend what she originally
said, *in it's original form.* But oh well.
|9.16.09 @ 5:02PM|#
Sean,
I think the left and the right have abstract disagreements over
whether sound reasoning is all that's required to be a good jurist.
That would have been a more interesting discussion to see play out,
IMHO.
But IF it's true that more than sound reasoning is needed, then the
charitable interpretation of what Sotomayor said sound OK; it's the
axiomatic disagreement that's interesting.
Tomcat1066|9.16.09 @ 5:03PM|#
You've said a couple of times that X or Y "in and of itself"
doesn't mean he's a racist, and I agree. But Joe Wilson has been a
huge Strom supporter, an attack dog against his black daughter,
affiliated with the 'is it or isn't it' Sons of the Confederacy.
And call me cynical, but I don't think Strom Thurmond changed his
mind about anything except what it took to get elected. Perhaps
that's why Joe Wilson loves Strom so much, he was successful in
getting past his racism to be successful in office.You've said
a couple of times that X or Y "in and of itself" doesn't mean he's
a racist, and I agree. But Joe Wilson has been a huge Strom
supporter, an attack dog against his black daughter, affiliated
with the 'is it or isn't it' Sons of the Confederacy. And call me
cynical, but I don't think Strom Thurmond changed his mind about
anything except what it took to get elected. Perhaps that's why Joe
Wilson loves Strom so much, he was successful in getting past his
racism to be successful in office.
Again, I'd like to see some links to this (especially the "attack
dog" stuff towards Strom's daughter). I'm not saying he's not a
racist, because like Sean, I don't know what's in his heart or mind
when it comes to the color of someone's skin.
However, you said:
"But Joe Wilson is a racist, separate and apart from any opposition
or support for any president."
And that seemed pretty definitive. I wanted proof.
After all, he just just be a stupid asshole. After all, there are
plenty of Republicans that qualify for that title :)
Tony|9.16.09 @ 5:04PM|#
To me, the real story of "the comment" is not the comment itself (who hasn't said 1,000 inartful things in one's life?) but rather the way the right managed to find a way to sneak white racial resentment into yet another political battle. They are deliberately stoking this bullshit, which is why I'm not confident they will see the wisdom of Souljahing any time soon.
Paul|9.16.09 @ 5:08PM|#
Jay J:
The reason I used examples of "obvious" racism was in direct
response to: "I mean, it's seems completely plausible that
the worst of the opposition to Obama is motivated
by race."
To me, my examples would come up to "the worst of the opposition".
If you meant to say "the meanest of the opposition that doesn't
mention race as a motivating factor outright, but I strongly
believe to be motivated by race" then that would have left me with
really nothing to respond to except that it's really difficult to
prove a racial motivation when someone just kind of doesn't like
Obama and says some decidedly nasty, but non-racial things about
him.
This is what Carter has done. He took an example of a congressman
who shouted "You lie!" and apparently heard "You nigger!". Carter's
not a young man anymore, may have hearing troubles... hell, he may
even be suffering from dementia. I don't know.
When asked why "You lie!" was a racist comment, it was noted that
Joe Wilson comes from a district with some racial tensions, and
Wilson was one of a handful of congressmen who voted to continue
flying the Confederate flag over the statehouse some years
ago.
Hell, I'll even go as far as saying that Joe Wilson may have some
simmering anti-black feelings tucked under his belt somewhere. But
"You lie!" just doesn't smack as 'racism' to me.
|9.16.09 @ 5:10PM|#
Tony, Agreed.
So two things come out of this to me:
1) I have had an impossible time getting any self-identified
Democrat to discuss my concerns over this thing with me in a
rational, relatively calm way, without getting sidetracked by
complaints about the sideshow, and by glib rejections of my
relatively hard-earned insights with their armchair talking
points.
2) I am continually disappointed in the right's willingness to fan
the flames of this media pissing match by failing to simply Sista
Souljah their own ranks. They bear some of the responsibility for
this atmosphere for that. And I am surprised by this blog's
repeated insistence that those opposing the President aren't racist
(I mean, duh!) while sweeping under the carpet the fact that there
really are crazies who *seem* to have a sizble presence at these
events.
|9.16.09 @ 5:13PM|#
I don't think Joe Wilson's actions are racist, but I think the anti-intellectual mouth-breathing republicans toting racist signs are racist.
Paul|9.16.09 @ 5:16PM|#
mouth-breathing republicans toting racist signs are
racist.
Thank you. My point exactly.
|9.16.09 @ 5:17PM|#
Paul,
I for one am more careful than to say Joe Wilson's act
*specifically* were racist. I suppose though, that when a DC cops
horse shits on an Obama figure, and then laugh and take pictures of
it, and when people at these events are quoted on TV saying that
Obama is lying because he's actually a Muslim, then I don't get
bent out of shape when racist charges are thrown their way.
Don't get me wrong, I'm satisfied just calling them stupid and or
crazy, but I don't want to split hairs.
So for the record, I thought Carter's comments were not helpful. I
just think it would be helpful if the right were a little more
vocal about disowning the crazies. Until they do, it looks like
both sides have something to gain by the crazy sideshow.
|9.16.09 @ 5:17PM|#
The VAST majority of people at the Tea Party did NOT vote
Obama.
Even if true what does this have to do with racism?
That's what I'm saying. And, these same people have no problem
with Bush spending $11billion per month.
wrong
And get new talking points, this one was lame when it was first
trotted out. It's especially ineffective on a libertarian site.
|9.16.09 @ 5:19PM|#
Talk about inelegant, I meant that after a DC cop's horse shit on an Obama figure, that those who brought it, laughed and took photos of it... Just one tiny example..
Tony|9.16.09 @ 5:22PM|#
They bear some of the responsibility for this atmosphere for that.
My biggest question is to what extent are GOP congresspeople still
playing the southern strategy game, i.e., stoking fear of minority
takeover, out of cynical politics (it's worked for them so far!) or
because their ranks are increasingly made up of the people who
actually believe in this stuff. I think Wilson is probably the
latter. I'm not sure what is worse, the cynical politics of the Tom
Delay generation or the rank ignorance of the Joe Wilson
generation.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 5:26PM|#
Tony, you are aware that the Democratic party has by far the worse history on racial issues, right? Also, you realize that we're not GOP members here too, yah?
|9.16.09 @ 5:30PM|#
Tony,
I would say cynicism is intrinsically worse than being true
believer, but I base that on nothing but my intuition.
As for which is more dangerous, I'm agnostic, ambivalent.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 5:30PM|#
Jay J - move your concept of Democrat racism out or being exclusively located in the American South, and you will find that that is only a tiny little piece of what I'm talking about.
Tony|9.16.09 @ 5:32PM|#
Sean,
Why so touchy? I never accused anyone here of being a
Republican.
And this
the Democratic party has by far the worse history on racial issues
is bullshit I'm tired of debunking to people who claim not to have
a dog in the Dem/GOP fight. You know what happened to all those
racist Democrats (Dixiecrats) from the
midcentury south after the New Deal and Truman's civil rights work?
They became Republicans!
|9.16.09 @ 5:33PM|#
Sean,
I would say that race-baiting or what is sometimes called
"reverse-racism" does not rise to the level of the southern
strategy employed by the GOP. But if we don't agree on that
already, I suppose it's futile to argue about.
|9.16.09 @ 5:35PM|#
Sean,
I mean, I can only assume you're talking about the stuff I
mentioned, because the right hasn't been there during the civil
rights struggle the way the left has. The fact that the left loses
it's way on affirmative action, race-baiting, etc, doesn't outdo
the history of civil rights, in my view.
If you're referring to something other than the Dixiecrats or the
thigns I cite, I would interested in what it is.
|9.16.09 @ 5:50PM|#
"The left's paranoid belief..." Have you not been reading Drudge, Fox Nation, etc? There can be reasoned disagreements. But when there is only ad hominem attack using vitriol and invective based on race and background yes, I would call that racist.
|9.16.09 @ 5:52PM|#
"Umm, but the Dixiecrats became republicans."
Sheer ignorance. The Dixiecrats were Southern Dems who opposed
integration. The South became Republican after integration was
forced through (by Republicans) and after the Civil Rights bill, in
reaction to the New Left taking over the Democrat party.
Funny how Democrats are never responsible for anything, isn't
it?
|9.16.09 @ 5:53PM|#
"... after the New Deal and Truman's civil rights work? They
became Republicans!"
That's hilarious: they were so racist, they switched to the party
that pushed the Civil Rights bill through and enforced
desegregation!
Do you even think before posting?
|9.16.09 @ 5:55PM|#
"Have you not been reading Drudge, Fox Nation, etc? There can be
reasoned disagreements."
Do you really want to start a war of judging each other by our
fringe groups? Considering 1/3rd of Democrats believe the "9/11
truth" theories, that's a war you cannot win.
|9.16.09 @ 5:59PM|#
The Dixiecrats became republican because the Democratic Party
was moving too far away from them on race. Yes, the Dixiecrats were
Southern Dems, but they left the party, so if what you're trying to
accomplish is getting someone to admit that people with a D by
their name were pushing racist policies, OK. If you're trying to
say that has any relevance to the larger debate about Democratic
Party vs. the larger Republican Party, and their contribution to
the Civil Rights movement, then you're barking up the wrong
tree.
So, integration was forced through by republicans? I thought it was
a Supreme Court decision, implemented reluctantly, but decisively,
by the moderate Eisenhower. As far as which party provided more
legislative will and work to change things in the country, my
understanding is very different than yours.
Jason|9.16.09 @ 6:03PM|#
Its not racist to oppose the President, but race has been inserted by some of those who have been most critical. When Glenn Beck says that Obama "hates White People" and Bill O'Reilly says Obama is a radical who wants to uproot the "White Male" power base, they are using race and bringing it to the discussion.
|9.16.09 @ 6:04PM|#
About the Democrats being the champions of all things right and good in regards to race, I'd bet some coin that there are at least as many actual racists who are Democrats as are Republicans. The generalizations the left makes about the right are ridiculous to begin with (fifty million people are all what?), but on this issue, they're being willfully obtuse. I've met more racists in places like Boston and Chicago, where most of the crazy, racist white people are Democrats, than I've ever encountered in the South. Where, incidentally, there are still millions of Democrats, too.
Jason|9.16.09 @ 6:05PM|#
By the way, my Poli Sci degree notwithstanding, Conservatives ARE NOT Libertarian. They hate Liberty.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 6:08PM|#
Again, I also am not strictly talking about the Dixiecrats. What
I'm actually referring to is who supports the most actions which
immediately and directly harm the poor and racial minorities. That
title is a tough fight in some ways, but I think it's pretty clear
that hands-down over the 20th century, it goes to the Democratic
party.
Who supports unions up and down at the expense of the poor in jobs
& high prices?
Who supports minimum wages that push movable jobs overseas, reduce
production & employment otherwise and have contributed directly
to the teen population - especially the black teen population I
might add - suffering the highest level of unemployment since
records have been kept?
Who keeps pimping welfare programs which incentivize and some might
say, exacerbate secondary conditions of poverty like teenage
pregnancy?
Who placates the anti-economic fears of the uninformed American
worker by "protecting" them from the low priced goods coming out of
truly impoverished places like India, China, Taiwan?
Who has closer ties to legitimate institutional racism through
unions?
Let's be honest with ourselves... the 35% tariff on Chinese tires
hurts who?
Hell, Walter Williams wrote a whole book about this kind of shit
called The State Against the Blacks.
|9.16.09 @ 6:10PM|#
"The Dixiecrats became republican because the Democratic Party
was moving too far away from them on race"
That would be relevant if the Democratic Party were entirely made
up of Dixiecrats. But it wasn't. Yet the Democrats were still the
party of Jim Crow, segregation, the KKK, and many other racist
policies.
"If you're trying to say that has any relevance to the larger
debate about Democratic Party vs. the larger Republican Party, and
their contribution to the Civil Rights movement, then you're
barking up the wrong tree."
Not at all. When Congress voted on the Civil Rights Act,
Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34 and Democrats supported it
152-96.
The whole conversation is idiotic and tiresome. The whole COUNTRY
was racist for many years. Many people in the country are still
racist. But this childish, juvenile nonsense line of "Republicans
are the racist party!" is just something that left-wingers throw
out when they can't win an argument. And it's handily defeated by
simple observation: the Republican Party has at least as good a
record on Civil Rights as the Democrat Party; the Republican Party
didn't actively destroy the black family with nonsense like welfare
and paying cities after they riot; and there are of course numerous
non-white Republicans, both famous and otherwise.
"As far as which party provided more legislative will and work to
change things in the country"
Nice strawman. The issue wasn't about which party tries to "change
things more". And of course that will be the Democrats because,
given their close ties to socialist/communist groups, they're the
ones who think the country is fundamentally broken and needs to be
remade in their image. Which is why every time they get into power
they are soundly rejected by the people.
|9.16.09 @ 6:10PM|#
"Conservatives ARE NOT Libertarian. They hate Liberty."
Isn't it past your bedtime?
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 6:11PM|#
Democrats can talk all they want about which groups
they love... Mostly by playing class warfare i might add... And
they're convincing apparently because many of those groups vote for
them. But if you actually want to look at who's done more real harm
to those very groups - it's most often been the Dems.
Oh, I forgot one - Who supports keeping people from leaving bad
school districts?
|9.16.09 @ 6:12PM|#
Sean,
I think the examples you cite are controversial as an example of
racism. You may be convinced, but I'm not. I try to be modest when
talking about race and racism in general, and this is no
exception.
Your thesis must be that not only do the programs you cite hurt
black people, but that *the reason* democrats support them is
because they hurt black people, or that there is some specific
animosity toward black people motivating the policies.
|9.16.09 @ 6:13PM|#
"*the reason* democrats support them is because they hurt black
people, or that there is some specific animosity toward black
people motivating the policies."
Yet you are under no such obligation to prove your stance on the
Republican party?
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 6:15PM|#
ProLib - I can also say that the most racist people I EVER encounter are hard-core Union guys. Almost without-fail, Democrat supporters, and it's like I'm living in the 30s.
|9.16.09 @ 6:17PM|#
AC,
I'm not that confident that you know what my stance is, first of
all,
but when we're talking about opposition to civil rights,
segregation, stuff like that, I think we can assume that race is
central, but maybe that sounds like an ambitious assumption to
you.
|9.16.09 @ 6:19PM|#
Joe M,
I understand that you may think this is the motivation, and it's
certainly a plausible political motivation, but the fact that it's
plausible, and that you believe it, doesn't count as evidence.
Particularly since I've spent much of my life as a Democrat as know
a very many people who sincerely support (wrongly, in my view) many
of the policies cited.
Joe M|9.16.09 @ 6:24PM|#
I'm not talking about average Democrats, I'm talking about the elected members of congress. Cynical political calculation is the order of the day.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 6:25PM|#
"I think the examples you cite are controversial as an
example of racism."
I'm actually talking less about intent than i am about outcomes. If
you want to know which party has done more to hurt the blacks &
the poor, it's the Democrats. Whether or not they do this because
they're just that stupid (my preferred answer) or because - like
the Unions - they really hate the idea of black people especially
getting their precious assembly-line jobs........ I can't say, and
is too broad a stroke for me anyway. I am just saying that if you
look at real outcomes of real policy, and put intentions aside,
what I listed isn't that controversial.
|9.16.09 @ 6:25PM|#
"Particularly since I've spent much of my life as a Democrat as
know a very many people who sincerely support (wrongly, in my view)
many of the policies cited."
So your personal experience is a great rebuttal, but the personal
experience of others is poor evidence.
Funny how you judge yourself on such a sliding scale.
I wouldn't make so pernicious a claim as "Democrats purposefully
keep black people down", but I would state that lefties are
willfully ignorant of the real-world impact of the policies they
support, which actively harm lower-income families (a large part of
which are non-white). That they then compound their error by
labeling anyone who opposes their harmful policies as 'racist' only
makes them look more foolish.
People motivated by racism are quite honest and open about their
motivation, from the Congressional Black Congress to David Duke.
The fact that we CBC operates TODAY and David Duke is a name from
yesteryear speaks strongly as to which is the greater problem.
|9.16.09 @ 6:27PM|#
Joe M,
OK, well I can't refute that. But I will say that cynical
calculation can be buttressed by a sophisticated system of
psychological rationalizations, willful ignorance, etc. It doesn't
have to be *that* sinister and thorough to count as cynical. To me
the more modest assumption is to assume, in general, mundane
ignorant/misinformed cynicism, rather than evil,
sophisticated-informed cynicism.
Jason|9.16.09 @ 6:28PM|#
"Conservatives ARE NOT Libertarian. They hate Liberty."
Isn't it past your bedtime?
I'm sorry but Conservatives oppose Liberty to its very core. They
reject reproductive, sexual, and marriage rights, They don't
believe in the Big government crap espoused by Liberals, but they
don't agree with smaller government that Libertarians support
either, instead, they believe in a middle ground of "Conservative
Values." Bush, Ex-Aussie PM John Howard and Canadian PM Stephen
Harper are good examples. Harper identified this in a speech when
he criticized Libertarians for rejecting what he said was the basis
of Conservatism: "the 3 F's" as he called them-Freedom, Faith and
Family.
|9.16.09 @ 6:33PM|#
AC,
We haven't talked about the personal experience of others, so you
have no idea what you're talking about.
You're a loose cannon, you're assuming too much about me, and
you're not careful. At least that's the way you've been so far. I
suggest you go back and read the whole thread, and try not to
import too much of what you feel is going on, and actually look at
the literal meaning of what I have said, and view in context.
As for now, I'm done talking to you. BTW, I never said my
experience is a knock-down argument, but to me, it is enough to
make the proposal that racism is the most parsimonious way to
interpret the policies he cited as unwarranted. Not proven wrong
mind you, but unwarranted. If he's only met people who are truly
evil and racist in their advancement of these policies, then we
can't have any common point of reference. It should be noted,
however, that all the evidence he marshalled was simply the
citation of the policies, and the believed impact they have.
|9.16.09 @ 6:36PM|#
"They reject reproductive, sexual, and marriage rights"
Please clarify how any of this is the case. Sounds like lunatic,
paranoid ravings to me.
"Bush, Ex-Aussie PM John Howard and Canadian PM Stephen Harper are
good examples."
You really can't understand how in a world of 6 billion people, two
people who label themselves the same thing might have vastly
different opinions on subjects?
Tony|9.16.09 @ 6:39PM|#
Funny thing is you have to make a pretty racist assumption to
account for the fact that blacks overwhelmingly support Dems if
Dems are in fact so bad for blacks. (They're too dumb to realize
it!)
Let's just ignore the entire Southern Strategy of the GOP and the
fact that the only demographic it gets a national majority of is
old white men.
|9.16.09 @ 6:42PM|#
"Funny thing is you have to make a pretty racist assumption to
account for the fact that blacks overwhelmingly support Dems if
Dems are in fact so bad for blacks"
Not at all, because we also know that kids and coasters are
overwhelmingly left-wing because they're too dumb to know any
better. It's not about race, it's about the pernicious influence of
a left-wing media and left-wing educational system and the
corruptive influence of special interests and tit-for-tat
governance.
"the only demographic it gets a national majority of is old white
men."
But you're not racist. Noooo.
|9.16.09 @ 6:44PM|#
All of you here are mean and rasist and full of hate. I know that Tony here must be black becaus all of you are so mean to him. Why else would all of you here hate our President, just because he is black. Mr. Obama is a real nice man and he wants to help the poor who are dyin because they have no health care and has proved alredy that 47 milion more are gonna die because they cant get healthcare. All of you should be ashamed because your rasist and you hate the President just like that awful Glen Beck on Fox. I am from California and I know Henry Waxman and he is a real nice man to and Glen Beck calld him a mean name about his nose. You all should be ashamed that you are rasist and full of hate.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 6:48PM|#
Tony,
I've explained this to you before, but because you're so short-bus
special and all...
I don't think black people are too dumb to see the harm
that the policies have caused. Almost everyone is! No one has the
interest or time to actually look at the long-term effect of policy
that politicians are currently touting. Instead they see stuff like
labeled like "The Happy Fun Help Poor People Act of 2003", or the
new "Clean Up the Streets" provision in the next "Support for
Minority Rights" bill.
That's about all there is to it... It's just a combination of two
factors really:
1. Ignorance/disinterest in the legislative process &
economics
2. Good PR
You on the other hand... You're just too dumb.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 6:49PM|#
And btw, two of the people who are my biggest heroes in economics and who have collectively brought me more information on these topics than anyone else I've ever read are both black guys, which would kind of mean inherently that "black people" are most definitely not "too stupid". But leave it up to you to reduce it to race yet again.
Alice Bowie|9.16.09 @ 6:50PM|#
Obama is not a bad guy.
You can argue that the ROAD to HELL is paved with good intentions
but, Dick Cheney and Co were EVIL people ...with not a single good
intention in their soul.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 6:51PM|#
See - Marcy is a good case for my point there. Even if she's 12
:P
Obama says he cares about the poor, ergo, he cares about the poor
and his policies will help the poor.
Intentions matter, results don't.
Alice Bowie|9.16.09 @ 6:51PM|#
Obama is trying to do good.
And, it's a matter of opinion, not an analytical or calculating
fact that he is doing good/bad.
Alice Bowie|9.16.09 @ 6:54PM|#
I feel bad for all of u guys that don't like Obama (aka the
nigga). Perhaps it would have been better if McCain (aka the Mummy)
and Sara Palin (aka the Dummy) had won.
Just think:
- There would be no healthcare debate
- A 100 year war
- Conservatives/Libertarians would not have to protest.
I bet u guys must really really miss the good-ole days.
Don't worry, they'll be back in just a couple of years.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 6:54PM|#
Alice - you have no fucking idea what was in Bush or Cheney's soul, or Obama's. Have you also never heard the phrase "Devil in a Sunday hat"? Let's not forget that some of the most evil people in the history of the world not only had the best of intentions, but were charismatic as all hell to boot. How else do you think people come into that kind of authoritarian power? It most certainly isn't because they couldn't make any friends or because they were transparently evil.
|9.16.09 @ 6:55PM|#
"Again, I'd like to see some links to this (especially the
"attack dog" stuff towards Strom's daughter). I'm not saying he's
not a racist, because like Sean, I don't know what's in his heart
or mind when it comes to the color of someone's skin."
I don't know the man personally. But the attacks on Thurmond's
daughter
are easily googled. And, heck, I'm open to the idea that he's
simply racially insensitive instead of full-on, hate blacks
racist.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 6:55PM|#
Alice... my patience wears thin with you. You are by far the most racist person who posts here. I've never in my fucking life seen someone refer to black people as "niggas" more often, with less humor.
|9.16.09 @ 6:56PM|#
"Obama is trying to do good."
I really wish I could give you a microphone and a world stage so
you could broadcast this childish, solipsistic nonsense to the
world: Obama=good! Cheney/Bush=bad!
Almost everyone is 'trying to do good'. It's their view of what is
good that shapes their actions. Which is why you judge people by
results, not their intentions. Judging Obama by his results, he is
the worst president in history (it's a close tie with his best
buddy Jimmy Carter).
Meanwhile, you are far too childish to have the right to vote. You
have a crush on the man. It's more than a little pathetic, really,
but I expect you'll eventually grow out of it. Or you'll get a job
with the Times.
"aka the nigga"
This is, of course, why the lefties always accuse everyone else of
racism: it gives them a chance to vent their racist spleen. You can
see this all over the web and on shows like Bill Maher's: any
excuse to setup a racist joke, and then deflect the blame for their
racism off onto those evil Conservatives who never said
anything.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 6:58PM|#
And FFS man, libertarians generally hated McCain even MORE than we hate Obama. And all the rest of that shit would be identical.
Suki|9.16.09 @ 6:59PM|#
All of you here are mean and rasist and full of hate. I know
that Tony here must be black becaus all of you are so mean to
him
I am cool with black dudes. I hate Tony because he is an ass.
Alice Bowie|9.16.09 @ 7:03PM|#
Judging Obama by his results, he is the worst president in
history
It's amazing that after 4,400 young american troops died, over
80,000 came back limb-less, dis-figured, and/or mentally injured,
countless of colateral damage in Iraq...that Bush is viewed as a
better president than a man that is trying in incorporate
Healthcare in America.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 7:03PM|#
I mostly just hate Tony because he's a vociferous tool and an
ignorant douchebag all at the same time.
And also because he never. cites. anything.
Alice Bowie|9.16.09 @ 7:05PM|#
I'm not racist Sean, I'm using my crude language...as
usual.
BTW, I didn't make up The Nigger/Wigger vs the Mummy/Dummy...it was
someone else. I'm just using it.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 7:05PM|#
People are still dying in Iraq Alice... And Afghanistan... And
Pakistan... And Somalia...... 1000 more troops on the way!
And on the scale of military deaths in the US, those numbers are
miniscule. 416,800 or so in WWII alone.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 7:06PM|#
Alice - NO one here calls Obama a "nigger" except you.
Think about that for a minute or two and get back to me.
Alice Bowie|9.16.09 @ 7:07PM|#
People are still dying in Iraq Alice... And Afghanistan... And
Pakistan... And Somalia...... 1000 more troops on the
way!
Yea, and this president is doing NOTHING about it. That's what I
call a Lie. Not what he said the other day.
Suki|9.16.09 @ 7:09PM|#
Judging Obama by his results, he is the worst president in
history
I am still hoping Carter wins. I was too young to vote for him.
|9.16.09 @ 7:09PM|#
I agree that Libertarians hated McCain even more than Obama.
That and the fact that most independents hated McCain even more
than Obama is why Obama got elected. Most of them that voted are
sorry now, but I am still not sure the alternative would have
turned out better.
BTW, shut up Marcy, you ignorant slut.
The Man|9.16.09 @ 7:15PM|#
Now children ... I think Alice just isn't aware that there are always multiple solutions to the "Who's a dangerous shithead" equation. Technically speaking of course it has a countably infinite number of real solutions. McCain and Obama are just two.
Suki|9.16.09 @ 7:19PM|#
Most of them that voted are sorry now, but I am still not
sure the alternative would have turned out better.
[Sheepishly raises hand]
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 7:25PM|#
Obama has not only done "nothing" about the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, he's actively reneged on promises to pull them out on even the GW Bush time-table, and instead is expanding operations/refocusing efforts in Pakistan/Afghanistan.
|9.16.09 @ 7:37PM|#
I am still hoping Carter wins. I was too young to vote for
him.
I know you are being sarcastic. I was just a little too young to
vote for Carter also. But I was old enough that I remember those
years well. I remember thinking it was really cool that this peanut
farmer dude actually got elected President. My next memory is of
hearing that we were running out of oil and that we all needed to
turn our heat down to 65 or whatever and only drive our Gremlins
and Pacers 55 mph. Then I remember the Iran hostage fiasco and by
that time I stopped thinking that Carter was so cool, and it seemed
everyone was a little pissed over the way Carter handled the
hostage situation and the artificial oil shortage crisis.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 7:38PM|#
Hey man, I voted for the 'Stache. My alternatives to that were either write-in or stay home.
Suki|9.16.09 @ 7:48PM|#
I know you are being sarcastic. I was just a little too
young to vote for Carter also. But I was old enough that I remember
those years well.
And if Carter ends up being worse then the Obama years won't be as
bad. See?
Suki|9.16.09 @ 7:50PM|#
Then I remember the Iran hostage fiasco and by that time I
stopped thinking that Carter was so cool, and it seemed everyone
was a little pissed over the way Carter handled the hostage
situation and the artificial oil shortage crisis.
At least Obama is not surrendering to bin Laden, but they haven't
found him yet.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 7:50PM|#
Hyperion; just wait for the price controls. Then we'll have some fun.
The Libertarian Guy|9.16.09 @ 7:51PM|#
After Jimmuh Carter's blatherings today, it never ceases to
amaze me how many people can read fucking minds and hearts like
they were some kind of goddamned racism experts with
telepathy...
Like Tony, only with a national audience.
recoveredobj.|9.16.09 @ 8:01PM|#
talking about honest disagreements with the president is not
racist. true.
calling him names, using historically racially charged language,
symbolism, euphemisms, etc, is.
making up policy that he doesn't actually have: that just makes you
look stupid.
the free use of false equivalency, straw man, and weird ad hominem
fallacies by the vast majority of the writers for so-called
"reason" magazine is extraordinary, if sad.
finally, snark, while a fun rhetorical device, is no substitution
for sound argumentation. FAIL.
all i see here anymore is you guys writing minimal-substance op-ed
pieces to each other so you all can nod and high five each other.
you can't be bothered with making a good case, cause, yah know... i
mean it's OBvious to SMARt people. 'm i right?
libertarians, my ass. objectivists, my ass. this is a reason-free
zone full of partisans with a wink, nudge, nudge. you guys don't
'love liberty'. you're tools of the system with a superiority
complex.
Suki|9.16.09 @ 8:02PM|#
After Jimmuh Carter's blatherings today, it never ceases to
amaze me how many people can read fucking minds and hearts like
they were some kind of goddamned racism experts with
telepathy...
Please don't speak of the next Ambassador to Iran in that
manner!
Neu Mejican|9.16.09 @ 8:04PM|#
it never ceases to amaze me how many people can read fucking
minds and hearts like they were some kind of goddamned racism
experts with telepathy...
Just as amazing to me are the people who CAN'T read overtly racists
actions or hear overtly racist words for what they are. I mean,
sure, some of this stuff falls in the ambiguous middle where you
need telepathy to interpret it, but come on...
Alice Bowie|9.16.09 @ 8:07PM|#
Sean W. Malone | September 16, 2009, 7:06pm |
#
Alice - NO one here calls Obama a "nigger" except you.
Think about that for a minute or two and get back to
me.
I'm sorry Sean. I won't use the N-word no more. I was just using it
to add colour to the "The racist against obama are
insignificant" argument.
|9.16.09 @ 8:08PM|#
Next up, cap and trade. This is when Jimmy gets to play hero and save the day for Obama again, by declaring that everyone against cap and trade are racist... because they not only hate the black president, but the polar bears and baby penguins too.
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 8:13PM|#
Hey... I hate polar bears... those fuckers are just grizzlies in snow-camo.
Suki|9.16.09 @ 8:14PM|#
Next up, cap and trade. This is when Jimmy gets to play hero
and save the day for Obama again, by declaring that everyone
against cap and trade are racist... because they not only hate the
black president, but the polar bears and baby penguins
too.
So, hating black gold is fine?
Alice Bowie|9.16.09 @ 8:22PM|#
Sean Sean Sean.... That Link!!!
That was definitely filmed by Liberals.
I even think that the people interviewed were Liberals possing as
Rush Limbaugh wanna bees.
I can't beleive that these people were serious.
That was the best link yet.
The Libertarian Guy|9.16.09 @ 8:27PM|#
recoveredobj must be another one of those self-trained telepaths who can read people's minds and hearts...
Suki|9.16.09 @ 8:28PM|#
You said "black" Suki... Racist.
So that's why my SAT scores didn't matter for some
schools! Oh the shame.
Okay, time to drag someone behind beloved boyfriend's pickup (so I
don't get any blood on mine).
Beloved, we need to pick up a case of Bud on the way home and . .
.
Alice Bowie|9.16.09 @ 8:30PM|#
Sean put out an amazing link.
Please see it when u have a chance:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zefrank/tea-party-interviews-13
|9.16.09 @ 8:30PM|#
Alice, is your first language English? I am more offended by
your grammar than your use of the N-word.
I won't use the N-word no more.
Now repeat after me Alice, I won't use the N-word anymore...
If English is not your first language, I apologize.
|9.16.09 @ 8:42PM|#
Suki,
Too advanced for whom? For Alice, I suspect it may be. I'm still
waiting to find out if English is her first language or not. If
not, I shall have to apologize to her along with the polar bears,
whom I have insulted in similar fashion for their deplorable usage
of English grammar.
Steely Dan|9.16.09 @ 8:48PM|#
The Cuervo Gold... the fine Colombian... make tonight a
wonderful thing.
I'll say it agaiyan...
|9.16.09 @ 8:53PM|#
Alice, damnit, I hate it when I have to apologize. Where are you from? I am not racist for asking you that(or for any other reason for that matter), my girlfriend is Brazilian and I know what it is like to have your grammar corrected often. My Portugues grammar is still pretty poor quite often after nearly a year at trying very hard to learn. But in my defense, all the inflections of the verbs in Portugues is quite difficult to master. My sincere Apologies to you.
|9.16.09 @ 8:57PM|#
Suki,
Who the hell are you talkig to? Are you drunk dude? If you are,
stop it. I am trying to be sober tonight and to like being that way
for once!
Suki|9.16.09 @ 9:06PM|#
Hyperion,
Scroll up and follow along please most sober total downer
sir?
Need a ruling from SugarFree if your usage if "dude" is
heterosexist or not.
Suki|9.16.09 @ 9:07PM|#
Hyperion,
Um, scroll up to my invoking of the pickup truck belonging to
beloved boyfriend.
Nipplemancer|9.16.09 @ 9:19PM|#
"vast majority of the writers for so-called "reason" magazine is
extraordinary, if sad."
DRINK
recoveredobj.|9.16.09 @ 9:50PM|#
Libertarian Guy must be one of those fine paragons of our
education system who flunked american history and basic
reasoning.
thou dost protest a bit much, as though i was talking to you.
clearly, i was talking about people who have actually used this
language and symbolism. i don't see where i said otherwise. but,
please, please, let's have a conversation in which you claim that i
say things i don't... because, you know, you can TELL i meant to
imply it, right? who reads minds?
not to pretend that you're attempting to engage me in conversation
or honest debate (you insist on only referring to me in third
person, a fine rhetorical device of dismissal), but i never deigned
to read anyones' minds. rather, i pointed out that using
historically racist epithets to refer to the president, while also
not actually talking about actual policies of the president, well,
THAT is a form of racism. no need to read minds. using racially
charged language in an argument in order to avoid talking about the
topic of the argument is really a common form of racism in this
country. we'll call it the 'ad hominem racism' strategy of
expressing anger about complaints that may or may not have basis in
reality by not actually talking about anything true or real, but
instead disparaging the (perceived) racial background of your
target.
i mean, why bother talking about real ideas and facts, as opposed
to made up bullshit, in an honest manner? watermelons, clever puns,
and equating a president with gangster rapper... why, that makes
the point so much better. and how lovely is it to use language in a
newspeak manner to accuse others of
fascism/socialism/communism/'reverse' racism/totalitarianism,
etc.
irony, too. how deep.
"the zoo has an african and the whitehouse has a lyin'
african"--teabagger
but, please, don't let me interrupt you NOT making a case for
ANYthing. talk into the vacuum, let it eat up your fleeting moment.
good luck with it. i have to go community organize to take your
gobs of money from you while infringing on your freedom of speech
to share your brilliant insight with the world.
aah, witt. clearly a substitution of substance.
The Libertarian Guy|9.16.09 @ 10:00PM|#
Jesus, you sound like a Democrat.
How would YOU like to be called a "racist" for the "crime" of being
against affirmative action? How's that for a for-instance, former
objectivist - if that's what your title means.
Those who truly ARE racist, that's a good argument; however, you're
conflating using mere words as PROOF of racist intent. Too deep a
subject, perhaps, but that's a good start.
I'm just sick and fucking tired of hand-wringing types who think
that hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of Americans are
bona-fide, Klan-member racists because *gasp!* they don't get all
excited when Obama opens his yap. And you sound like one of those
who do knee-jerk along those lines, even if you say you only target
a specific portion of the population.
The Libertarian Guy|9.16.09 @ 10:02PM|#
"i have to go community organize to take your gobs of money from
you while infringing on your freedom of speech to share your
brilliant insight with the world."
NOW you do sound like a Democrat. Either that, or just plain
unhinged.
Assuming I have "gobs of money" is, in and of itself, a bigoted
POV. I'm actually quite poor. But do you think ACORN would help me
out?
No, and I wouldn't take their fucking dirty money, either.
Michael Ejercito|9.16.09 @ 10:15PM|#
Of course the only reason Rep. Wilson's side of the aisle is a sea of lily white is because blacks are too dumb to see the great promise the GOP offers them, right?
And why is that relevant?
OK, how about when Sen. Chambliss called Pres. Obama "uppity"?
How about when Limbaugh played "Barack the magic negro"?
How about when a California R party official sends e-mails of "Obama food stamps" with pictures of fried chicken & watermelon?
How about when a Tennessee R party official sends an e-mail with pictures of all the presidents, and in the 44th spot is nothing put a pair of eyes against a black background?
How the crazy lady who said a "big black man" carved a "B" on her forehead?
How about the signs that said, "N***** please, it's called the WHITE house!"?
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
What about when Barack Obama sponsored the equivalent of
Holocaust denial .
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=16984
They reject reproductive, sexual, and marriage rights,
Prove that those rights exist.
Funny thing is you have to make a pretty racist assumption to account for the fact that blacks overwhelmingly support Dems if Dems are in fact so bad for blacks. (They're too dumb to realize it!)
If Dems were good for blacks, then almost all
predominantly black neighborhoods which are represented by
Democrats ought to be the wealthiest places in the
country.
Obama is trying to do good.
Anyone who conspired with a newspaper and a corrupt judge to unseal
confidential divorce records does not have good
intentions.
My next memory is of hearing that we were running out of oil and that we all needed to turn our heat down to 65 or whatever and only drive our Gremlins and Pacers 55 mph.
We were running out of oil in the '70's?
From what exactly is gasoline refined these days?
The Libertarian Guy|9.16.09 @ 10:17PM|#
"Barack the Magic Negro" was NOT Limbaugh's invention.
Now, Limbaugh is a dickweed, but give credit where it's due.
Suki|9.16.09 @ 10:19PM|#
Now, Limbaugh is a dickweed, but give credit where it's
due.
It was the invention of an LA Times writer that Matt probably
worked with. The song came from the Rush show, not the phrase.
Michael Ejercito|9.16.09 @ 10:22PM|#
It was the invention of an LA Times writer that Matt probably worked with.
Who was this writer?
Sean W. Malone|9.16.09 @ 10:23PM|#
Man it'd be really ironic if people actually thought we were truly running out of crude oil during the 70's instead of remembering that we suffered an oil crisis due as the completely predictable consequences of price controls...
Suki|9.16.09 @ 10:38PM|#
ME,
Wow, I did not know the intertubes was rocket science to you, but I
am but a lowly Chemist.
Obama the 'Magic Negro' by David
Ehrenstein. And the story is from 2007, Rip Van Winkle.
Are you really Tony?
The Libertarian Guy|9.16.09 @ 10:42PM|#
The song is from whoever does the parodies on Limbaugh's show.
Name escapes me, but he's pretty funny, I think they're available
on YouTube.
For the record, I *only* listen to Limbaugh when he's not behind
the mic - and only when Walter E. Williams is subbing. But he's
probably an Uncle Tom, so he doesn't count, eh, Tony?
Suki|9.16.09 @ 11:01PM|#
For the record, I *only* listen to Limbaugh when he's not
behind the mic - and only when Walter E. Williams is subbing. But
he's probably an Uncle Tom, so he doesn't count, eh,
Tony?
Same way me and beloved boyfriend only look at erotica "for the
articles?" Where did that silly phrase come from anyway?
Sean W. Malone|9.17.09 @ 1:30AM|#
Libertarian Guy:
Michael Shanklin is the composer/parodist you're looking for. For
the record, that's without listening to a minute of Limbaugh in at
least 7 years and no google. My brain is a fuckin' vault :P
Sean W. Malone|9.17.09 @ 2:05AM|#
PS: If I'm wrong, which I don't think I am, feel free to let me know - but I have no intention of googling it myself... those parodies (like all politically satirical music) suck ass. Really, no one does parody music well except Weird Al.
|9.17.09 @ 9:06AM|#
>And Communists, terrorist sympathizers, college professors
(oops, redundant) . . .
Don't we libertarians get called that all the time? By both the
right and the left actually.
Now look, I know Marcy is probably a child, but I got to bring
something up? Didn't libertarians go as hard against Bush as
everyone? Did everyone forget that? In fact, how are we "rasist",
which I assume means judging someone based on their rase, for
hating Obama, when we've hated just about every president we can
remember? Now I may not mean hate literally, but come on!!!
Neu Mejican|9.17.09 @ 11:37AM|#
My Portugues grammar is still pretty poor quite often after
nearly a year at trying very hard to learn. But in my defense, all
the inflections of the verbs in Portugues
is are quite difficult to
master.
So what's the excuse for the errors in English?
/teasing (really - I am the king of the typo)
;^)
|9.17.09 @ 1:26PM|#
"Is Lamar actually Tony? Or are there 2 complete assholes on
this forum?"
There are only 2?
|9.17.09 @ 1:47PM|#
Conservatives ARE NOT Libertarian.
True.
They hate Liberty.
Patently false. Or at least so much as it's true, it's equally true
of liberals.
I think one salient difference between liberals and conservatives
is that conservatives are much easier to explain liberty to, and
much easier to convert. Liberals tend to emote more than think and
can't see the results of their actions and wishes are the opposite
of the intent.
I can likely succeed in convincing a conservative that Christian
prayer in school is a bad idea because that justifies say, Islamic
prayer. I can explain that the spending on the wars was problematic
because it's now being used to justify more spending.
I can explain basically that when you feel strongly about something
and want to use the agency of government to implement policy or
spending for that because you have a narrow majority, that agency
will be used against you when you have a narrow minority.
A liberal is much much much less likely to be able to grasp that.
Sometimes you can tho.
@AthiestConservative.. love the nickname:) Maybe one day you will
graduate to AthiestLibertarian or Athiest AnarchoCapitalist:)
recoveredobj.|9.17.09 @ 8:10PM|#
Libertarian Guy,
I assumed NOTHING about you having money. It's a FUCKING JOKE. I,
if anything, was assuming you do NOT have gobs of money.
Also, you need to look up the word "bigoted". it does not mean what
you think it does.
you, brother, have poor reading comprehension or no sense of humor.
my god, do you know sarcasm other than your own? my 9 year-old
daughter has a better comprehension of sarcasm and its various
uses. sheesh.
funny, you make an overt, specific assumption about me that you
intend to be bad, based merely on my disagreeing with you, right
before you accuse me of being a bigot, you suppose, because i mean
to insult you by saying you have lots of money. something i didn't
actually do.
further, i started reading and was quite devoted to ayn rand and
the philosophy of objectivism going back more than two decades. you
guys, this magazine and commenters such as yourself, are not
following libertarian or objectivist foundational philosophy of
logic, reason and liberty. not at all.
try again, friend.
but, read that again. a variation of sarcasm, low level. I do NOT
want you to try again. we're done. i'm not interested in continuing
the pretend conversation so you can flame me for honestly and
rationally disagreeing with you, not bothering to even attempt to
answer my objections.
good night, and good luck.
recoveredobj.|9.17.09 @ 8:29PM|#
ok, last time, i didn't see both posts: look up "racist" too. it
is not necessarily racist to be against affirmative action.
assuming lots of things, like, do you even know what it is and how
it works? and what kind of language do you use when arguing against
it? do you argue on the merits of what it actually is? or do you
argue about black people stealing jobs from whites? however, it is
NOT racist to call you racist for being against affirmative action.
even if in error, that is not the meaning of the word. 'dumb' or
'presumptuous' works. 'hyperbole' might apply well too.
your bizarre threshold for proof of racism having nothing to do
with actions but only 'intent' is beyond silly and not in keeping
with any basic understanding of how the word has been used
historically and currently. if that is the threshold, then it's
equally the threshold that we don't know if someone is, say, a
sociopath, based on their behavior... or a liar... etc.
actions are exactly what racism is. i care not what is in your
heart. and i did not call any particular person a racist, i called
the actions racist... that's a FACT. again, i don't know what is
going through these teabaggers' heads, but i know what words mean
and i know my history. those signs are racist. those chain emails.
etc, etc.
rand talked about this. quite elegantly. evidently, you guys
haven't read it? or understood or remembered it? 'gang rule'
describes these people perfectly. during the meteoric rise of an
intrusive and fundamentally statist oligarchy under GWB, these same
people were either silent or pounced on the slighted questioning of
Dear Leader. the shoe fits. quite well. it's a good read, you may
have heard of the book, "The Virtue of Selfishness."
seeing you're other post, i'm sorry, but we are really done. you
are either stupid or not arguing in good faith. i can make this
conclusion based on what you say and your abuse of the meanings of
words, i don't need or care about your intentions to the contrary
or otherwise. and, again, you still have yet to actually answer the
case i've made. you changed the subject and made it personal.
classic emotional diversion of last resort. NOW, good night, good
luck, try not to trip over your shoelaces.
The Libertarian Guy|9.17.09 @ 11:05PM|#
What the fuck was THAT shit? Incoherent drabble and I don't get
along.
For the record, as if you give a fuck... I didn't vote for, or
support, EITHER George Bush. So go fuck yourself, former
objectivist, and keep sounding like the liberal shitbag you've
turned into.
The Libertarian Guy|9.17.09 @ 11:22PM|#
Intent is everything, by the way. Otherwise, it's just
mind-reading and conjecture.
Dumbshit.
Leave a Comment
More Articles by David Harsanyi
- The Palin Experience, David Harsanyi, November 18, 2009
- The Case Against Twitter, David Harsanyi, November 14, 2009
- Freedom to Confuse, David Harsanyi, November 11, 2009
Related Articles (Health Care, Barack Obama)
- Mandating Disaster, Shikha Dalmia, November 20, 2009
- My Body, Their Choice, Peter Suderman, November 18, 2009
- Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye If Health Care Passes, Andrew Napolitano, November 16, 2009
- Are Tea Parties Racist?, Matt Welch, November 16, 2009
- The U.S. House of Presumptuous Meddlers, John Stossel, November 12, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245