How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 How can we debate Beavis and Butthead?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

How can we debate Beavis and Butthead?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


25 posted 02-26-2009 08:08 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


This is pointless . . .
It's like  trying to prove
to Alexandra Rasputin is not
a man of God.

.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


26 posted 02-26-2009 11:05 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Hey Mike, I do want to express my appreciation for the lovely gift basket you sent; the boiled peanuts, roasted peanuts, peanut butter, peanut brittle, man -- there's enough peanuts in here to make Jimmy Carter grin.

Sharon -- unfortunately Gov. Jindal was likely having a sniper fire moment when he was telling his rescue boat story.  

Ron
quote:

More to the point, though, what I said was that it's worth exploring. I don't think we should ever just assume the Federal government is always the answer to a social problem.



Not disagreeing with debating what the role of government should be -- only chiding the comparison between disorganized government and disorganized civilians.

Government wasn't the problem.  Ineffective government was the problem.

And, I'm not sure what you mean by 'social problems'.  The intersection of our rights though is exactly where government has to be the traffic cop.

If my house is on fire and I don't want the fire department to put it out -- that may be MY right -- but it's your right not to have my blazing home catch your house on fire.

quote:

What, you want to trade horror stories on what happens when people stop caring about each other? You really think that's limited to the private sector, Reb?



Oh, you mean like a justice system that has been shackled with mandatory sentencing guidelines for drug offenders?  Or Guantanamo Bay?

No... you'll never catch me claiming that government can't and doesn't abuse authority -- and if you're parked under a gulag I doubt you really care if you're there because someone is personally making a profit or because of an ideology run amok.

The fact of the matter is that human weakness is at the heart of corruption -- which is why systems have to be designed to minimize those fallabilities.

quote:

only the Federal government is actually big enough to do stuff



'only' meaning in the circumstance that faces the economy right now in the context of Brook's statement.  

I don't think I'd want to live in a world where Citibank was big enough to wage war even though ineffective government has screwed that up Ron.

If outsourcing the monetary system to the Federal Reserve has screwed things up -- I'm all in favor of Obama calling in the markers and having the Treasury actully print REAL government money and handing it over to the Federal Reserve (like Kennedy did) and saying -- here boys -- paid in full.

I just don't think the Federal Government is the boogey man.  I do think though -- there is a faction that wants you to be so disgusted with it as to be discouraged enough to stop voting.

quote:

You can't really escape the cheap sound bites, though. The trouble with your originating post, however, is that I don't think you even tried.



I don't understand the meaning of the word 'cheap' as it's applied here Ron.  If a 'cheap shot' is a 'low blow'/below the belt/out of bounds/against the rules -- I don't see the Republican mischaricaturizations and prevarications as 'cheap shots' and I certainly don't think they've hit the Democrati(ic) party in any vulnarable place (Brad I'm not sure what you mean).... only that they don't do the Republican position any favors (or any befit to the good of the nation by engendering honest debate).

Nor do I think bemoaning Jindal's attempt to talk to us like we are children (after all -- isn't that what Rush always accuses the Dems of treating us as) is being a low-blow -- it is that very ineffectiveness that is subject and substance of this thread.


quote:

Seems to me the American leadership has been doing a pretty bad job for a pretty long time. You want to blame the Republicans for that? Fine. What you're actually saying to me is that the Democrats were too inept to exercise any power of their own OR the American people were too stupid to make the right choices.



Now really?  Do we need an entire littany of the bad choices Americans have made?  Let's start with this one;

The choice between the small goverment-balanced budget talking politician who ran up the deficit higher than any President in history --

(Now as far as economic stimulus goes -- I find it laughable that conservatives want to try to tell us that the New Deal didn't have any effect on the economy -- that it was WWII that pulled us out of the great depression?

Really?  If we spend money on butter for little Sally and Sammy that doesn't help the economy -- but if we spend it on bullets to kill Hanz and Franz that does?

So Reagan spent Federal money on defense and stimulated the economy in the 80's -- and raised taxes on the middle class more than any President in history.)

and -- The innane politician who kept delivering the absolute worst deadpan contrived line in the history of politics -- calling the Stragic Defense Initiative 'Star Wars' and saying 'God forbid we put these awful weapons up in the heavens.'

The argument being we shouldn't reasearch and develop a space-based missile defense because it didn't work?  As if, anything works while it's in research and development?

What I'm actually saying to you is I don't want the Democrats getting too comfortable
lest that corruption of human weakness come a calling upon us all too soon -- and that is why the Republicans need to be doing a better job of

A] Re-defining themselves -- after all -- the ground has shifted beneath them -- there is a Conservative party in Canada and Britain -- neither of which is intent on dismantling its healthcare system

B] Framing arguments in a manner that doesn't insult our intelligence

C] Distancing itself from the elements that chanted 'kill him' at Palin rallies.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


27 posted 02-26-2009 11:30 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Distancing itself from the elements that chanted 'kill him' at Palin rallies.

Shoulda quit while you were almost ahead, LR, or didn't you get the word that that story had been made up by the reporters at the rally, which they later confessed to? That's a danger of tossing out sound bites as fact...guns shooting cheap shots can backfire, yanno?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


28 posted 02-26-2009 11:49 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

No Mike -- I didn't get that because it doesn't exist.

The Secret Service investigated the two seperate events in Clearwater and Scranton and couldn't find any evidence  -- but niether reporter 'confessed' to making up the stories --

Milbank said he wasn't sure if the remark was aimed at Obama or Ayers
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/oct/10/na-kill-him-reports-being-probed/

And Singleton and the Scranton Times Tribune stuck by the story
http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_ allegation_unfounded_.html

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


29 posted 02-27-2009 12:13 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Good enough...I'll have to doublecheck MY facts.

So what are you saying by it...that republicans need to distance themselves from people who yell "Kill Obama", which must mean you don't think they do now? Are you serious? Why would you even slip that in?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


30 posted 02-27-2009 12:34 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Oh Mike... I don't know why .... maybe it's stuff like this;
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/19/chimp.cartoon.apology/index.html?eref=rss_us

and this;
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89704

just fans the flames Mike -- there are -- after all -- in the neighborhood of 10000 right wing psuedochristian terrorists of the KKK and Tim McVeigh variety in the U.S.

Am I saying that All Republicans or Conservatives are like this?  No.  Just that they have become the modern home of Dixiecratism.

Where are the Bill Buckleys?  The Ike Republicans?  Heck, I'd even take Goldwater.

In spite of Michael Steel's installment as party leader and Ken Mehlman's apology -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html   -- and McCain's attempt even to peddle back his own rhetoric when a poor distressed woman at one of his own rallies was so obviously genuinely worried that the country was going to be taken over by a Muslim -- the pot is stirred my friend.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


31 posted 02-27-2009 01:01 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"the modern home of Dixiecratism."

Ok, reb...that's your mindset. No reason for me to try to argue against it. It is what it is....
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


32 posted 02-27-2009 03:33 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




quote:


You could be right, grinch. It's hard to tell by the way it is written. A liberal complaining about the self-destruction of the Republican party would be a new slant.




     I beg your pardon!
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


33 posted 02-28-2009 10:15 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Mindset:

   1. A fixed mental attitude or disposition that predetermines a person's responses to and interpretations of situations.
   2. An inclination or a habit.

If I have a mindset, inclination, or habit regarding matters politc -- it is to formulate my opnions based on facts.

The Kevin Phillips/Nixon Southern Strategy -- that of appealing to white Democratic voters in the Southeastern U.S. who felt disenfranchised by the party's embrace of the Civil Rights movement is thourougly documented.

And it worked.

129 of McCain's 173 electoral votes came from the South.

Now --if you look at the Dixicrats it's clear that these voters were one and the same.

And exactly how much distance is there between Joe the Plumber and the Republican party?  At CPAC he advocates 'slapping around' members of Congress (if he was one) and even SHOOTING them Mike.

quote:

Back in the day, really, when people would talk about our military in a poor way, somebody would shoot ‘em. And there’d be nothing said about that, because they knew it was wrong. You don’t talk about our troops. You support our troops. Especially when our congressmen and senators sit there and say bad things in an ongoing conflict.



This is the element that is gravitating to the Republicans - if you're in favor of it -- then that's your mindset - if this is uncomfortable then you need to be asking yourself why your party is attracting these people.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


34 posted 02-28-2009 11:03 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Joe the Plumber speaks of the time when people were shot for criticizing the military...do YOU remember that time? Me, neither. It never happened. So the guy shot off his mouth with an exaggeration....and your observation is why do Republicans attract these kinds of people? What shall we do now? Go over the lists of kooks we have known and see which party attracted them? Democrats never had these types of individuals

All Joe the Plumber did was ask a question that made Obama uncomfortable. For that he was put under the democrat microscope, work history gone over, licenses checked out, income tax records investigated, family history investigated

[This message has been edited by Ron (03-01-2009 08:54 AM).]

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


35 posted 02-28-2009 11:37 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

First?

Confessionals:

I didn't read all of this.

I absolutely shrug.

Second?

I'm alarmed that I did not.

(Y'ever scare yourself?)

Bobby Jindall is like a coin, flipping in the air, to me.

As a resident of Lousiana, I voted for him.

Why? I honestly believed he was the best man to make Louisiana a contender in the best interest of not just our state, but the union.

And yes, I'm concerned about what he had to say (or what he didn't say) after President Obama's state of the union address.

I'm actually very proud of the brave steps he's taken thus far, but I am also fearful that the whiff of presidential power might sway him from Louisiana's best interests in the long run.

I think he came into the office of Governor of Louisiana as an honest man. What I fear is that he will throw us "under the bus" to be the candidate to watch in 2012.

I hope I'm just being Karenoid again, but truth be told?

I am not Democrat, nor Republican.

But President Obama initiated a healing in me, when he addressed the atrocity of levee failure in Louisiana, in his inaugural address, and on the whitehouse webpage on his very first day in office.

I had no idea I had a five ton chip on my shoulder, until it was removed.

It was very much like acknowledging that the crime of "rape" is still "rape"--no matter how you were dressed.

For that? I will always be gratified to President Obama.

And Governor Jindall? Well, I can't help but love the obvious fact that he's running for president.

Because that means that he has to save me, a resident of Louisiana, first.

Until then? He's just another talking head...and kinda goofy lookin' at that.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


36 posted 03-01-2009 12:24 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze



um.

I see a certain resemblence, don't you?



I exit laughing. Expect bad poetry later.

ciao for now
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


37 posted 03-01-2009 05:24 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

     I see nothing in what Local Rebel is saying that isn't pretty much a straight history lesson.  His comments about the Dixiecrats fit with my memories.  This was one of the reasons that The civil rights act was slow in getting passed.  The Democrats knew that it would cost them the alliance they'd had with the segregationists in the south since reconstruction had been smothered.  The Democrats had made a bargain with the devil, and they were loathe to give up the pay-offs that that bargain paid.  

     When the civil rights bill passed most of the southern states en-masse shifted alliance from Democrat to Republican.  Local Rebel is correct about the Nixon Southern Strategy.  It gained Nixon the White House and threw power to the Republicans for years afterward, but the alliance also cost the Republicans dearly.  They could no longer say that their souls belonged to the party of Lincoln the way that they could say so and did say so when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Republican.  He could run as a reformer then and mean it.

     Since the shift in power following the passage of the civil rights act, the Republican party has moved further and further to the right.  The abolitionists that were the backbone of the party in Lincoln's day would be hard pressed to find much to admire or even recognize about their party today, I'm afraid.  Surely you remember Trent Lott's speech in support of — was it Strom Thurmond? — and Lott's lament of how things would have been so much better if the pro-segregation Dixiecrats who put Thurmond forward as a Presidential candidate in 1948 would have succeeded?  Lott was the majority leader.  He wasn't voicing an oddball minority line.  Would that he had been.

     If in fact he had been, it might have been possible for the election to have turned out differently.  The Republicans might have had more of a substantial representation closer to the center, where — in my opinion at least — the majority of the American voters tend to gather.  I still would have been isolated on the further left hand part of the spectrum, but I can live with that, not as happily as I would like to, but then my personal happiness is not a major concern for the country.

     While this last item might be battled back and forth either way, the current damage to the Republican Party is less simple to argue away and really should be taken seriously.  I am a liberal who actually wants the Republican Party to not only survive, but to prosper as well.  The country needs at least two functional parties to work well.  One alone makes it top heavy and stupid with smugness; only with thoughtful exchange of ideas does the country work at its best.

     Calling each other names like fourth graders doesn't make a good model for running a democracy.  We need the sophistication of at least high school graduates before we can begin to rest easy.  Surely we can pull that off.

[This message has been edited by Ron (03-01-2009 09:01 AM).]

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


38 posted 03-01-2009 07:51 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

"Calling each other names like fourth graders doesn't make a good model for running a democracy."

Simce I totally deigned to come into this non-argument, I prefer you direct your comments accordingly.

There's so much nothing here to argue, it goes into integers.

I won't be back.  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


39 posted 03-01-2009 02:42 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Go over the lists of kooks we have known and see which party attracted them? Democrats never had these types of individuals



Sure they did -- they were called Dixiecrats    

And/or Zell Miller -- and we know who he's been throwing in with lately huh?

And -- how many violent left wing kooks are the Democrats inviting onto the political stage?

If the core tennets of the party are God, Guns, and anti-government -- is it any wonder that violently religious anarchical types are attracted to the party?

Sean Hannity is hosting a discussion on what type of revolution we should have --

And a Republican mayor in California has to resign over forwarding a racist joke from his personal e-mail claiming;

quote:

he was unaware of the racial stereotype that black people like watermelons.



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


40 posted 03-01-2009 04:37 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

And -- how many violent left wing kooks are the Democrats inviting onto the political stage? you mean besides Carvell??


Very easy for the two of you to make points by picking and choosing and ignoring the rest.

You talk about Trent Lott's foolish choice of joking at a private birthday party. Well, he paid the price for that, didn't he? LR talks about the resignation of a mayor for a watermelon joke. Well, he paid for it, too, didn't he? Are you going to say ridiculous things like these define the republican party? Please say you are not that shallow.

Let's take a look at Jesse Jackson calling Obama the N word. You all seemed to leave that one out. What happened to Jackson? Nothing. Is he then a good representation of the Democratic party, calling a black senator and presidential nominee the N word? What would have happened if a white man had done that? More, what would have happened if a white Republican had done that? I can hear your screams from here. There would have been riots.

Don't worry, gentlemen. I have no doubt politicians everywhere are doing their best to be extra careful not to say anything at all which could be construed as a racial comment. Personally, I doubt that Obama cares about that at all. It's everyone else, present company included, that will be more than willing to jump on anything they can to scream about the insensitivity of the Republican party.

I'm sure that all of the good Democrats who trashed cars and slit tires in front of the RNC were just fun guys out for a good time....or could it be that THEY were a good representation of the Democrat party? I would not be so shallow as to claim they were. Too bad you can't exercise the same judgement.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


41 posted 03-01-2009 08:16 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

          If James Carvell were an elected official or an official of the Democratic party, I might agree with you about the size of his mouth, which is large.  He is, instead, a political consultant.  Loudmouthed I have heard him called, and would call him so myself.  I have never seen him charged with any sort of violence nor have I seen him trying to provoke it.  If you have information from a reputable source to the contrary, perhaps you will enlighten me.

     So, if he is the only example you can think of and you cannot supply any actual documentation to support your accusation, it might be useful for you to offer a more accurate version of your statement, one that you do have data from reliable sources to support. We might then agree as to what the actual situation looks like. Nobody qualifies for sainthood here, Democrat or Republican.

quote:


Very easy for the two of you to make points by picking and choosing and ignoring the rest.



     I was talking about the Dixiecrats and the Republican Southern Strategy and the switch between the loyalty of the southern states from the Democratic to the Republican Party following the passage of the Civil Rights Act.  I believe that Local Rebel was talking about similar material.  I was also talking about how that switch had damaged the Republican Party in many ways, by forcing an alliance between the traditional radical Republicans with loyalties to liberty of the oppressed, abolition, reform of avaricious business practices, environmental reform and conservation and fiscal responsibility and their traditional enemies, the southern Democrats with roots in racial discord, restriction of the franchise to elite groups and promotion of oligarchical values.

     I had also taken exception to your characterization of Liberals as having no concern for the Republican Party.  I have made many comments about this in the past.  Local Rebel, you may have noticed, expressed the same sort of concerns here.  I don't know how Local Rebel characterizes himself politically.  I would be proud to see him characterize himself as a liberal.  I'm thrilled to have him as an American of any stripe.  He seems to see the importance of a functional and contributing Republican Party as well.  Especially one that doesn't seem set on eliminating itself from the political scene the way the current Republican Party does.

     The points I've been talking about have been points in support of my basic thinking in this matter.  I have in fact been picking them and choosing them to support what I'm saying.  I do not find this unfair.  I find this necessary and appropriate to demonstrate the points that I'm making.

quote:


You talk about Trent Lott's foolish choice of joking at a private birthday party. Well, he paid the price for that, didn't he? LR talks about the resignation of a mayor for a watermelon joke. Well, he paid for it, too, didn't he? Are you going to say ridiculous things like these define the republican party? Please say you are not that shallow.




     I don't think calling me shallow is helpful.  The reason that this sort of personal attack is characterized as a fallacy of logic is simple.  Even a person who is shallow as the surface of a mirror can be correct sometimes.  Depth is not something that is a requirement  for accurate understanding or observation.  To say I am shallow doesn't mean I'm wrong, it only says that you wish to dismiss my comments for reasons that have nothing to do with an objective evaluation of its worth.

     In fact Trent Lott did make a foolish comment at a private birthday party.  It was foolish for many many reasons.  One of those reasons was his assumption that everybody there would share his thinking that his comment didn't matter.  That was very very foolish.  Another reason was that Trent Lott was a U.S. Senator, and what U.S. Senators say often has an unpredictably large effect on public opinion.  That was something Trent Lott really should have known.  And among the many other things that Trent Lott should have known was that while many Senators might have been able to pass a remark off such as this off, Trent Lott was the Senate Majority Leader of a Senate that was trying very hard to say that it was representative of the opinions of pretty much the whole country, and, if not the whole country then certainly at least the whole Republican Party.

     Senator Lott might have been able to sail by the disapprobation of the world in general, and the country as a whole, and the Democrats in particular, but he was not able to sail by the rage of a good part of the Republican Party, who had not signed on to be 1948 Democratic Segregationists who wanted to roll back the gains of the civil rights legislation of the last 40 years.  The Democrats might have been pretty steamed — I know I was! — but Trent Lott could have cared less about me.  He ran into some legitimate moral outrage within his own party and within the ranks of the Independent voters.  And this is what happened when he tried to steamroller those folks.  

quote:


Let's take a look at Jesse Jackson calling Obama the N word. You all seemed to leave that one out. What happened to Jackson? Nothing. Is he then a good representation of the Democratic party, calling a black senator and presidential nominee the N word? What would have happened if a white man had done that? More, what would have happened if a white Republican had done that? I can hear your screams from here. There would have been riots.



     I don't know.  You may well be right.  You also overlook differences between the two situations that I think may be of importance.  The one that may be most significance is that much as you find Jesse Jackson upsetting, he was not in any form of elected office.  He represented no party except a generalized category called "Civil Rights Leader."  As far as "Civil Rights Leaders" go, much of his cachet is with those of us who remember him from the sixties and seventies.  He generated enough upset to make the news, but not much more.  Obama is much more a modern figure and I suspect that the folks who got upset with Jackson were mostly those who were old enough to remember him from his heyday.

     A Black using the N word about a Black is still, I suspect, an action that leaves white folk more or less paralyzed with confusion and indecision.  Perhaps you know what to feel or think about it.  I confess, I don't — perhaps evidence of my own undigested and un-understood racism, I don't know.  If any body knew what guidelines were for racial comment, let alone politicians, we might be on more certain ground as a country.  I don't know that we're there yet.  I'm not.

     You have a point, Mike, about the special vulnerability of the republican party in matters of race.  I think.  It is easier to jump on the insensitivity of the Republican party in regard to matters of race because of the way in which the Republican party has absorbed but not digested the Dixiecrats.  We are still a nation that is struggling to come to terms with its civil war, just as before the civil war we were a country struggling to come to terms with not granting freedom it all its minorities.  What the next step forward in this pavane might be, I cannot say.

quote:


I'm sure that all of the good Democrats who trashed cars and slit tires in front of the RNC were just fun guys out for a good time....or could it be that THEY were a good representation of the Democrat party? I would not be so shallow as to claim they were. Too bad you can't exercise the same judgement.




     I am not taken with the return to the issue of depth and shallowness here.  If there is some actual point you'd like to make, though, I would like to hear it.

     My point?

     I think the two parties need each other, now more than ever.  Both parties need to come to some sort of understanding about who and what the Dixiecrats are and what their presence means in the modern political process.  Can we actually get those folks who actually are dixiecrats to formulate exactly what their political goals are in the current political framework?

That's the best I can do for now.

Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


42 posted 03-01-2009 09:17 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I have never seen him (Carvell) charged with any sort of violence nor have I seen him trying to provoke it. Fair enough, Bob. Which republicans have you seen displaying or provoking violence? Are there any examples of the "violently religious anarchical types " LR refers to that are being attracted to the republican party that comes to mind?

No, Bob, I did not refer to you as being shallow. I referred to the fact that judging the Republican party by a comment Lott made at a private party would be a shallow act.

Yes, I expected to hear of the "differences in situation" regarding jesse Jackson. The fact that he is also black does not excuse anything. It is either acceptable to use the N word against Obama or it's not, regardless of the color of the skin of the speaker. The fact that he is not an elected official carries no weight, either. He is a recognized spokesman for the party, a speaker and motivator for the party, and his words influence millions of people, which should cause him to be careful with what he says. The fact of the matter, Bob, is that there was little difference between the Jackson and Lott situation. They both said inappropriate things in private,  which were heard and reported. The difference was that, as you said, in the case of Jackson " He generated enough upset to make the news, but not much more", which was true since the liberal press dropped it quickly while, in the case of Lott, they made a daily major incident out of it until it became improtant enough to boot Lott out of office. Both things should have been non-issues and, as i said before, if the N word had been used by a white republican, the press would have annihilated whoever it was.

If there is some actual point you'd like to make, though, I would like to hear it.

That was the point, Bob. We don't really have a lot to argue about because I think we share many similar views. There are good Republicans and bad ones. There are good Democrats and bad ones. For me to say that the idiots that slashed tires and wrecked cars are indicative of the democrats party would be ludicrous. By the same token, to claim that vicious, violent hate-mongers now relate to the republican party is equal nonsense. That's all. Any finger-pointing here that would generalize either party by the individual actions or comments a a very few if off-the -wall and that is all I've meant to object to in my responses to LR's comments. That's all.....
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


43 posted 03-02-2009 03:40 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

         Ann Coulter for one has made some fairly provocative suggestions about things that might be done with Liberals.  I would characterize at least some of these as violent, wouldn't you?  As has Mr. O'Reilly, in my opinion.  Michael Savage has been even more edgy than  either Ms. Coulter or Mr. O'Reilly, and a number of more malleable followers, such as in the case of the Atlanta Olympics Bombings and the Recent Church Shootings in which Liberals specifically were targeted do tend to show the effect of this right wing barrage of hatred and — at least to my mind — distortion on some folks who have more of a predisposition to action and less of an inclination of evaluation and thought before taking action than many might recommend.  Nichols and McVeigh seem to emerge from this same right wing milieu, don't they?  Some of these folks are Republicans.  Many of them take views that are, yes, violent.  Some of them wish to be violent against Liberals specifically, others have the notion that they'd like to be violent against other portions of the population.  To the extent that these people are Republicans, they do seem to provoke or sympathize with violence.  Some of the more extreme folks may even take part in it, though I suspect that it's fairly easy to over-blow the proportion of the truly ripe loonies around on any side.  Clearly too many, probably not as many as are feared.


     Whether the judge of Lott's comments at a private party would be shallow or not is beside the point.  He made a series of disastrous choices in doing so.  He misjudged how good a relationship he had with the other people at that party.  He made a misjudgment about the effect that such a statement would make on others if it got out.  He made a misjudgment on how secure his own position was within the leadership of his own party.  And he made a mistake as to how sick the revelation would make so very many of his fellow Republicans.

     The question isn't, "Who ratted me out?"

     The question is who in God's name thought they could get away with having a majority leader who was so stupid as to think that the question was, "Who ratted me out?" instead of what the heck was he trying to do by pretending he wasn't somebody who still wanted Segregation to be the Law of The Land and who was still nostalgic for those days when that was the case?  Not "Who ratted me out?" but, "Why should anybody trust somebody who's trying so hard to fool everybody all the time?"

     If he could have convinced his friends that it was all a put up job, then it might have turned out differently.  It seems that he friends didn't believe him either.  I don't know whether I was shallow or not.  I think not, but I don't know.  The question, again, isn't about how shallow I am or how shallow the act of noticing and caring what Lott did might be.  I think it had to do with how telling the incident was about the man, and the way things were going for the party under his Senatorial Leadership at that time.  Were I the only one disturbed, we wouldn't be talking about this.  Pretty much the man's whole party repudiated his actions for reasons that they felt were just and honorable.  I happen to agree with them.  

quote:


Yes, I expected to hear of the "differences in situation" regarding jesse Jackson. The fact that he is also black does not excuse anything. It is either acceptable to use the N word against Obama or it's not, regardless of the color of the skin of the speaker.




     You would think so, wouldn't you.  I mean it does seem reasonable.  This does seem one of those situations where our understanding of the way the rules should work and the way the rules actually do work don't seem to fit.

     I don't know that you can blame our ideals or the reality of things.  I can't say what you should do.  For me, I often run into these situations.  Sometimes I can force the peg and the hole to work well together with a hammer and a wrench; sometimes I have to go back to the drawing board and look for the parts that I've overlooked and that may be missing.  Tossing the whole thing into the wood chipper seldom yields much except very small pieces which are even harder to assemble than the puzzle was originally.  But that's me.

quote:


The fact that he is not an elected official carries no weight, either.




     We disagree about this.  I spoke about the whys and wherefores in a previous post.

     Yes, he should " be careful with what he says."

     Both Jackson and Lott did say "inappropriate things in private."  Yes.

     Here's the way you you put it:
quote:


The difference was that, as you said, in the case of Jackson " He generated enough upset to make the news, but not much more", which was true since the liberal press dropped it quickly while, in the case of Lott, they made a daily major incident out of it until it became improtant [sic] enough to boot Lott out of office. Both things should have been non-issues and, as i said before, if the N word had been used by a white republican, the press would have annihilated whoever it was.




     You overlook what seems to me to be the most important point.  No matter how loud a protest the press might have raised, Jesse Jackson did not have an office to loose, did not have an office-holder's responsibility to the public and the country and had taken no oath of office.  Jesse Jackson has had every nasty thing that might be said about him by the press said over a long and checkered career.  His odds of ever becoming a senator are minimal, and his odds of becoming president, which were once almost minimal are now approaching the nonexistent.  If he could loose anything more from scandal, I'm unsure what it might be.  He is in at curious place in public life where he can pretty much say anything he pleases as long as it's not actionable, and he indulges himself in doing exactly that on a fairly regular basis.  There is little be be shocked about.

     Trent Lott, on the other hand, has had a history of pretending to be a great and moral man, and he's made some pretense of holding a superior Christian Position.  This he indulged in the case of Terri Schiavo.  Without the pretense of moral superiority, and without the position of senator and his position of special  privilege within the senate, the incident would have gone no place.  It seems to me that the so-called Liberal media had been extremely kind to the man for a very long time.  You underestimate the upset that I believe the Republican party in general and in some ways the religious elements of the republican party may have felt with the man's behavior.  

     The question, really, is not "What squealed?" but "Is it true?"  Yeah, it was true.

     I think the Republican Party is probably stronger for his absence, as it is for the absence of Rumsfeld and Bush as well.  Effort should be put into forming a stronger Republican party, with roots that reach into the center, not only into the far right.  It's those votes in the center that are the votes that are contested.  I'd like to see a sharper competition for them.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


44 posted 03-02-2009 11:30 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly are your examples of violent Republicans, Bob? And Limbaugh must be the incarnation of Al Capone, I suppose. So I gather you say that whoever speaks out against the Democrats are violent, unless you care to share any statements they made advocating violence. In that case, Bill Mayer, Franken, Rosie O'Donnell, Sean Penn, Harry Belafonte and half of Hollywood must be the Democratic Dalton gang in disguise. Surely you jest.

You toss in the names of Nichols, McVeigh and the Atlanta Olympic bombings and other mayhem doers and make the statement that " Some of these folks are Republicans.". Does that then mean that some of them are Democrats? To the extent that these people are Republicans, they do seem to provoke or sympathize with violence. What an incredibly insulting amount of bull that statement is, Bob. I realize there are people who will go as far as possible to paint Republicans in the worst light possible but comments like that, using innuendo and self-constructed conclusions to make a party the party of the violent goes well beyond reason and good taste.

Trent Lott, on the other hand, has had a history of pretending to be a great and moral man, and he's made some pretense of holding a superior Christian Position.    Yes, you are right, Bob. All of Trent Lott's life has been a pretence. He's never had morals, never been a good christian, and never accomplished anything decent for the country. How do we know? He told an off-color one-liner at a birthday party. Trash him, by all means. That's the Democratic way.

  You overlook what seems to me to be the most important point.  No matter how loud a protest the press might have raised, Jesse Jackson did not have an office to loose, did not have an office-holder's responsibility to the public and the country and had taken no oath of office. No, Bob. The most important point was that a prominant man in the Democratic party, one who has influence over a large segment of the public, called the president the N word. You make it a no biggie becasue he didn't hold an elected office but you shy away from my question concerning what would have happened to any white person, especially republican, who would have done the same. I don't blame you for ducking it. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, COulter and O'Reilly don't hold elected offices, either, so would you give them the same pass you give Jackson if THEY were to call Obama the N word? Since you jump on them for the comments they do make, I sincerely doubt it..and one "loses" an office, not "looses" it.

I really don't mean to sound so testy so early in the morning, Bob, but the lengths you go to, and put into print, to demonize and pigeonhole the Republican party goes well beyond decency, in my opinion. If you want to say Republicans are idiots, in your opinion, fine. If you want to claim they are immoral, superficial nogoodniks, go ahead. You, and other references on this thread, have gone way beyond that. Somehow you make an effort to paint the republican party as festerers of violence, a party that incites hatred and actual violence in people. You toss around names of domestic terrorists, as if their actions MIGHT have been spurred on by the actions of the republican party (which they MAY or MAY NOT have been a part of.). The insults and innuendos go way beyond the point of good taste, in my opinion, and I doubt that many decent and fair Democrats share these views, at least I hope not.

Have a good day.....
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


45 posted 03-02-2009 02:46 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Don't worry, gentlemen. I have no doubt politicians everywhere are doing their best to be extra careful not to say anything at all which could be construed as a racial comment. Personally, I doubt that Obama cares about that at all. It's everyone else, present company included, that will be more than willing to jump on anything they can to scream about the insensitivity of the Republican party.



I had no idea that Republicans felt so victimized by society.  

I'm trying to figure out though, why a cartoon of watermelons on the White House lawn is supposed to be funny at all unless it is a racist commment?  Please explain the joke in a non-racist context.  Is it a cartoon that you want to print out and hang up in your place of business?  One that you want to forward to your friends?

In your commments you're blaming everyone else.  It's our fault. Much like the NY Post's initial apology -- 'We're sorry you're offended but you're just too sensitive.'

We know who the REAL victims of oppression and indecency have been though -- and it was the Republican party that invited, marketed to -- the oppressors.

quote:

I'm sure that all of the good Democrats who trashed cars and slit tires in front of the RNC were just fun guys out for a good time....or could it be that THEY were a good representation of the Democrat party? I would not be so shallow as to claim they were. Too bad you can't exercise the same judgement.



Are we talking about posters or posts Mike?

If we're talking about posts -- what I don't see in my comments so far is any charictarization of ALL Republicans as being Dixiecrats.

We seem to be getting bogged down on this one point though --

In regards to point 'A' -- should the Republicans stick to the Limbaugh prescription -- the answer to every problem is free markets, tax cuts, guns, anti-health care, anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, abstinence, creationism, etc. ad nauseum?

In regards to point 'B' -- exactly what is the point of calling electric vehicles golf carts?  Bee insurance?  Trains from Disneyland to Las Vegas (that don't exist in the stimulus plan)?

And -- on point 'C'

What is your reaction to the element at the Sean Hannity site that is talking up Civil War and Seccession?  Is it time for the Republicans to divorce the Dixiecrats?

Don't de-humanizing portrayals of the President as being a crazed and executed chimpanzee -- who really isn't an American -- just make it that much easier in someone's mind to justify an act of violence?

Aren't we talking about the President of the United States (in a time of war)?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


46 posted 03-02-2009 03:22 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Aren't we talking about the President of the United States (in a time of war)?

You have just come up with a one-liner to end all one-liners, LR.

Where was that line for the past eight years?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


47 posted 03-02-2009 04:04 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Want to talk about kooks and threats? Here is a SMALL sampling of ones for you. I think I can be safe in estimating that none of them were republicans. I will also claim, based on an unprovable assumption, that the Democrats and liberal press cronies encouraged this type of reaction with their constant and untiring efforts to bash and belittle our "president in a time of war". So does this make democrats hate-mongers, as well?


The Associated Press reports that New York state comptroller   “Alan Hevesi publicly apologized today for a ‘beyond dumb’ remark about ‘putting a bullet between the president’s eyes.’ Hevesi hastily called a mea culpa press conference hours after putting his foot in his mouth at the Queens College commencement.
The comptroller said he was merely trying to convey that Sen. Charles Schumer has strength and courage to stand up to the president. ‘I apologize to the president of the United States’ as well as to Schumer, said Hevesi. ‘I am not a person of violence. I am apologizing as abjectly as I can. There is no excuse for it. It was beyond dumb.’ Hevesi said he hadn’t been in touch with the White House but he hoped his apology reached President Bush. Hevesi also called his comments ‘remarkably stupid’ and ‘incredibly moronic.’”
http://hydeparkassociates.com/blog/?p=189

Charles Madrid has been struggling with anger management issues for years. The 50-year-old radio technician from Pacoima has been known to lose his temper over everything from dirty dishes in the kitchen sink to the war in Iraq. His mother says he’s harmless. But after a recent outburst in which he allegedly threatened to kill President Bush, the U.S. Secret Service isn’t so sure.
Madrid was arrested last week and is being held in a federal detention center in downtown Los Angeles. At a hearing set for today, a judge is expected to determine whether Madrid is eligible to be released on bail.
O’Hara, who interviewed Madrid at the hospital, wrote in the affidavit that Madrid admitted to threatening to kill the president earlier in the day in front of an LAPD officer.
When O’Hara asked Madrid what he would do if Bush were present right at that moment, he allegedly responded: “I’d deck his ass.”

He added that Vice President Dick Cheney also “needs an ass kicking,” the affidavit states.Though statistics weren’t immediately available from the Justice Department, authorities said Secret Service agents investigate far more cases of people threatening to harm the president than are actually prosecuted.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/03/local/me-threat3

Man accused of threat against Bush to plead guilty
A 20-year-old Mississippi man is scheduled to plead guilty in federal court in Aberdeen to charges of threatening to kill President Bush.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/olive-branch-ms/T1P5G6BBDK37QBS2Q


Man convicted of threats against Bush released
          
Jan 11, 2009 - 04:05:04 CST
FARGO (AP) - A man who was convicted for telling a fellow inmate he wanted to kill President George W. Bush has been released to the custody of his parents.
Daniel Cvijanovich served 19 months in prison and was transferred to a halfway house in October, where he was originally ordered to stay for one year. Cvijanovich asked to be released early, saying he had followed all court orders. After officials at Centre Inc. testified that Cvijanovich had been a "model resident," U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson ordered Cvijanovich to be released to home monitoring.

Authorities said Cvijanovich made threats against the president while he was serving time for damaging government property and threatening a federal officer. Cvijanovich has maintained his innocence on the threats charge.
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2009/01/11/news/state/173829.txt

Teen Questioned for Online Bush Threats

By DON THOMPSON
The Associated Press
Sunday, October 15, 2006; 5:51 AM

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Upset by the war in Iraq, Julia Wilson vented her frustrations with President Bush last spring on her Web page on MySpace.com. She posted a picture of the president, scrawled "Kill Bush" across the top and drew a dagger stabbing his outstretched hand. She later replaced her page on the social-networking site after learning in her eighth-grade history class that such threats are a federal offense.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/15/AR2006101500143.html

Hammond man charged with making threats against President Bush
by Staff and wire reports
Tuesday January 13, 2009, 9:27 AM

A Hammond man was arrested today and charged with making threats against the President George W. Bush, according to U.S. Attorney Jim Letten. Gregory Broussard made threats that he was going to kill Bush, according to an affidavit in support of the criminal complaint. He will make an initial court appearance before United States Magistrate Judge Louis Moore at 2 p.m. today where prosecutors will request that he be detained, according to Letten. A social worker told Secret Service agents that Broussard threatened to blow up the White House and kill President Bush while he was being treated last month in the emergency room at a Hammond hospital.
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/01/hammond_man_charged_with_makin.html
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


48 posted 03-02-2009 08:07 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

quote:


Which republicans have you seen displaying or provoking violence?




     I chose to talk about Republicans provoking violence.  I decided that threatening violence would fit within that parameter.  Displaying violence was not something I wanted to get into here because I felt it was provocative in a way that I thought was not necessary.  It also ventured into philosophical territory that I find interesting but I suspect you might not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performativity

     The issue of Performative Utterance does seem to have more and more connection to political affairs these days, however, and especially in the area we are talking about here.

quote:


. . .unless you care to share any statements they made advocating violence.




     I’m not happy to be asked to produce examples, but of course I will.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/10/ap/politics/mainD8I53EO02.shtml

     The above 2006 AP article References Ann Coulter features quotes in which she suggests that the main question with Bill Clinton was Impeachment or Assassination, says that Timothy McVeigh should blow up The New York Times with the Editors and Reporters inside, and recommends that somebody put poison in the creme bruille of a Liberal Supreme Court Justice.

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/5535.html
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610110010
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610110010


     In the above links, a University of Indiana School of Journalism Study looked at a series of 105 broadcasts by O’Reilly and evaluated them.  The study found that on the average defining markers that identify propaganda cropped up slightly more frequently than every seven seconds during the editorial portions of the show.  This was even less subtle than the Father Coughlin pro-nazi broadcasts during the 1930s.  The comparison is not mine, by the way, but from the study itself.  Should you wish any extra information about any of this, the link is there.

     Another of the links is to an O’Reilly presentation about Washington Area Lesbian Gangs.  O’Reilly presented this in his program as a major Washington and east coast problem and went into considerable fabricated detail about this bogus problem.  The effect was to attribute criminal tendencies and a predatory intention to the lesbians and to stir up feelings against them.  You will remember that you asked if there was anything that these people were doing that was provoking violence, right?  This seems to qualify.  The facts were made up out of the whole cloth.  O’Reilly was obliged to issue a retraction during a later program.  The basic facts are as listed in the linked article.  Should you wish more information, please feel free to check it out.

     The third link is to an article that was a piece of video that edited comments by Ted Turner to distort them enough to make them either very misleading or false.  The video was run on both Hannity and O’Reilly without the comment necessary to frame the video truthfully and realistically.  Given the state of the country at the time, it could well have caused folks to behave in a violent fashion.  It was fortune that (insofar as we know at this point) it did not.  There are many many more examples of this sort of thing easily available to be googled.  These are examples of Republicans either advocating violence outright, or helping create a climate in which violence is more likely.  I would also suggest that some of the Administration comments about weapons of mass destruction and the alliance of Saddam Hussein and Osama Binladdin were not only untrue but were manufactured by the administration specifically for the purpose of creating the violence that resulted.  Despite claims about aluminum tubes, for example, being excluded by the CIA from the State of the Union Message and from prior speeches as being untrue, and the rumors of yellowcake uranium being disproven and excluded for the same reasons, the administration still managed to include them in the state of the union address and use that address as part of the pressure to push the country into war.

     Can Democrats be just as wretched?

     You bet they can.  I remember the first several years of Vietnam very well indeed.  Should we have reason to find the violence of the Democrats something that is leading the country into trouble,m say in Afghanistan or in Iraq over the next several years, I was snort and grumble and complain about the wonderfulness of my left wing buddies and will condemn them in the end.  Fortunately for me, I don’t feel I have to defend them.  If they’ve done anything wrong, condemn away, Mike; I’m on your side there.  In the meantime, I think that Local Rebel is right about the way the Republicans are hurting themselves.  No, Mike; I do not jest.  

     And don’t call me Shirley.  


quote:


I realize there are people who will go as far as possible to paint Republicans in the worst light possible but comments like that, using innuendo and self-constructed conclusions to make a party the party of the violent goes well beyond reason and good taste.




     If the Republicans don’t take a realistic look at what they’ve been doing that’s gotten them into this situation, it will only be a massive failure on the part of the Democrats — always possible, heaven knows — or a complete accident that will help change the fortunes of the Republicans around.  I want the Republicans to be good opponents.  It keeps the Democrats active and alive, and it keeps us from getting bogged down in encrusted and potentially obsolete solutions.  It keeps the whole country alive.  A good opponent is a treasure, almost as valuable as a great friend.  Some might say more so.  It is in my interest that Republicans take a good clear look at themselves.  It is only in the most narrow possible sense that it’s useful for me for you not to understand what you have done wrong.

     It is in my own partisan interest, oddly enough for you to blame me for whatever’ gotten you out of power.  Then the solution depends on what you can make me do rather than on what you yourself can do.

quote:

Yes, you are right, Bob. All of Trent Lott's life has been a pretense. He's never had morals, never been a good christian, and never accomplished anything decent for the country. How do we know? He told an off-color one-liner at a birthday party. Trash him, by all means. That's the Democratic way.



     I don’t think there’s a useful reply I can make here, Mike.  I didn’t say it, and I didn’t mean it.  I’m sorry if it struck a wrong chord.

quote:


No, Bob. The most important point was that a prominent man in the Democratic party, one who has influence over a large segment of the public, called the president the N word. You make it a no biggie because he didn't hold an elected office but you shy away from my question concerning what would have happened to any white person, especially republican, who would have done the same. I don't blame you for ducking it. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, COulter and O'Reilly don't hold elected offices, either, so would you give them the same pass you give Jackson if THEY were to call Obama the N word? Since you jump on them for the comments they do make, I sincerely doubt it..and one "loses" an office, not "looses" it.




     Any of those commentators have a much larger audience than Reverend Jackson.  They literally have millions hanging on every word they say.

     Perhaps you understand the rules of the way racism works or is perceived to work than I do.  I know that there are things that folks in in-groups call each other that mean different things depending on how close you are to the center of the group in question, what your status is within that group in particular, what your status is in terms of other groups and so on.  I was born in a particular section of one particular Jewish in-group.  The rules there were dizzying and not at all systematic, but very rigidly enforced.  In watching folks in a rich anglo family operate, or a poor Irish (shanty-irish, they called themselves, but only among themselves) family operate, or a rich irish (actually, I’m not even sure if “lace-curtain’ is so much a description of wealth so much as caste) family, I find that the rules are different but just as confusing.

     Why you would expect the rules for how Blacks would want things dealt with would be any less complex than anybody else, why they would be more “fair” for how one Black should treat another than for how a republican commentator should treat a Black is beyond my understanding.  I still have trouble figuring out how to deal with myself most of the time.  

     I do know, in terms of public discourse, what the rules are roughly supposed to be.  These got started with the rhetorics designed for use in swaying public opinion in Greece.  We have Roberts Rules of Order.  We have laws about libel and we have conventions about truth and the methods of reasoning.  These we may have some hope of attaining at least some familiarity with, and some flexibility in their use.  Failure in doing so is a failure in public competencies, not ethnic conventions.

quote:
  

I really don't mean to sound so testy so early in the morning, Bob, but the lengths you go to, and put into print, to demonize and pigeonhole the Republican party goes well beyond decency.




     Mike, you must feel sorely provoked.  

     There are loads of decent and fair minded democrats.  You must ask for yourself how many of them find some merit in what I’ve been saying.  I do believe that the Republican party has incited more than its share of hatred and violence in people.  You should remember that I also said that a lot of this was due to the alliance of the Republican Party with the Dixiecrats from the late sixties onward.  And that a lot of this has a much deeper history  going back to some of the compromises that enabled us to form a country in the first place.  The southern states entered the union because they negotiated a compromise allowing them to keep slaves.  Those slaves were not allowed to vote, but were counted in the census, so those states were allowed a disproportionately large representation.  They were not penalized for holding slaves in a country that was founded on the principles of liberty.

     Today’s Republican party carries much of the Dixiecrat heritage of that.  That heritage came down to todays Republicans through the Democrats after the civil war.  We are still as a country trying to deal with those issues that were never resolved at the beginning of things.  That violence is an American heritage.  The Democratic attempt to walk away from it was at best a limited success.  We still need to work together to figure the whole thing out.  

     Those who don’t study history are condemned to have it kick them in the butt and to be beaten by it briskly around the head and shoulders.  That’s a paraphrase.

     Of course if you want to think it’s secretly entirely your fault, who am I to take the privilege away from you.  Though I may think it’s a delusion, and that we all have to work it out together, just like we didn’t do the first time.

Sincerely,  Bob Kaven

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


49 posted 03-02-2009 08:17 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

          About your list, it's long been illegal to threaten the life of the President.  Those who do are typically investigated and are sometimes imprisoned.  I've seen one or two imprisoned from various psych hospitals where I've worked.  I think it's been pretty much a steady state kind of thing through Carter, Ford, Reagan, Bush, etc.

     I don't know that there's been an increase in that particular sort of violence.  If you know better, please let me know.

Bob Kaven
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> How can we debate Beavis and Butthead?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors