Leveraging Prejudice

Am I prejudiced? You bet I am. Now, prove you’re not.

My understanding of the mechanisms of prejudice comes from several widely divergent sources. First, it comes from my family's long history of involvement in Southern politics, particularly the bonfires of southern Mississippi politics in the 1950s and '60s. Secondly, it comes from my study of art, after having come from a household of scientifically trained parents. Thirdly, there has been the influence of having watched the development of computers, noting how they have not become the devices of Star Trek and the 'Hal' of "2001".

I'll spare the reader a long discussion of the cognitive issues of prejudice, leaving notes to the end, but to properly address the issue in this article one must say a few things. Liberals don't live in the real world. Well, neither do conservatives. Where we really "live" is inside the three pounds of mushy stuff inside our skulls. In order for us to deal with the world beyond that skull we painstakingly build an enormously elaborate set of cognitive structures for everything from not bumping into walls, to managing our extremeties, to the really hard stuff of predicting and navigating the behavior of other human beings. These cognitive representations, abstractions, of our world are as close to reality as we ever get.

When we sense that the reality inside our heads fails to match that outside, as we will with a grief response, we will go through the sort of responses described by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross in her book On Death and Dying. In the case of the death of a loved one there is no denying the internal and external worlds and their attendant expectations don't match, so, after some denial in various forms, the internal model of reality is forced to conform to the reality outside. Such is seldom the case when the model in question is one dealing with social or political realities.

The notion that our internal reality is incorrect is so threatening to us most people will literally die before they will change a well-established tenet of personal truth. We will even resort to notions that are, on the face of them , ridiculous to maintain the validity of our world views. The Watchblog community resorted to just such a display last week in the string of David Remer's article on the Palin-Biden debate as, for a while, liberals engaged in a self-congratulatory discussion of how stupid Americans, and especially conservatives, were.

For example, from Russ we have the following-

"She has gotten this far (in Alaska Politics) by her looks and 'folksy charm' — which only points to the lack of intelligence in the American Voting Public."
Interestingly Russ also makes a note that the Governor of the state of Alaska was not qualified to be a "dogcatcher", a statement I have seen repeated several times in the liberal blogosphere. No points for original thinking.
Russ scores again later for the following statement-
"(I once held the suspicion that John did this to see just how low the Right wing would grovel and idolize and drool over someone so undeserving of the nomination — but I guess I was wrong — he hasn’t yet come forward and went “Gotcha” — just kidding and you guys FAILED!)"

To his credit j2t2 is uncomfortable with this tack, responding to Russ with the following-

"...Russ to be fair I think “lowest common denomintor” is a bit extreme for most of the conservative followers. Living and working between Central Oregon and now Colorado I spend quite a bit of time with these types and for the most part they are decent people. They are also well intended for the most part IMHO. I agree they are misguided and easily manipulated but by and large they are decent people especially the younger ones..."
That's not to say this statement does not couch some condescension.

Russ, responding to the mollification of j2t2 with a classically prejudicial response, now marches out a couple of "studies" intended to make it seem reasonable to assume conservatism is simply a disorder of the intelligence-

"I have many close friends that are conservative and who would/could be termed part of the lowest common denominator — they are good people and well intentioned (for the most part) — HOWEVER there appears to be a tendancy to not look to deep and not DARE look at anything that might contridict with peer opinions.

...note about a new study out from Harvard
Bullock and others have also shown that some refutations can strengthen misinformation, especially among conservatives.

Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration’s prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation — the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration’s claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse...

...In a paper approaching publication, Nyhan, a PhD student at Duke University, and Reifler, at Georgia State University, suggest that Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might “argue back” against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation. Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same “backfire effect” when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration’s stance on stem cell research.

Bullock, Nyhan and Reifler are all Democrats.

What's that? Conservatives are asked to acknowledge a point with which they deeply disagree on partizan terms whereas liberals are asked to disagree with a point partizanship would bias them toward disagreement with anyway? How, one wonders, could these three Democrats miss that?

After Daniel decared his shame at the notion of anyone voting for someone as "uneducated" as Palin (a woman with a degree in journalism from the University of Iowa, a school that produced, among others, Tom Brokow and Brian Ross), Janedoe declares Palin has

"...the mentality and dialogue (I think she means "vocabulary".) of a streetwalker."
, and phx8, sounding very intelligent, says-
"...repealing the Fairness Doctrine gave the ‘no-nothings’ a media where contradictory information could be screened out, and listeners could respond with ‘dittos’."
I began to think I was seeing people caricature the sort of nonsense I used to hear growing up in Louisiana and Mississippi.

After a few more of these self-congratulatorily condescending remarks about either John McCain, Sarah Palin, or conservatives in general, I posted a couple of generally smart-alecky replies about the nature of the congressional districts represented by Democrats, and the tone of the conversation changed.

Marysdude came back with a reply that included the following statement-

"Do all those PHD’s you know listen to Limbaugh or watch O’Reily? If not then obviously we are not talking about them…if they do, then they deserve to be talked about. The conservative right is populated by those who listen to Limbaugh and/or watch O’Reily…nuff said"

Really? What's wrong with listening to people who agree with you, I wonder. Do people on the left not do that?
My reply started getting to the point of what I am concerned about in Democratic politics-
"When Rush tells his audience what “liberals think” I know he is engaging in prejudice, and I’m happy to tell other conservatives as much. When liberals tell each other what conservatives think, or cite polls describing how conservatives are more bigoted than liberals, as has happened in this string, I don’t see, in this discussion, liberals feeling any embarrassment at all or any sign that a red flag has gone up in their mind. Did any liberal here ask for the internals on that poll? (cited by Russ above) Not that I saw.

I grew up hearing my mother, who had protested in marches against segregation in rural Louisiana in the early 1950s, well before it was “cool” to do so, warn me of people who began sentances with “I’m not prejudiced, but…”. Inevitably they followed that preface with proof they are bigoted instead.

Don’t assume being liberal is a permanent, valid, preface to every statement about anyone that you, too, are not prejudiced."

After this Googlumpugus changed tack, seizing on a reference to Houston's Fifth Ward in my smart-aleck post with the following-

"Lee, what’s wrong with the fifth ward? Not the right color for you?"

I came back with-
I think my next article is going to be on prejudice, and baiting comments like this one, which are intended to imply that people holding one set of beliefs or another must inherently be bigoted, are why.

I used the Fifth Ward specifically because it is an area which has suffered deeply from the transfer of leadership for the advancement of people of color (not just blacks, but the whole range of minorities) from the people of those communities to white Democrats in the 1950s and ’60s. The Fourth and Fifth Wards are areas with high crime rates, substantial residential and commercial decay, and terrible rates of illiteracy and economic debility. Eighty years ago, though, in the midst of the brutally bigoted white culture of Houston in the 1920s, the Fifth Ward was the flower of black society. The area fourished with Physicians, Lawyers, black-owned businesses, and a whole, healthy business and leadership infrastructure.

I use this example because it is TYPICAL of the carnage resulting from Democratic “support” of the minority community. As an example, here is a quote from an article by a Huntsville, Texas, area retired black college professor, Dr. Naomi Lede-

“In the first waves of the century, black businesses catered to a black consumer market. They were primarily sole proprietorships. Corporate businesses were insurance companies and banks. Many of these businesses disappeared as the walls of discrimination became more relaxed.”

Dr. Lede and I don’t always agree on things, but this is a simple statement of fact. How could the loss of the business and professional infrastructure of black communities have netted a positive impact on community pride?

In a book Dr. Lede (pronounced LeDay) wrote about one of my personal heroes, Samuel Walker Houston there is a photograph of the wedding celebration of Constance Houston, held in a prosperous black neighborhood, photographed by a prosperous black photographer. Constance lived in the Fifth Ward because her father, Joshua Houston, Jr., Samuel’s brother and a prosperous blacksmith in his own right, had moved the family to that safe neighborhood to get them away from the persistent threat posed by the racial hatred in the lower classes of Huntsville’s white community. (The Houston family was held in very high regard among the prosperous and educated classes in Huntsville.) Constance Houston’s home now holds landmark status.

These people are heroes to me, for their persistence in the face of oppression, for their assurance that personal pride, committment to education hard work and community solidarity, and insistence on personal responsibilty could lift a despised community to triumphant self-sufficiency, and for a kind of courage few of us have ever had to know.


Now we were finally talking brass tacks. Googlumpugus's reply now takes on a slightly mocking version of my earlier tone, but follows liberal talking points very well-
"Ok, the fifth ward is a high crime neighborhood. Which of the wards isn’t? Which inner city neighborhood isn’t? Do you think poverty might have some correlation with that? By the way, Sheila Jackson Lee isn’t a white Democrat. Why is it a Republican can’t win there, Lee? Please explain that to us dumb ole’ Libruls.

Ya ever think that might have sumptin ta do wit racism? Ask GHW Bush what happened in the sixties when he supported LBJ’s black civil rights at the Houston Convention. It was all dem nasty ole white dems. The Republicans were pure as the driven snow on this issue. Iffin dem folks woulda just accepted equal but separate, they’d be all fine now. Yeah, right. Get a friggin grip. Poverty looks ugly. It doesn’t speak to intelligence, ethics, or humanity. Yet you think this is an example of what Democrats did to the neighborhood. What percentage of Harris County is democrat, Lee? What the hell have you Republicans been doing the last 40 or 50 years? Sitting on your hands?

Which local Republicans are your Heroes in that regard? I half expect you to say some of my best friends are….
It was your baiting that this is some Liberal debacle rather than the continued red-lining by Republicans which led to my honest and fair question. Which by the way had nothing to do with the failure of Freddie or Fannie ( I read this somewhere recently, though I don’t recall where). Redlining wasn’t about making bad loans, It was about failing to make good loans in racially mixed neighborhoods. More good Republicans hard at work.
Again I ask, what is so wrong with the fifth ward? How exactly did it get there? Rather than just baiting that Liberals did it, how about some actual facts and proof? Were White Republicans less racist than Democrats, Lee?


I reply-
Let’s suppose, though, that the cultural assumption liberals are immune to racism is false. Let’s assume outcomes reflect intent in public policy. Is that not what we assume when Republicans vote for people to repesent their own districts in Congress? Do we not assume largely Republican districts do well in Congress because (they) reflect the goals of their districts?

As a matter of fact we do. What we see Republicans saying they are trying to do is improve the business climate and the tax climate and reduce overall governmental impediments to business? Well, given the goals stated by Democrats in Congress, one might wonder what the heck that has to do with why Republican districts do well. Why don’t they try to get more housing assistance for their districts? Don’t Republicans need housing? Why don’t they try to get more free medical care in their districts? Don’t Republicans need medical care? Why don’t they try to get more food assistance for their districts? Don’t Republicans need food? Yes. As a matter of fact Republicans need all those things, but Republican representatives, and their handlers, and their constituents all know they can get all those things themselves, on their own, without the help of the borough, county, ward, state, or federal governments.

Minorities not trained into helplessness by political parasites are every bit as capable. Blacks from Jamaica who settle in America live, on average, better than the average white family. Mexicans who immigrate from Mexico do not quite so well, largely because of often compromised immigration status, but they do much better than second-generation families who have been exploited for the political potential of their helplessness.

(*Note added at the writing of this article* The study cited here does not support the portion of my statement about second generation Mexicans. I had heard the information I asserted earlier, but can't readily find a corroborating study. This study does, however support an assertion of difficulties arising from illegal status. The study also shows Mexicans generally not achieving income equality with "natives", apparently an average for all American natives.)

In fact the attitude of Democrats toward their constituents appears to be the same as that of drug dealers toward their clients. Get them hooked, then give them what they want till it kills them. The general atmosphere in the community will be so generally self-destructive as a result of the addiction to infusions of “aid” that more needy addicts will constantly be available.

This analysis has nothing to do with race, but race is certainly a good way for the dealers to keep the victims of “aid” addiction looking the other way, while white victims of the addiction are usually just considered trash.

As to people like Sheila Jackson Lee, (She is a pale shadow of Mickey Leland, even as he was a paler shadow of Barbara Jordan in the same district.) where is her great leadership role in the Democratic Party? Where are the forty-three long-serving members of the Congressional Black Caucus in party leadership? Why do black members hold only 12.5% of committee chairmanships, (Homeland Security, Ways and Means [for now], and Judiciary) for example, when their membership is 18% of the Democratic members, especially since they have served, on average, longer than many white members? Does the party not trust them?
I’m not saying it’s all racism on the part of the Democratic Party, but race certainly provides convenient identity boundaries to exploit. And, as far as the party leadership is concerned, exploitation IS what it’s all about.


Googlumpugus came back, very thoughtfully, with this-
It isn’t that I believe Republicans are racist, it’s that they use subtle racism in elections. So do Democrats. I agree with your sentiments about Leland, Jordan and Lee. Most Republicans I meet here are either rednecks, or rich and often both.

I am 51 years old, Lee. It is my life experience as a white man, that racism is a large part of how people vote and think in politics. It amazes me in the 30+ years I’ve lived in Texas, the number of random white people that spew racist sentiment to me, assuming I’m in agreement. They weren’t that different in Ohio or Kentucky, to be sure, though I was much younger then. I usually don’t spout my political views with those I don’t know. Maybe it’s because I wear cowboy boots sometimes."

And, from the immediate next post, he continues- "Democrat rhetoric isn’t anymore sincere or effective. It really isn’t about conservative or liberal rhetoric to me. It’s about effective government that levels the playing field to a reasonable degree. Both parties are paying lip service to one segment of their electorate, and serving a wealthy segment, to the detriment of the rest of us.


I have no doubt what he says is true, but I have had the same experience with Democrats, some of them well-to-do. My personal observation is that the most common denominator in these more prejudiced people is a lack of humility in their religious experience, not their party affiliation. My next post follows up on that thought. What is really most important is not political (or even religious) affiliation. It is whether we see the people we claim to serve as fully human.
Bullseye! You hit it on the nose. Yes, both parties are paying lip service.

Look, I’ll admit to being prejudiced, even on things such as race. As with any problem that can cause harm, such as addiction, excessive debt, etc., nothing does more damage in the long run than failure to admit the problem. The key intellectual discipline in dealing with my own prejudices is knowing how I think a healthy neighborhood will function. That is not a black or white thing.

Healthy neighbors lift each other up. They don’t sit around feeling helpless or victimized if saviors are not shipped in from elsewhere, and they don’t pop in like missionaries in Malaysia delivering steel axes as if to prove how worthless the labors (and lives) of stone axe makers were.

The ideal of our system is that we are largely self-governing and self-realizing. That means we improve peoples lives most by standing shoulder-to-shoulder with them and showing them how they can lift themselves and their neighbors up, not by showing them we can provide for them at some level they could never achieve themselves.

My illustration of the missionaries above is a case in point. Villages where people had made their economy and their cultural sense of worth on the intensive and subtle skill of stone axe making were devastated by the “gift” of a tool they could not match. Their intergenerational ties were founded in the transmission of this skill and industry. Missionaries had seen all the labor that went into making axes as a waste when their “superior” device would free people for more “productive”. (In case you’re wondering, yes, I can see the irony in where this is going given my statements on productivity and government.) The missionaries didn’t consider, however, how impotent this revelation would render these people they were “saving”.

Our help to distressed communities should not encourage those communities, whatever their color, to think they could not get by without us yet that is exactly what we have done to them so far.

Googlumpugus, you asked earlier who my white Republican heroes might be. Frankly, I don’t think of things that way. My heroes are not people who reach down from above to shine the light for us poor blind folks. They are people like my daughter, who doesn’t care to go to the church youth group on the days when they are taking in a movie, but loves to go when they are working on someone’s house or clearing out trash from a vacant lot. They are folks like my friends the Kesslers who have spent many weeks traveling to do construction work as volunteers in Mississippi and Texas areas damaged by Katrina, Rita, and now Ike.

Our strength does not come from a better class of puppet master, people who can pull the right strings from above and make our lives better. It comes from you and me and all the other people we can encourage to see strength and capability in themselves- capability and strength enough to give to others.

This is a strength the parties don’t think they can afford to let us see in ourselves.

The problem with political parties, and George Washington saw this all those years ago, is that solutions do not empower them. Idealism, morality, and ethical clarity do not empower them. Discord, on the other hand, does empower them. Fear empowers them. Anxiety empowers them, and, yes, prejudice, to the extent they can hide their own from their constiuencies and project real or imagined prejudice on the other party, empowers them. Googlumpugus made a great point when he said of me-

" I half expect you to say some of my best friends are…."
when, in fact Russ says exactly that of conservatives!
"I have many close friends that are conservative and who would/could be termed part of the lowest common denominator — they are good people and well intentioned (for the most part) — HOWEVER there appears to be a tendancy to not look to deep and not DARE look at anything that might contridict with peer opinions."
J2t2, though much more cautiously, makes a similar statement himself.
I spend quite a bit of time with these types and for the most part they are decent people. They are also well intended for the most part IMHO. I agree they are misguided and easily manipulated but by and large they are decent people especially the younger ones.
Russ's statements in this string strike me as having generally been over the line of obvious prejudice. They made assertions of conservatives which, had they been made about any racial minority, would have gotten him banned from this forum. When he uses statements supposedly discussing scientific studies giving his assertions credence the liberals on this site, at least one of whom is a professional psychologist, fail to see a clear and obvious methodological flaw invalidating the whole premise of the study.

In one of my own papers linked below I discuss the aesthetic response we experience when a cognitive model seems to have been validated by the world around us. This is a pleasant feeling. Compare it to the pain of grief and it is no surprise people will avoid the experience that does not feel good, even if one must sometimes deny the validity of the painful information to avoid feeling it.

Sixty years ago many otherwise responsible, well-meaning Southern community leaders fervently believed that if blacks were granted the full measure of their citizenship it would be the end of society. In fact, however, freeing the WHITE population from the shackles of their own self-identification with the subjugation of their neighbors and the assurance they were being oppressed by the North caused the Southern economy to explode. It was the narrowing power of a simmering resentment that was keeping them in chains, just as it does today for populations from Beirut to the slums of France, just as it did in Nazi Germany, and just as it does today in self-identifiable ethnic minorities throughout this country.

Just as they did in the Old South I see the leadership of the Democratic Party using that resentful self-identification as a wedge separating their constituents from the very things that can really provide them freedom- the assurance they are just as capable of gaining a full life by the work of their own hand as anyone else is, white, Asian, or whatever.

Are Republicans immune to this? No. And when we presume the press "hates" and oppresses conservatives (thus playing the same game the old Southerners played) we prove our frailty. Democrats and Liberals, however, must be willing to admit they are not a superior form of human being. The fact that they mean well, and they DO mean well, does not mean their methods can't do harm. Nor does it mean they do not have prejudices they can't see in themselves that weigh against the very goals they profess to desire.

My own writings on cognition
http://leejamison.com/blog4/2007/02/arts_origins.html
http://leejamison.com/blog4/2007/02/art_theology.html
http://leejamison.com/blog4/2007/02/art_awareness_and_selfawarenes.html
http://leejamison.com/blog4/2007/03/conception_precedes_comprehens.html#more
http://leejamison.com/blog4/2007/04/the_purpose_of_culture.html#more

Posted by Lee Emmerich Jamison at October 11, 2008 5:50 PM
Comments
Comment #266653

>Marysdude came back with a reply that included the following statement-

“Do all those PHD’s you know listen to Limbaugh or watch O’Reily? If not then obviously we are not talking about them…if they do, then they deserve to be talked about. The conservative right is populated by those who listen to Limbaugh and/or watch O’Reily…nuff said”

Posted by Lee Emmerich Jamison at October 11, 2008 05:50 PM

Lee,

And I meant every word of it. Limbaugh and O’Reily, both spew enough hate against the left that anyone who actually listens to them, gives them credence. It takes a very shallow mind to give those two (and others like Ann Coulter) credibility. Many here ask why the left can’t put someone out there to compete with such as these…we can put them out there, but then we won’t listen to them…that, in a nut shell, is the difference, Lee.

Prejudice is not a game, and people who play with it should get burnt…look at mccain’s campaign.

You are correct in one thing at least…each and every one of us suffers from bias and prejudice to some degree…it is a human trait…but, not that does not give any of us an excuse to use it openly or as a club with which to beat others down with.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 12, 2008 8:16 PM
Comment #266657
Many here ask why the left can’t put someone out there to compete with such as these…we can put them out there, but then we won’t listen to them…that, in a nut shell, is the difference, Lee.

Are you saying that there aren’t liberals out there spewing hatred at the right and being listened to?

I just want to make sure I am clear on your point here…

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 12, 2008 9:30 PM
Comment #266658

Marysdude,
The problem I had with the comment above was your seeming dismissal of anyone who listened to any of these people as though Rush inherently reamed out the brain. It’s just not true.

Nor does listening to CNN or David Letterman rot the brains of the left, as long as one realizes there is an agenda at work and they remain careful to keep an open mind.

Besides, sometimes Rush can provide context to anthills the MSM is flat out trying to make into mountains, like the guy you see on the weekend shows saying “I’m Mad!”, and then bundling with comments on ONE person saying “Off with their heads!” and some other comments, all at different venues, intended to make it look like McCain rallies are near riots. Nothing could be farther from the truth but YOU are supposed to be struck with fear at the inexplicable violence of the far right. Though there never was any…

Never mind that numerous times each year rallies of Democratic constituencies really do break out into very literal riots, that are reported even on the MSM, but we are not supposed to even feel concerned about this. Those events are supposed to be understood.

Why? Why should liberals be more concerned with conservative violence than with liberal violence? When’s the last time you saw a march of business owners with rifles on their shoulders at a Democratic political convention? Or the same group of rifle-toting business men attempted to incite a riot in the downtown of your hometown? When was the last time a bunch of evangelical pastors charged a college campus and took over an administration building or a place where stem-cell research was being done?

The top two examples I have literally seen with my own two eyes enacted by so-called ‘liberal’ constituents, and I have read of numerous examples of the third directed toward labs doing legitmate medical research using animal analogues.

When two dozen men threaten me with guns at one time I’m supposed to be understanding, to feel their pain. When a few isolated incidents of unrest are cobbled together to insinuate that Republicans are becoming an unruly mob, however, we are all supposed to be terrified.

When I look at crime rates It looks to me like What we normally think of as Democrat constituencies have far, far more to fear from violence than Republican constituencies. Are these perpetrators pastors or business people sneaking into these communities to do this great harm? Are they Republican constituents at all? Not that much, and it’s news when they are.

Marysdude, If Rush puts some of this stuff in context, and I’m wary of what I know to be his bias (that even he admits), explain to me why I should not see a problem with your assurance that listening to him excuses one from the valid and sane in a political discussion, while the above-mentioned nefarious activities do not.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 12, 2008 9:43 PM
Comment #266659

Bias and prejudice are part of the human condition. Not much else to say about that…

The conservative movement- in particular, the social conservative movement (as opposed to the corporatists), appeals to the less educated and less informed. It relies upon a relatively low level on Kohlberg’s heirarchy of moral development; it relies upon a follow-the-reader mentality, a ‘thou shalt’ obeisance to authority.
These are the people who, to this day, believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. (Incredibly, at least 1/3 of Americans believe this!). These are among the 10% who believe the moon landings were faked. These are the people who believe an educated and urbane man like Obama is an ‘elitist,’ while a relatively uneducated and underqualified person like Palin is a good candidate precisely because she is inexperienced and ignorant. In the books of social conservatives, ignorance and inexperience are virtues, not faults.

These are the people who believe hunting wolves in Alaska from a plane is ‘sport.’ The same mentality makes them comfortable advocating war, and denying Global Warming because Rush told them so.

So I if we’re going to have an exchange of comments based upon the recognition of bias and prejudice, based upon generalizations, I will stand by my quote. I’m not sure if ‘sounding intelligent’ is the same as being that way, but take it as a compliment. Ding ding! Do I get a free cup of coffee with that?

Posted by: phx8 at October 12, 2008 9:59 PM
Comment #266660

“follow-the-reader.” That’s a funny slip. It should be “follow-the-leader.”

Posted by: phx8 at October 12, 2008 10:13 PM
Comment #266661

phx8,

Do you feel picked on? What you say about conservatives does not apply to liberal constituencies? You can point to our LCD and I can point to yours.

Whoo Hoo! That took courage! I guarantee you I could dredge up a whole mess of studies casting aspersions on one Democratic constituency or another. To what end, though? Does it get us better government to prove the average IQ in either the Democratic party or the Republican Party is within a percentage point or two of 100? Didn’t we both have a clue about that?

Go a step further. What does it matter if I even prove I’m smarter than you? Nothing. We don’t get better government from proving one party’s rank and file includes stupid people, because the other party’s rank and file also includes stupid people!

What I can show is that a person who is not rich and who is not stupid can really believe for what he rationally (and verifiably so) considers good and humane reasons that conservative ideas are a better way to achieve liberal goals than many liberal ideas are.

Then we can start to discuss those ideas on their merits, not based on which party’s membership is fractionally below average intelligence.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 12, 2008 10:25 PM
Comment #266662

I’m not sure I understand comparing Rush to Letterman or CNN.

My biggest problem with Rush is his propensity to make up “facts”.

Intelligent listeners of Rush know to be wary, I believe the vast majority of his audience, however, are completely in the dark about that.

Lee, wow, I liked the paintings on the front page of your website. I’m glad you overcame the prejudice against art in your houseold.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 12, 2008 10:32 PM
Comment #266664

My parents are trained scientists, but there was no prejudice against art. As a matter of fact I and my brothers grew up under the spell of an almost manically creative, philosophically challenging, and nutty mom. Also, my Dad was taking art courses as a part of his degree program when I was at the crucial age of seven and eight years of age.

The prejudice part came in the nature of my observations of how people perceive what they see, versus how they attempt to DRAW what they see. The hard part is learning to not make assumptions about what you think you see. Learning to draw is a process of unlearning what you start out being sure you know, and replacing that incorrect PREJUDICE with careful observation, questioning, and notation. I tell students it is a very scientific process.

A lot of early scientists (Leonardo, William Harvey, Brunellesci, etc.) had extensive artistic training.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 12, 2008 10:51 PM
Comment #266666

One of the benefits of an Obama administration will be his willingness to reach across the aisle. I think McCain would be willing to do the same, although the top members of his campaign seem to feel very differently.

I’m fine with conversative v liberal discussions of the role of government, taxation, foreign policy, and so on. By definition, a controversial issue is one on which reasonable people can disagree. However, reasonable discussion falls apart when one side ignores facts and asserts the supremacy of personal beliefs over evidence.

We see this when character attacks replace a discussion of issues. We see it when Global Warming is dismissed as a conspiracy, or evolution is viewed as false because it is ‘just a theory.’ We see it when multilateralism is ditched in favor of unilateralism. And, we see it when a movement insists poor Terry Schiavo was actually conscious, and really just a little misunderstood.

This also occurs when the conservative affinity for tradition becomes a fear of change. We see this in energy policy, where crowds cheer ‘drill, baby, drill,’ despite the obvious need for a movement away from fossil fuels.

Belief, tradition, love of liberty and freedom are all important hallmarks of the conservative tradition. But just as liberalism has its built-in vulnerabilities, conservatism has the same. What makes these years so exceptional is that the inherent vulnerabilities of conservatism have been on display, and hijacked by the social faction and Neocons, with such awful results.

In the case of Rush Limbaugh, callers are screened. Articulate liberals are verboten, and if one slips through, they are quickly cut off, while Rush proceeds to give a cutting response to which there can be no reply.

So I’m not sure where you are going with this thread… just some thoughts…

Posted by: phx8 at October 12, 2008 11:08 PM
Comment #266667

Well, the “Oldguy” is back from his fishing trip.

I have 2 things to say about this subject:

1. McCain was compared to George Wallace, by BHO’s campaign, over the weekend. Can’t get much more racest than that.

2. It may be human nature, but when a lot of people, who say they support BHO, enter the voting booth, they will decide to vote for the white guy.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 12, 2008 11:14 PM
Comment #266669

I’d say prejudice is a difficult argument to make to the person themselves, and an argument best proved to others about the subject when based on an objective measure of cognitive dissonance. Or to put another way, It’s easier to demonstrate that somebody is presupposing something wrongly than to convince themselves that their point of view is not well adjusted to reality.

I think the effort in political rhetoric should be to get away from saying things that only mean something to your base, and instead pursue lines of argument that provide objective rationale for people outside your supporters to share your point of view.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 12, 2008 11:50 PM
Comment #266670

Another note: general prejudice is always hard to nail down, if for no other reason than its generality makes it difficult to nail down just what kind of things the person is letting their prejudice bias them on. It’s important to get specific and provide real distinctions between what might be a fair-minded assessment of things, and what’s just kneejerk response.

That’s what my most recent article was aimed at doing. Rather than simply argue that the Republicans are biased against Fannie Mae, biased again government and regulation, I wrote something based upon an article that had a real distinction in it between what the Republicans wanted people to believe or wanted to believe themselves, and what was actually the case.

It’s one thing to tell Republicans that they’re just being unfair, it’s another thing to demonstrate how off the mark they are.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 13, 2008 12:03 AM
Comment #266671
I wrote something based upon an article that had a real distinction in it between what the Republicans wanted people to believe or wanted to believe themselves, and what was actually the case.

“Actually the case” or what you already wanted to believe based on ideological biases and prejudices? There are countless articles plainly laying out Fannie Mae’s culpability but you elected to focus on one that didn’t. Selective interpretation of facts and arguments from an ideological perspective rarely if ever results in “what is actually the case.”

Posted by: Loyal Oppostion at October 13, 2008 12:52 AM
Comment #266676

>Are you saying that there aren’t liberals out there spewing hatred at the right and being listened to?

I just want to make sure I am clear on your point here…
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 12, 2008 09:30 PM

Rhinehold,

I don’t know if there are or not…that was the point…just how much more simple can I make this observation?

Let me go through it one more time:

There is a mob mentality that infuses the Republican Right. Those who incite to hate are loud-mouthed jerks such as Limbaugh, O’Reily and Coulter. Because of the mob mentality so prevalent on the right, those inciters get a large number of listeners…just the act of listening creates then, a mindless throng with lynching on their minds. This has been manifest at mccain/Palin rallies.

Lewis was wrong only in he pointed at mccain. mccain is not the problem…the problem is the crowd who have allowed the inciters to cloud their views. mccain’s participation has been to mostly let this crap ferment…perhaps even encouraging it to ferment?

Democrats have plenty of inciters out there as well…but, that side of the political spectrum can’t find the mindless mob to follow them.

Frankly this whole thing makes me tired…is there anybody out there who sees what I’m saying? Can you help me make it clear enough for others to understand?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 13, 2008 6:44 AM
Comment #266678

Marysdude,

I understand what you are saying, It seems quite clear to me.

In my market their aren’t any in radio, or broadcast TV. The comments section of the Chronicle website reads like a KKK rally….to answer Rhinehold’s question. It’s funny, whenever I accuse him of being one sided he runs to the, “I’m not advocating for Republicans defense”.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 13, 2008 6:59 AM
Comment #266680

Oldguy, your moniker skews your comments in that this is a different world today then when you and I grew up apparently. I was just a wee lad in the 50’s in Georgia and I can recall more than one incident where a black man was shot in the back and no one save the family of the murdered person seemed to care. Today’s general population seems to have grown up in a different world where they have friends with two mommys, they have bi-racial friends and on and on. The Bradley effect is less likely today, in my opinion. I rather think the opposite will happen. Republicans will tell their Republican friends and neighbors that of course McSame is the way to go and then in the voting booth they will vote for someone who has a clue about the economy, self preservation if you will. I want to go on record as predicting a landslide victory for Obama, even with the inevitable stolen votes for the Republicans.

Posted by: ray at October 13, 2008 8:05 AM
Comment #266682

Marysdude,
Because of the mob mentality so prevalent on the right, those inciters get a large number of listeners…just the act of listening creates then, a mindless throng with lynching on their minds. This has been manifest at mccain/Palin rallies.

Flat out lie. Yes conservatives are angry- at McCain. He looks like he’s perfectly happy to lose pleasantly. News reports have vastly inflated the isolated incidents of verbal outrage at Republican rallies.

I addressed this in my earlier post to you and you ignored the questions I posed.

You are trying to make your prejudice sound reasonable, as though there were no equivalent mentalities on the left. The problem is that it can’t be made into a reasonable argument. People are not more prejudiced on one side than the other. People are the same, but as the title of this article implies, political parties can leverage that prejudice on both sides to make each side think the other is filled with evil people.

If we really want good government we will have to find a way past our prejudices and bigotries to see how we can really stand shoulder-to-shoulder and lift each other up.

Googlumpugus,
Is there not a Pacifica station in Houston? I know I’ve heard it before.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 13, 2008 9:06 AM
Comment #266684

You call asking for Obama to be killed, etc, verbal outrage? Yikes. Once, was too much and to have not had McCain stop it at once was also too much.

Frankly, Lee, from your last few articles, methinks thou dost protest too much. You’re trying too hard and using LOTS of words to do it.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 13, 2008 9:45 AM
Comment #266686

phx8,
“We see this when character attacks replace a discussion of issues.”

Exactly. What was the whole discussion of the mob mentality of conservatives? What is the assertion that conservatives are inherently less intelligent than liberals?

You can say Rush, for example, “makes up facts” but you can also go to his website and see segment by segment where he got his sources.

Is he wrong on global warming? Sure he is, where mechanisms are concerned, but so are those who claims “consensus” among scientists means anything.

What the scientific community knows beyond a doubt is that the mechanisms it understands reasonably well appear to indicate the Earth is warming. We don’t even fully understand, however, the full effect of clouds, solar wind, sunspots, ozone depletion, orbital mechanics, and literally dozens of other factors.

Rush conflates these limitations of scientific understanding into reasons not to act to change the way we create and use energy. That is an interpretation with which I disagree, but as long as he’s showing you where he got his information he is not being dishonest about it.

There is a lot of stuff that goes unreported in coverage of global warming. First and foremost is the inherently misleading discussion of any climate information being the “most in a thousand years”. The climate regime we’ve been in on Earth for the past two and a half million years has been made of cycles lasting between 40,000 years and 120,000 years. The last three cycles have been of the latter length. In all of the two million years of good polar ice we have to study the most stable, benign period recorded there has been the last ten thousand years. Somehow, though, we never get that important bit of context in mainstream reporting. If you want real context, then, the current period should be compared over at least a full climate cycle of 120,000 years.

Didn’t know that? You have to really dig for it. I’ve got a climate sources document I’ll try to post on my website that shows, to the extent that the links still work, where I got much of my information.

All that goes back to what you said- character attacks replace discussion of the issues. Don’t be seduced by that which you warn us of.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 13, 2008 9:51 AM
Comment #266687

ray

“I was just a wee lad in the 50’s in Georgia and I can recall more than one incident where a black man was shot in the back and no one save the family of the murdered person seemed to care.”

If you read the newspapers, you will find this is happening in EVERY major city is the US. It happens every night, in the dark, when blacks kill blacks. To the point where it seems nobody cares.

I didn’t grow up in Georgia, but I did work, for many years, with redneck factory workers from WV, KY, TN, OH, MI and they will not vote for BHO, because he is black. It may be the wrong attitude, but it is life, and it is no more racest on their part as it is for 90+% of blacks voting for BHO because he is back.

I will also go on the record: when whites in battleground states enter the voting booth, they will vote for the white guy. I will also say, when the elitist New England dems enter the booth and close the curtain where nobody can see, they will also vote for the white guy.

What dems tell pollsters and what dems say in the light of day at caucuses, is not the same as what they will do in the booth. If this is not true, then you explain to me why groups like “ACORN” are trying to commit voter fraud in the same battleground states? If they believe they can win on principle, why cheat?

Posted by: Oldguy at October 13, 2008 10:00 AM
Comment #266688

Oldguy:

Acorn wasn’t trying to commit voter fraud, the employees were, to get a paycheck. Big difference.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 13, 2008 10:02 AM
Comment #266689

womanmarine,

I call one person being stupid and getting it breathlessly reported in the media verbal outrage. You don’t recall the books and the movie literally depicting the assassination of President Bush? You don’t recall people calling for his death on the left?

Why not? Why was there so little concern on the left for those outrages? What does that tell you about bias?

But, as usual, liberals are deflecting again- trying to steer the discussion away from an area where they are weak. Liberal solutions, as the article shows, are not meant to solve. They are meant to SALVE. The uncured wound keeps the doctor fed.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 13, 2008 10:05 AM
Comment #266690

womanmarine

“Acorn wasn’t trying to commit voter fraud, the employees were, to get a paycheck. Big difference.”

I am sitting here right now listening to a Cuyahoga County investigation, by the county election board, into “ACORN” voter fraud.

You may believe this trash, but there are a whole lot of people in my state who believe this is an attempt to commit voter fraud. Most of the calls to congressman and senators over the bailout also included a demand that “ACORN” stop receiving federal tax dollars. If acorn is so bi-partisan, why do so many people want tax dollar funding to stop?

Let me be on the record again by saying, this attempt by acorn will only infuriate the masses.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 13, 2008 10:16 AM
Comment #266691

Well, Lee, we really see this differently. You equate calling for Obama’s death in a public forum the same as books and movies and blogs? I don’t.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 13, 2008 10:24 AM
Comment #266692

The denials by acorn, that they are part of any conspiracy, is a move called “CYOA”. It is interesting how fast they are willing to throw their own workers under the bus. The workers are trained by acorn (in fact this was one of BHO community service jobs)to register people to vote. One would have to be very stupid or in complete denial,to believe these trained workers, would all of a sudden violate the rules of acorn training. And it just so happens, it’s happening all over the country.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 13, 2008 10:27 AM
Comment #266693

>Let me be on the record again by saying, this attempt by acorn will only infuriate the masses.
Posted by: Oldguy at October 13, 2008 10:16 AM

Oldguy,

Perhaps…but consider what you are saying:

* That making lists to inflate ACORN’s importance as a register of voters is tantamount to falsifying or miscounting votes?

* That somehow people will become indignant because hourly wage earners cheated in order to warrant receiving a paycheck when CEO’s of mega-corporations reaping huge amounts of money at taxpayer expense?

Do you actually feel that people cannot separate the difference between something that matters from something insignificant?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 13, 2008 10:33 AM
Comment #266694

Lee,

There is a Pacifica station, KPFT, that is very weak. I would be surprised if you can pick it up in Huntsville. And yes there are a few left wing ranters on there, but their orientation is usually not around politics per se, they tend to be more issue oriented. Like Marysdude says, most thinking people don’t listen to either of these rants.

Rush and Rush wanna-be’s, however, pepper the airwaves.

I do listen to NPR which you’ll probably say is tilted left, but isn’t, except it explores less popular positions, (on KUHF) (UofH) and Amy Goodman (Though I usually get her on morning Cable TV on Community access). While there is a left wing tilt to her, she at least sticks to facts.

Joe six pack is not going to seek these media out. Rush and his acolytes are easily available, spreading their ignorant rants. I know, because morons repeat them to me throughout the day.

I admire that some are at least interested in politics, but it’s sad to watch people rant about things they have no idea about.

I certainly don’t know all the answers, and am willing to listen to an opposing view ( but sadly, there usually isn’t much thought behind a ditto head.)

Before you accuse me of saying Conservatives are stupid, I encourage intelligent discourse with different points of view. I was a big fan of Firing Line. Talk radio, in it’s current state is anti-intellectual. If there are reasonable shows, I’ve yet to hear them.


Posted by: googlumpugus at October 13, 2008 10:36 AM
Comment #266695

Lee:

Flat out lie. Yes conservatives are angry- at McCain. He looks like he’s perfectly happy to lose pleasantly. News reports have vastly inflated the isolated incidents of verbal outrage at Republican rallies.

Perhaps you can make the case that calls for murder have been isolated at Republican rallies. I won’t dispute that. But the underlying attitudes, the mob mentality of hatred that Marysdude references? It seems to very much be there. How else do you explain that McCain was booed by a crowd of his own supporters when he tried to defend Obama against the hate shown by members of the audience?

Posted by: Jarandhel at October 13, 2008 10:38 AM
Comment #266696

womanmarine,
“Well, Lee, we really see this differently. You equate calling for Obama’s death in a public forum the same as books and movies and blogs? I don’t.”

What!?!? How is what I’m doing right here not “public”? If some hyperventilating conservative (well, assuming he wasn’t a plant) gets caught on camera saying something stupid is that somehow more revealing of a whole movement than what an author or director (and a whole chain of production, publishing, and promotion) carefully manages the creation of and then intentionally places before the whole world?

How on Earth does that (splitting is too kind a word)buffing of a hair have any credibility at all?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 13, 2008 10:44 AM
Comment #266697

Jarandhel,
I will simply repeat what I said above-

Never mind that numerous times each year rallies of Democratic constituencies really do break out into very literal riots, that are reported even on the MSM, but we are not supposed to even feel concerned about this. Those events are supposed to be understood.

Why? Why should liberals be more concerned with conservative violence than with liberal violence? When’s the last time you saw a march of business owners with rifles on their shoulders at a Democratic political convention? Or the same group of rifle-toting business men attempted to incite a riot in the downtown of your hometown? When was the last time a bunch of evangelical pastors charged a college campus and took over an administration building or a place where stem-cell research was being done?

The top two examples I have literally seen with my own two eyes enacted by so-called ‘liberal’ constituents, and I have read of numerous examples of the third directed toward labs doing legitmate medical research using animal analogues.

When two dozen men threaten me with guns at one time I’m supposed to be understanding, to feel their pain. When a few isolated incidents of unrest are cobbled together to insinuate that Republicans are becoming an unruly mob, however, we are all supposed to be terrified.

That is not less true today than it was last night. My challenge in the article was not to prove that I, and by extention we, are not prejudiced. We are.

It was to prove that you are not.
So far you have failed to deflect your way around that. If liberals are no better than conservatives the level of trust they expect us to just hand over to government becomes frightening.

Lo and behold, people at McCain rallies seem frightened.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 13, 2008 10:54 AM
Comment #266698

>Lo and behold, people at McCain rallies seem frightened.
Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 13, 2008 10:54 AM

Lee,

I think the term is frightening

Posted by: Marysdude at October 13, 2008 11:19 AM
Comment #266699

Lee:

I assume that you have been referring to Death of a President and Checkpoint by Nicholson Baker, both works of fiction rather than examples of anyone calling for the death of Bush?

I would also remind you that conservatives have called for the assassination of sitting presidents; including that darling of the political right-wing, Anne Coulter. From her book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors:

In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have to have a national debate about whether he “did it”, even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate. Or the relative merits of the terms “scumbag” and “pervert.” No one believes he’s not guilty, except the usual 30 percent of people who remain willfully ignorant on every subject.

I will finally note that this non-fiction book was originally published in 1998 and reprinted in 2002. She has since then been a speaker at the 2006 and 2007 Conservative Political Action Conferences. Both George Bush and John McCain spoke at the CPAC conference this year, to put that in perspective.

I haven’t seen either Nicholson Baker or Gabriel Range speaking at liberal conventions alongside Obama or Biden, have you?

Posted by: Jarandhel at October 13, 2008 11:36 AM
Comment #266700

dude, woman, phx8, etc…. Why continue to let this post rile you so? Check out the last one or two by this editor.
Look back and watch the way any response going against the belief and basis of the posts are dripping with sarcasm, hate, and anger.
Don’t let the post bait you into “losing it” and getting tossed from here.
Stephen, good luck with your patience….

Posted by: janedoe at October 13, 2008 11:51 AM
Comment #266702

“Democrats and Liberals, however, must be willing to admit they are not a superior form of human being”

Well, judging by the responses, that will never happen.

“Nor does it mean they do not have prejudices they can’t see in themselves that weigh against the very goals they profess to desire”

Like their blatant prejudice against those who don’t believe in liberalism and their so-called goal of working together for the betterment of our nation? Yeah, you got a great point there Lee.

Posted by: kctim at October 13, 2008 12:04 PM
Comment #266703

The attacks on ACORN are an attack upon the right of lower educated, lower income, American citizens to organize on their own behalf. Because ACORN is populated by lower educated and lower income people, is it any surprise that some illegal activities might crop up from time to time just as they do among the white collar Wall Street types, or the Politicians and their staffs in local and federal government?

ACORN should not be condemned for the illegal acts of a few within its ranks, anymore than every politician should be condemned for the acts of the likes of Rep. Jefferson or Tom DeLay.

A lot of the vitriol stems from the idea that ethnic poor and under educated Americans should create for themselves an organization large and successful enough to demand a place at the bargaining table. That is what has a number of Americans exposing their own prejudices in these attacks against the organization of ACORN instead for the small number of individuals within the organization responsible for criminal acts of voter fraud.

Politicians perpetrate voter fraud all the time by using tax dollars to disseminate clearly false and deceptive information in defense of their own incumbency. We all know this. Yet, almost none of us complain about that voter fraud. Why the double standard? The answer is in our prejudices.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 13, 2008 12:08 PM
Comment #266704


Considering the sad state of affairs that the politicians and their corporate sponsors have gotten our country into, the intelligence of both Republican and Democratic party voters is very much in question.

Both groups have allowed their intelligence to be clouded by prejudice and bias.

As a result, they have allowed the politicians and corporate mismanagement to drive the economy of the world into the dirt so badly that only the taxpayers of the world can possibly save things by handing over trillions to the same mismanagers that got us into this mess.

If these voters were not blinded by prejudice, if they were truely intelligent, they would be planning to send their politicians on an extended vacation to a beautiful luxury spot like Guantanamo Bay.

The greatest lie that Rush Limbaugh prepetrates is that the liberals are leftists.

Posted by: jlw at October 13, 2008 12:16 PM
Comment #266705

>The greatest lie that Rush Limbaugh prepetrates is that the liberals are leftists.
Posted by: jlw at October 13, 2008 12:16 PM

jlw

Apparently, there are two Rush Limbaughs…you and I listen to different ones…god luck with that…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 13, 2008 12:24 PM
Comment #266706

>dude, woman, phx8, etc…. Why continue to let this post rile you so? Check out the last one or two by this editor.
Look back and watch the way any response going against the belief and basis of the posts are dripping with sarcasm, hate, and anger.
Don’t let the post bait you into “losing it” and getting tossed from here.

Posted by: janedoe at October 13, 2008 11:51 AM

janedoe,

Thank you for your wise counsel…I’m leaving before Watchblog can ask me to…there is really no DEbate here, just bait…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 13, 2008 12:28 PM
Comment #266707

kctim,

Thanks for that. That is the point of course, and I think janedoe is actually agreeing with us, assuming she meant what she wrote.

The liberal responses have been largely, though not exclusively, attempts to avoid this very issue. Many have inadvertently made the point clearer by attempting to re-establish an assurance of liberal moral and intellectual superiority!

As Hitler’s regime proved, nothing is so dangerous to a people as giving carte blanche to a group of partizans who are certain groups within and without are inferior and unworthy of political inclusion or full human consideration.

Remember the crime rate table link I posted last night? The murder rate in the most recent stats are about half what they were at their peak. Is that not good for minorities? Look at when the murder rate in minority communities began to fall. 1995, right? What does that coincide with politically in this country?

David,
Very thoughtful post. Whatever happens politically we will not make things better if we can’t look past the dogmas of political affiliation and work together. To do that we must set aside imagined superiorities and inferiorities and focus instead on goals. One of those, if not the most important of them, is that all populations within this country learn to see themselves as fully capable of competing equally in the market places of economics and politics without someone pulling their strings from above.

I don’t see the Democratic Party encouraging their constituencies in this way. I see them hobbling them, rather, with “aid”. That is what I see, through my biases, sure. The way to change my mind, if posters here have any shot at doing so, is not to convince me that I am morally and intellectually deficient.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 13, 2008 12:44 PM
Comment #266709

Lee posted:

Never mind that numerous times each year rallies of Democratic constituencies really do break out into very literal riots, that are reported even on the MSM, but we are not supposed to even feel concerned about this.

Lee, did you pay attention during the conventions? Pepper spray was used at both…though I think it can be safely said more were arrested during the Republican convention than at the Democratic convention. I could be wrong - I’m sure you’ll correct me if I am.

So where in MS are you from? Me, I grew up in the Delta about five miles from a family acquaintance who was the most powerful racist in America for a generation - James O. Eastland. You know who that was. You also know he was a Democrat.

Yes, you will find racist Dems - Eastland’s proof of that. BUT you will find very few LIBERALS who are racist. A liberal who is racist…is probably not a liberal. Eastland certainly wasn’t liberal - when it came to race, he was every bit as conservative as Strom Thurmond.

In the sixties, there were Dems and Republicans on both sides of the Civil Rights struggle. Most (but not all) conservatives were against segregation…but were there any liberals who were against segregation? Probably…but very few.

So here’s the rules:

Democrats TEND to be liberal (but are sometimes conservative). Republicans TEND to be conservative (but are sometimes liberal).

Given that social conservatives are more likely to be racist than social liberals, and Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats to BE conservative, then it is almost certain that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to be racist.

That’s simple set theory. I posted no numbers or solid research to support it, but if necessary, I’m sure I can dig up the numbers somewhere. The reader can dismiss it, but most will understand and agree with the logic (if not publicly so).

Lee, everyone DOES have his or her own prejudices. Not everyone fights those prejudices. Conservatives by definition fight to preserve the status quo…and for the whole history of mankind, racism and sexism of varying degrees has been part of that status quo.

Who is leading the fight to end the racism and sexism of mankind’s status quo? Not that set labeled ‘Democrat’, but the much larger set labeled ‘LIBERAL’ (which set includes some Republicans and most Democrats).

These, Lee, are the reasons why any particular Republican is more likely than any particular Democrat to be racist.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 13, 2008 12:53 PM
Comment #266710

I’ll be the first one to admit I’m prejudice. I don’t like, trust, or even tolerate suites in a boardroom. They’re bad for America. They’re even bad for their own companies. I’ve said for years I have more in common with poor dirt farmers on the other side of the world than I do with suites in a boardroom.

Lee —- to compare Rush and CNN is way over the top. Even to compare Rush and Fox News isn’t right. As for not seeing rifle-toting business men or a bunch of evangelical pastors doing violent things, these people don’t listen to Rush. It’s the poor unemployed uneducated guy who clings to guns and religion that follows Rush’s lead, no matter where he’s going.

Most of the people on the left who are violent don’t consider themselves Democrats and wouldn’t go to a Democratic rally.

Hey Dude don’t stop writing, I enjoy reading your comments. I read WB a lot more than I write. If every body on this blog felt the same it would be very boring.

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at October 13, 2008 1:02 PM
Comment #266711

Lee:

I was not addressing your article, I was addressing your claim that Marysdude was lying when talking about the mob mentality and hatred being displayed at Republican rallies. Very clearly he was not, if McCain was booed by his own supporters when trying to defend Obama as a decent man. This was not an isolated individual yelling something that was inflated by the media, this was the entire audience in a crowded gymnasium. And that’s in Minnesota, a fairly liberal state. Unless you have another explanation for their reaction, this very clearly demonstrates that Marysdude was not lying about the mob mentality of McCain supporters.

Now, however, I will address the rest of your statement:

Never mind that numerous times each year rallies of Democratic constituencies really do break out into very literal riots, that are reported even on the MSM, but we are not supposed to even feel concerned about this. Those events are supposed to be understood.

That is a very broad allegation. “Rallies of Democratic constituencies”… who, exactly? Are we talking specific organizations directly supportive of Democrats, or are we talking demographics that tend to lean Democrat? Who is this broad movement of violent Democrats you claim are rioting numerous times each year? And what exactly constitutes a “riot”?

Why? Why should liberals be more concerned with conservative violence than with liberal violence?

The fact that most major acts of domestic terrorism in the last few decades, from the Unabomber attacks to the Oklahoma City Bombing to the Olympic park bombing, have all been carried out by so-called “conservatives” espousing a right-wing ideology. And that is not even including the abortion clinic bombings and murders committed by the political right-wing, or the conservative constituencies who have created “Paul Hill Days” to honor a murderer and literally re-create his heinous acts as public plays.


When’s the last time you saw a march of business owners with rifles on their shoulders at a Democratic political convention? Or the same group of rifle-toting business men attempted to incite a riot in the downtown of your hometown?

Never. Perhaps you’d care to provide some documentation of this? I’m sure it would have been reported, even if only in a local newspaper. I’m afraid I’m not willing to simply accept your word that these things have happened.

When was the last time a bunch of evangelical pastors charged a college campus and took over an administration building or a place where stem-cell research was being done?

To the best of my knowledge, evangelical pastors have not. But evangelicals and other conservative groups have committed quite a bit of abortion-related violence in the US.

The top two examples I have literally seen with my own two eyes enacted by so-called ‘liberal’ constituents, and I have read of numerous examples of the third directed toward labs doing legitmate medical research using animal analogues.

Funny, though… the Democrats are not running on an animal rights platform. The Republicans are running on a fetal rights platform. So which group seems to more fully embrace their lunatic constituency?

When two dozen men threaten me with guns at one time I’m supposed to be understanding, to feel their pain.

In what way did they threaten you? Just having the weapons and bearing them in public? Or did they actually point them at you or make threatening remarks while holding them?

When a few isolated incidents of unrest are cobbled together to insinuate that Republicans are becoming an unruly mob, however, we are all supposed to be terrified.

Have you ever seen a democratic candidate booed by his constituents for suggesting that his opponent is a decent man? This is not just a few isolated individuals cobbled together by the media, this was the reaction of an entire gymnasium full of republicans in a fairly liberal state. Again: if not a mob mentality leaning towards hatred, how do you explain such a reaction?

That is not less true today than it was last night. My challenge in the article was not to prove that I, and by extention we, are not prejudiced. We are.

That may have been your original stance, but several times now you have claimed that accusations of mob mentality and hatred are exaggerated, implying that Republicans are not really prejudiced or hateful. I have provided clear evidence showing that this was not just an isolated individual, it was the reaction of an entire audience of republicans. Now the onus is on you to provide an explanation other than mob-hatred for that reaction.

It was to prove that you are not. So far you have failed to deflect your way around that. If liberals are no better than conservatives the level of trust they expect us to just hand over to government becomes frightening.

I see… so your argument is that conservatives can’t trust liberals to run government because they are no better than conservatives and also want to give government more power? Yet we are expected to believe that admittedly flawed and prejudiced conservatives, when trusted with election, will reign in governmental expansion? We are expected to believe this when the current republican administration has engaged in warrantless wiretapping, and otherwise greatly expanded the powers of the government in the name of fighting terrorism? We are expected to believe this when the Republicans run on a platform promising to outlaw flag desecration, to enforce mandatory pledge-of-allegiance recitals in schools, to grant rights to fetuses thereby taking them away from women, to outlaw assisted suicide, to remove the definition of marriage from the purview of the states, and to remove the ability of judges to create other institutions equal to marriage for same-sex couples. But we are supposed to believe that they are not looking to expand government into our lives, and that clearly Democrats are the threat because they actually admit that they want to make Government work rather than declaring that it can never work and trying to dismantle it?

Lo and behold, people at McCain rallies seem frightened.

Yes. And McCain and Palin and the Republican Party have all played into that fear every chance they get. It’s not a coincidence that people think of Rudy Giuliani as a noun, a verb, and 9-11. Constantly, we are being asked by the Republicans to think of America as being in danger from threats within and without. Terrorists are trying to “destroy us”, socialism and homosexuality are portrayed as creeping menaces from within. Everywhere you look, the Republican rhetoric depicts a new threat. Their propaganda inspires terror. That’s the problem.

Posted by: Jarandhel at October 13, 2008 1:12 PM
Comment #266712

Marysdude, the problem with your line of reasoning is that it presumes human nature is somehow different between the Democrats and Republicans. Of course, it isn’t. And that is why your argument falls flat.

Polling can demonstrate some significant differences between the followers of both parties, but, these differences would be along the lines of policy and issue preferences, not differences in the nature of the followers of either party.

African Americans favor the Democratic Party by an enormous majority. But, that is not so much the result of their skin color, or ethnic background or mental or emotional differences, as it is their history and perception of which party will act in better for their interests. Just as the Wall St. crowd favors the GOP by an enormous majority.

To try to make arguments that the followers of one party are intrinsically smarter, more moral or ethical, or law abiding, is doomed to fail on empirical grounds. These are human groups organized by common policy and issue interests. As human groups, they share nearly identical human traits, capacities, and predispositions.

What both sides have in common, is far more relevant than their differences. For example, their need to trust leadership because they themselves lack the education, expertise, time and energy to keep current on latest information and data. That commonality distributes weaknesses, frailties, predispositions to circumvent ethics or laws, pretty evenly between the followings of both parties, especially as those followers rise up the ladder of power.

You know the old saying, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 13, 2008 1:15 PM
Comment #266714

Lee:

Remember the crime rate table link I posted last night? The murder rate in the most recent stats are about half what they were at their peak. Is that not good for minorities? Look at when the murder rate in minority communities began to fall. 1995, right? What does that coincide with politically in this country?

This is amusing. You are trying to claim that the falling murder rate in minority communities was the result of Republicans gaining a majority in the House and Senate in 1994? If that were the case, we would expect to see the opposite when Dems retook the House in 2006, with the change starting in 2007 when they actually took office. But we do not. According to your table, in 2004 there were 8135 murders of black individuals. In 2006 that had dropped to 7421. And in 2007 that number continued to drop to 7316. The Democrats getting back into power had no effect on it. This demonstrates quite clearly that the Republicans coming into office were not the cause of the drop, since the effect continued after removing the hypothetical cause.

Posted by: jarandhel at October 13, 2008 1:31 PM
Comment #266715

Glenn,

My mother’s family is from McComb, where, for eight decades the family (not the side I get any financial benefit from, mind you) has owned the local newspaper. They now own at least 13 newspapers in Mississippi and Louisiana.

From my great-uncle, Oliver Emmerich’s 1972 book “The Two Faces of Janus” I have quickly found and scanned a couple of pages (please forgive the scanning errors) of my uncle’s writing on the influence of an atmosphere of racism and how it can cloud even the most sincere and open mind. Here Emmerich is writing about Carl Rowan’s response to having met with him (Emmerich).

(Writing of Rowan)”He used two Communities as examples of these epochal changes—the home of his youth, McMinnville, Tennessee, and McComb, Mississippi. Referring to our meeting in 1955 he said,

‘‘As 1 pressed the troubled Emmerich, he rationalized with talk about negro illegiti macy and crimes in Mississippi, about the educational and cultural lag of the blacks.’’
Then he added, ‘‘Enimerich said, ‘‘It’s not our fault if the Negro is only a century away from the jungle. I say that’s just not enough time to civilize people.’

‘‘ Rowan continued, ‘‘1 answered Emmerich in my third hook Go South to Sorrow when I asked, ‘How many centuries does it take to lift men out of the jungle and teach them to tie a cotton gin fan to a fourteen—year— old boy’s multilated body and dump it into a river?’

“I must say that Row-an did not continue in this militant vein as he wrote about the significant changes that had taken place in McComb during the sixteen years between 1955 and 1971, changes which he acknowledged that I, along with many other persons, had helped to bring about. If southerners are willing to do a little personal soul— searching and weigh the attitudes of 1955 and 1971 we can sense the effects of what I call the ‘‘cottonfleld philoso— phy’’—and my reason for saying that I was victimized by it. It was a form of thought control.”


Glenn, Those are the words of a liberal, a man who endured multiple physical assaults, wiretappings, and threats of murder from the racists of southern Mississippi, told on himself. He admits to blind culpability in horrors he was really an important part of bringing to a close.

No one is immune to culture. Far less so are they who will not even take the painful plunge of self-examination that threatens to reveal what they would rather not know.

The key phrase is “thought control”. We’re in the big middle of it. It is a hell of a fight not to be sucked in by it.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 13, 2008 1:32 PM
Comment #266716

jarandhel,

Actually i was wrong, the decline began in 1994. I was really being a little too smart by half.

What I think that chart really reflects is the fact the people really are the government in America. The change occurs before the change of power because the attitude had swung in the people before they tossed Democrats out. That it did not go back indicates to me that the people’s attitude has not changed back. Rather they rejected a Republican Party that was flaccid and foul with corruption.

Note how impotent this Democratic Congress has been for two years, having been unable to enact any seriously “liberal” policies. If the economy hands Democrats control this year we may well see some real Democratic “leadership”.

In the table you noted there was no continuation from earlier years to show a clear statistical correlation with the census bureau tables I was using. On one of the census tables there was a note stating that the tables had been changed after(I think) 1995 to remove stats reflecting crimes either by or against illegal aliens.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 13, 2008 1:54 PM
Comment #266717

>Marysdude, the problem with your line of reasoning is that it presumes human nature is somehow different between the Democrats and Republicans. Of course, it isn’t. And that is why your argument falls flat.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 13, 2008 01:15 PM

David R,

I’m sure my reasoning is flawed in many ways, but the one you mention may not be one of them. I’ve never been a proponent of differences between the two pwrties in ‘human nature’. Human nature is called ‘human’ ‘nature’ for a reason fer shuurrr.

That being said…group nature is not so easily compared. If that were the case a group attending a local wedding would be considered the same as a group lynching the local adulterer.

Republicans and Democrats think differently, or we would, as d.a.n. says call them all fatheads, and vote all them rascals out. I guess the term that separates the two parties better than most other terms is ‘status quo’. Although the conservative party has changed much over the years since the religious fruitcakes took it over, there is still a remnant of the old ‘fear of change, or love of status quo’ that has long defined the party.

Being ‘queer’, being ‘black’, being a ‘freethinker’, being ‘female’, etc., etc. worry status quo seekers, and anyone who challenges them on something as simple as human rights, in effect, becomes their enemy. Just look at the ways mccain/Palin have attacked Obama…Barack Hussein Obama…does not think like you and me…different…pals around with ‘terrorists’…they are using a strategy that they know will resonate with their constituents because they know that constituency has been softened up by Republican heroes like Limbaugh and Coulter and O’Reily.

My wife was born on a tobacco cart in the North Carolina Piedmont region. She grew up wondering why black people could cook for white people, but could not eat in white restaurants, and many other things like that. But, when I try to explain some of the background for those things happening, she closes me out. Our natures may be the same, but our backgrounds are a world apart. As a group we have tended to agree on most important matters for forty-five years…as individuals we wend our separate ways. Your theory about all of us being of the same nature has merit only if the same human nature bore Hitler AND Ghandi.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 13, 2008 2:18 PM
Comment #266718
Actually i was wrong, the decline began in 1994. I was really being a little too smart by half.

So it would seem.

What I think that chart really reflects is the fact the people really are the government in America. The change occurs before the change of power because the attitude had swung in the people before they tossed Democrats out. That it did not go back indicates to me that the people’s attitude has not changed back. Rather they rejected a Republican Party that was flaccid and foul with corruption.

That’s an interesting supposition, but little more than personal conjecture. You seem willing to reinterpret the data in any case to attribute the drop to the Republicans, even when it continues in their absence and took place before they were put into power. Perhaps you would be care to make an actual testable argument for this supposed causal relationship?

Note how impotent this Democratic Congress has been for two years, having been unable to enact any seriously “liberal” policies. If the economy hands Democrats control this year we may well see some real Democratic “leadership”.

But the people did not know that the Dems would not be able to enact any seriously liberal policies. They had every reason to believe that kicking the Republicans out would have the same result that kicking the Dems out did previously. So we should still see a marked rise in violence in 2006, if your causal hypothesis were true.

In the table you noted there was no continuation from earlier years to show a clear statistical correlation with the census bureau tables I was using.

Actually, there is continuation from earlier years. The data goes back to 1995. Here is the 2005 data, and here is the 2004 data. (Fig 2.3) It would take a little digging to compare all of the reports over the past decade and a half in this format, but it’s doable.

On one of the census tables there was a note stating that the tables had been changed after(I think) 1995 to remove stats reflecting crimes either by or against illegal aliens.

The only note I see says that the tables were changed in 1999 to remove death as the result of legal intervention from the category of homicide (ie, it would no longer include someone shot by the police.) Nothing seems to be mentioned in the pdf table you provided about illegal aliens, though it does mention that the entire table excludes deaths to nonresidents of the US, which would include illegal aliens.

Posted by: Jarandhel at October 13, 2008 2:34 PM
Comment #266719

jarandhel,
“They had every reason to believe that kicking the Republicans out would have the same result that kicking the Dems out did previously.”

Really? If this were true would there be any difference in the votes of the Democrat congressmen on issues like, say, the bailout bill when those things are strongly supported by the leadership where the previous rep had been a Republican? Democrats like Nick Lampson had to vote like Republicans. As a matter of fact Lampson has practically had to BE a Republican.

The people really do run the place. Even if they don’t know it.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 13, 2008 2:51 PM
Comment #266720
Really? If this were true would there be any difference in the votes of the Democrat congressmen on issues like, say, the bailout bill when those things are strongly supported by the leadership where the previous rep had been a Republican? Democrats like Nick Lampson had to vote like Republicans. As a matter of fact Lampson has practically had to BE a Republican.

The people really do run the place. Even if they don’t know it.

If that were the case, the people would have simply elected different Republicans. The fact of the matter is that the people voted the Republicans out, fully expecting the Democrats to take control. Even moderate Democrats were fully expected to caucus with the other Democrats, and not with the Republicans. If, as you suppose, anticipation of Republican control was the proximate cause of the reduction in violence, anticipation of Democratic control should have been the proximate cause of a corresponding increase in violence. The data does not reflect this.

Posted by: Jarandhel at October 13, 2008 3:16 PM
Comment #266721

Oldguy: “Acorn wasn’t trying to commit voter fraud, the employees were, to get a paycheck. Big difference.”
Posted by: womanmarine at October 13, 2008 10:02 AM

Perhaps we should use womanmarine’s logic and apply it to corporations and Wall Street as well. When it suits liberals they will blame the executives…at other times they will blame the employees. Should Obama become president and fail abysmally, no liberal will blame him either, just blame the hired help. Acorn should be defunded from taxpayer money as incompetent if unable or unwilling to take responsibility for the actions of its employees and/or private contractors.

If liberals are so confident of an Obama victory why must they resort to voter fraud on an apparently grand scale across America? Enduring an Obama administration, if that should occur, will be difficult enough for the nation without having lingering doubts and many lawsuits concerning the election results.

Lake County, Indiana Election Board Director Sally LaSota said she received nearly 2,000 new voter applications from ACORN workers that 1,100 of which were “no good” and appeared to be taken directly from a telephone book. Election officials have reported similar activity in Michigan. Oakland County officials have discovered more than 33,000 duplicate voter registration applications, mostly submitted by ACORN workers.>/strong

http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/10/13/acorns_rap_sheet?page=1

Posted by: Jim M at October 13, 2008 3:30 PM
Comment #266722

Jarandhel,

That’s really not what I mean by the people being in control. Dyed in the wool Democrats may hand government over to their representatives, but conservatives, and some independents like David Remer don’t. That’s why the sort of immigration reform John McCain tried to get through the Congress two years ago failed so badly even with a Republican majority. That’s why Harriet Myers is an asterisk.

It’s also why several attempts by the House and Senate to enact Democrat versions of immigration reforms have also failed. The primary system is rigged to favor the office holders in each party, so it takes a huge wave of disgust to throw people within the party out.

Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and vote for Brand X.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 13, 2008 3:36 PM
Comment #266729

pinocchio hussein obomber & Joe Blow Hideing partners in crime acorn cheaters

Posted by: oneworldgoneary at October 13, 2008 5:49 PM
Comment #266730

Marysdude:

“Do you actually feel that people cannot separate the difference between something that matters from something insignificant?”

I believe hourly workers care about working hard for a living and management walking out with all the perks and pay. I also believe people don’t like to be hoodooed. If it were a republican backed community organization that was trying to register only republicans and telling them to vote for McCain, would you feel it was insignificant?

David R. Remer

“The attacks on ACORN are an attack upon the right of lower educated, lower income, American citizens to organize on their own behalf. Because ACORN is populated by lower educated and lower income people, is it any surprise that some illegal activities might crop up from time to time just as they do among the white collar Wall Street types, or the Politicians and their staffs in local and federal government?
ACORN should not be condemned for the illegal acts of a few within its ranks…”

The problem is, it is not “the uneducated, lower income, lower class”, that are part of the organization. It is the “higher educated, higher income, higher class” that organize these groups. As usual, people with an agenda manipulate blacks and ACORN is more than willing to send people out with the task of breaking the law. ACORN says, “it’s not our fault”, but at the same time they encourage these violations. And only the dems could make illegal activity a non-issue.

And again DRR wrote:

“African Americans favor the Democratic Party by an enormous majority. But, that is not so much the result of their skin color, or ethnic background or mental or emotional differences, as it is their history and perception of which party will act in better for their interests.”

The reason blacks favor the Democratic Party is because of handouts. I find it interesting that the party who once owned blacks as slaves, and the party that went to war to retain that right, is now the party who is solely interested in their well being. It was a republican who fought for their freedom; it was republicans who passed civil rights when Johnson could not get the support of his Dixie-crates, and it was republicans who tried to reverse the damage welfare did, and encourage blacks to take part in the American dream.

The Welfare program did more to enslave the black race than slavery itself.

Everytime BHO opens his mouth, he is promising a handout for a vote. This socialist agenda is called re-distribution of wealth.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 13, 2008 5:57 PM
Comment #266734

OldGuy, your reply is pure conjecture and wishful thinking to make your case. Provide evidence, and I will have something to learn from your kneejerk defensive argument. Demonstrate first that the leadership in charge of voter registration are college educated upper middle class ‘volunteers’ or paid staff.

Then, provide evidence that African American community volunteers in general are very willing to be used by and break the law in response to directives to do so by those ‘educated well-off’ staff directing their actions.

You won’t! Because you can’t. You are prejudging the entire fact set involving ACORN and that makes your entire argument prejudiced.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 13, 2008 6:12 PM
Comment #266735

Liberal prejudice?

WHAT liberal prejudice?

There IS no liberal prejudice.

ALL liberals are always tolerant of other people’s views, well-educated PHDs and only Rush and Bill O and the rest of the ultra right-wing hate machine spews hate speech.

Video proof of this is right here.

Notice how civilized and tolerant these liberals are.

Posted by: Jim T at October 13, 2008 6:17 PM
Comment #266736

oldguy

I will also go on the record: when whites in battleground states enter the voting booth, they will vote for the white guy. I will also say, when the elitist New England dems enter the booth and close the curtain where nobody can see, they will also vote for the white guy.

Your view on this subject is nothing more than conjecture based on personal opinion. You have absolutely no way to validate this claim with any accuracy. Imo, you are wrong. Nobody will deny that there are still plenty of bigots in this country. But all in all I believe they are indeed a minority. The last eight years have left this country in dire straights. That can not be denied. Most Americans are feeling the pinch of inflation very strongly. Most Americans do not see four more years of republican policy as a fix to what ails us. Most Americans do not see Palin as fit to lead this country if something were to happen to McCain. Most Americans do not view McCain as being his own man or any longer knowing for sure what he stands for. Most Americans will vote for the candidate they think will best serve them in the future. Not the candidate that is white or black. I am predicting a landslide victory for Obama. All indicators are leaning that way. But then that is just my personal opinion.

Posted by: RickIL at October 13, 2008 6:18 PM
Comment #266737

Sorry about the broken link.

I know that you’ll want to view the video, so here it is…

Here’s the video.

and if that doesn’t work…copy and paste this into your browser…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI

Posted by: Jim T at October 13, 2008 6:19 PM
Comment #266740

Jim T,

That’s really chilling.

I think the text in the video is a little harsh about liberals in general, but I sure didn’t see anything in the video itself to elicit the kind of response one could see there.

Just the response on these comments from a few people show the difficulty some have with seeing another side to an issue as critical as prejudice. Is is possible that the video shows a real danger exists for people liberals perceive to be the enemy?

Is it also possible knowing that about themselves is why they seem to fear us so?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 13, 2008 7:04 PM
Comment #266743

>Is it also possible knowing that about themselves is why they seem to fear us so?
Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 13, 2008 07:04 PM

Lee,

We don’t hate you…remember, hate the sin…not the sinner?

You push the self reliance thing to the point of ridiculous, and claim that giving a helping hand to the poor or unable to be wasteful, that those who believe a war started in dishonor are treasonous, and that blacks are somehow less than whites, and…and…and…Barack is mostly a Hussein, and because he’s a Hussein, he is different from the rest of us, and…and…and, you forget that the rest of us are Americans…somehow, if we are not knuckle dragging, gun toting, Jesus shouters, we don’t belong in your world.

Well…get over it…we do too.

Sorry, janedoe…I deserve all the chafe I get from Watchblog, but I couldn’t help myself…I took the bait. Even when I know it’s a troll, I still open and put foot…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 13, 2008 7:25 PM
Comment #266744

I’m watching dude….lol…
And I’ve just about chewed a hole in my keyboard..
leave me an email address before you start in again…. ;)
sandi_davidson@yahoo

Posted by: janedoe at October 13, 2008 7:37 PM
Comment #266745

The video linked by Jim T did not surprise me, intolerance can be found everywhere. As a draftee in 1963 I was stationed at a small fort near Bayside, NY. My buddies and I went into NY city and since my civilian clothes hadn’t caught up with me yet from my basic training at Fort Gordon I was in uniform. Imagine my surprise when I was refused entry into a number of public places because I wore the uniform of our nation’s army.

Some New Yorkers are strange and their display of hatred for fellow citizens is not much different than what I experienced 45 years ago.

Some say we have come a long way in tolerance for others. Perhaps true, but there is no evidence of that in this film.

Posted by: Jim M at October 13, 2008 7:38 PM
Comment #266746

Oldguy, I have no doubt that you have some bigoted friends. This is not a stretch. But if you are indeed an oldguy,you probably didn’t know any same sex couples, you didn’t know any biracial kids or very very few if any. And I am still saying that sure there are those that will not vote for a person of color, but that there lots of people smarter than all that out there too, thank God. And, of course there is no way of getting a count, my belief is that there are a lot of Republicans who will vote for Obama. Skin color be damned, look at my 401(k) they’ll say.

Posted by: ray at October 13, 2008 7:41 PM
Comment #266748

Marysdude wrote:

“…somehow, if we are not knuckle dragging, gun toting, Jesus shouters, we don’t belong in your world.”


Nooooo…liberals don’t belong in our world because of the large occipital bun, low-vaulted cranium and prehensile tail.

Other than that…liberals are OK…

Posted by: Jim T at October 13, 2008 7:49 PM
Comment #266749

David R. Remer:
“OldGuy, your reply is pure conjecture and wishful thinking to make your case.”

RickIL:
“Your view on this subject is nothing more than conjecture based on personal opinion.”

Everything that is written on this site is “conjecture & personal opinion”. You link to off the wall left wing web sites and pretend it’s the gospel truth and at the same time attack Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and all other conservative groups as being biased. Nobody reads the attached links and if they do, they do it with a pre-conceived idea. Someone tell me the last time a link changed an opinion?

I base my opinions on human nature. Human nature does not change.

When millions of taxpayer’s dollars are involved, I say people will do anything to continue the flow of money. When that flow comes from democrat politicians to an organization like ACORN, they will do anything to keep the dems in power. It is human nature.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 13, 2008 7:52 PM
Comment #266750

Jim M,

In the video, the residents just thought marchers had left their sheets at home…lol

Actually I abhor such demonstrations and wish I’d been there to maybe stem some of it…but, did I here threats of death, or shout of treason?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 13, 2008 8:00 PM
Comment #266751

ray

“Oldguy, I have no doubt that you have some bigoted friends. This is not a stretch. But if you are indeed an oldguy,you probably didn’t know any same sex couples, you didn’t know any biracial kids or very very few if any. And I am still saying that sure there are those that will not vote for a person of color, but that there lots of people smarter than all that out there too, thank God. And, of course there is no way of getting a count, my belief is that there are a lot of Republicans who will vote for Obama. Skin color be damned, look at my 401(k) they’ll say.”

I have a lot of friends from TN and WV, and I have relatives in MI, KY, OH, and VA. I did not say I agreed with voting strickly on a race basis. I said I knew human nature and not all things are as they apprear. I have a tendency to believe there will be a higher rate of dems either not voting at all or voting for McCain because of color.

Now, you answer my question, if 90+% of blacks are voting for BHO because he is black, do you consider that to be racism?

Posted by: Oldguy at October 13, 2008 8:04 PM
Comment #266752

Lee

I would not go so far as to place conservatives as by nature any more stupid or intelligent than liberals. We are all humans sharing the same space on this globe, and we all aspire to pretty much the same needs and desires.

That being said, there is indeed prejudice in this world, liberal and conservative alike. I do find myself being prejudiced towards the likes of Limbaugh, Ohriely, Coulter etc. It is not so much what Limbaugh has to say that bothers me as much as it is how he uses it. All these people use their rants, half truths and sometimes all out lies to incite fear, doubt and hatred of all things liberal. They have motivations that do not appear to be in the best interest of this country. Their motivations serve to divide more than they do to unite. They keep and maintain a group of people in a state of agitation always ready to strike at all things liberal. They prey on the group management process. They have created a market of believers who rarely dispute or even stop to consider that these people are using them to further an agenda. They have become mainstream and their motives are to be feared, simply because such a large crowd of people seemingly worships every semi truthful and outright lie that emanates from their mouths and writings. They serve an agenda of extreme right wing politics that focuses on propagation of all things conservative and republican party. It is obvious by the rants of some followers that they take all this to heart and are willing to live by these extreme misguided ideologies with absolutely no consideration to alternatives being given. They do not provoke free thinking individualism. They rely on the devout brotherhood of unquestioned devotion to the beliefs that their ideology is unquestioningly the only one that is correct.

These are the people that Palin has been playing to at these rallies. The very act of allowing the vitriol to build for several days planted the seed and indicates to me that McCain was using it to serve a need. If indeed he were sincere about it being wrong he would have attacked it from the very beginning. A man in his position who is supposed to represent all the people in this country should not even for a moment tolerate such vociferous hate and fear mongering. Instead he decided to let it grow for a few days. Imo this lack of immediate denouncement speaks as much of McCains character as it does those in the crowd. If I am wrong then at the very least it speaks to a lack of good judgment on his part.

Posted by: RickIL at October 13, 2008 8:04 PM
Comment #266753

Oldguy

Everything that is written on this site is “conjecture & personal opinion”.

Absolutely wrong. There is much on this site that is backed up with proof. There are a good number of people here, conservative and liberal alike that are quite knowledgeable, and obviously well educated people that I personally would not even consider challenging on many occasions because I know they are much more versed in history and fact than myself.

Posted by: RickIL at October 13, 2008 8:13 PM
Comment #266754

LO-

“Actually the case” or what you already wanted to believe based on ideological biases and prejudices?

Problem: Lenders issue too many bad subprime loans. Who do you blame for the problem: those whose market share of subprime loans decline sharply, or those whose share rises by leaps and bounds?

The facts illustrate that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were being left behind in the market, even hindered by new regulation from accepting many of the mortgages others where happy to snap up.

The Republicans are trusting people to think that everything began with the GSEs. But what killed them was the one-two punch of the drying up of the primary mortgage markets, and the enervating effect of the bad derivatives and poorly backed mortgage securities that came for the most part from the private sector that wasn’t restrained from going in that direction.

You can speak of countless articles showing Fannie Mae’s culpability, but how many of them are in nonpartisan sources? But of course, there is an entire philosophy of selective interpretation of facts that you practice: it’s called the Liberal Media Bias Myth, and it allows you to ignore publications that don’t back you without having to discredit actual facts first, and gives you the excuse to use whatever unbalanced, partisan sources you wish to.

Show me facts. Don’t bother me with this partisan BS.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 13, 2008 8:33 PM
Comment #266756

RickIl,

Let me submit to you that conservatives see the same thing on the other side of the fence. Sure, the mechanisms operate a little differently on the left, and the targeting is different because the identities toward which the identity politics are aimed are more diffuse. (By the way, the REAL reason talk radio doesn’t work on the left lies there, in the diffusion of liberal constituencies. The message that hits one group square will be offensive to another, and trying to move the message to mollify all the groups merely offends them all eventually.)

Did you see Jim T’s video link? I don’t know what all the signs said or if they said anything but McCain Palin, but what I do know is that the reaction there was not anything like tolerance or respect for intellectual diversity. Did anyone want to know more? Did anyone try to see these people as humans who didn’t already plan to vote for McCain? And who were those folks? They looked a lot like bitter, angry, middle-class WHITE people to me.

Why do Democrats let that sort of thing go on? If they won’t find a way to encourage the goals they claim among their own partizans when they don’t have the political wherewithal to impose their desires on us against our will, how will they act toward us when they do?

Why should that not be frightening to us Rick?

This “fear” is being expressed of a party’s constituents after they have been in power for more than a decade. Did churches really burn as Democrats were promised? Only when MINORITIES burned them! Who was fanning the flames of fear then? When Bill Clinton spoke of his memories of the “churches that burned in Arkansas” and then we found that NO churches had been torched in the state during the period of which he spoke, Who was fanning the fires of hatred?

This is not about which side is populated by monsters, Rick. This is about whether we will be manipulated into being afraid!

When I spoke of the men marching with guns I was speaking of things I had seen with my own eyes. Why would black followers of Quanell X do so egregious an act as to march around en masse with loaded weapons, Rick?

Here is a breathless report from a far-right-wing website after the events-

“On June 16, 15 Panthers armed with AK-47s, shotguns and assault rifles
descended on the state GOP convention as Texas first lady Laura Bush was
about to speak. Repeatedly shouting “black power!” they assaulted one
delegate, who demanded to know if their guns were loaded. [Nice work
Hill and Billl - we know your style, we saw it at Waco and Ruby Ridge]
**************************************************

Five days later, Panther Information Minister Quanell X warned that he
would lead the same group in a march on the Huntsville, Texas death
house on the day of Graham’s execution. Asked by “Fox News” if his gang
would be armed as before, Minister X said, ‘It wouldn’t make sense to
take a butter knife to a gunfight.‘“Who was trying to stir up conservatives to violence?

I was a delegate to the Republican convention mentioned above. I was also in Huntsville, where I live and work the day these people came to town. They were here to start a riot. Period.

What I sometimes think really galls liberals is that those “stupid” conservatives are so damned hard to provoke to violence!

Why can’t we break this cycle of bending to leaders who are intent on our seeing each other as monsters? If those New Yorkers saw conservatives as human instead of the inbred, gun-toting, drooling, cretins they’ve been taught we are they surely would not have been giving the finger and shouting obscenities on camera as they did in that video. Perhaps then the cycle of provocations such as those of Quanell X and this current attempt to frighten the world with confabulated reports of mayhem would stop as well.

Then Republicans might not be terrified of Democrats and vice-versa. And, perhaps, we could sit down together to talk about how, really, we have much, much more in common than we have to fear from each other.

Think about it. Isn’t it better for the rest of us, if not for the politicians, if we are focused on our goals for doing the best for each other and for ourselves and our children? That is why I posted this article.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 13, 2008 10:25 PM
Comment #266757

Stephen Daugherty

I’m having trouble understanding your last post and how it pertains to this subject.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 13, 2008 10:50 PM
Comment #266758

Jim M, thank you for that comment with the glaring LIE in it regarding not being served in uniform around 1963. 1963 predates the war protests and even anti-Viet Nam war sentiment. Even if this occurred near the end of your two year draft, the anti-war sentiment had not spread to the business community, even in N.Y, yet. If your comments are going to contain lies, they should at least be researched so the context doesn’t make it glaringly apparent.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 13, 2008 10:51 PM
Comment #266761

DRR

Jim M did not say he was in the business community. I spent some time in NY city when I was in the military and I had no desire to visit the business community. It is pretty strong to call someone a liar, without knowing all the facts.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 13, 2008 11:19 PM
Comment #266762

Lee

Personally if I had a left leaning media outlet to follow on a regular basis, I would not bother. I do not need a biased preacher of politics to form my opinion for me. They do not work because left leaning radio tends to be boring as hell. When you remove the shock and controversy from media people quickly tune it out. I simply do not need that sort of media to maintain an interest in politics. I am quite capable of making an informed opinion aside from sensationalistic group manipulation tactics.

We should all be frightened anytime our right to believe as we please is challenged. We should be frightened when we are directly threatened by force or claims of hate and fear induced retribution. We should also be frightened by people who use people to perpetuate ideologies that serve a single mindset at the expense of all the rest. The republican party has relied so heavily on the propagation of fear to serve their purposes for the last eight years that they quite simply have lost the trust of the majority of citizens. A good deal of that propagation of fear has been directed at building fear of liberals. And no one does it better than Limbaugh and the rest of the right wing media outlets. It is those very outlets that propagate those images of gun toting good ol boys ready to jump on a liberal at just the sight of one. It is those very outlets that keep the hatreds alive. And they do it en mass each and everyday of every week of the year.

I simply am unable to take people who rely on and quote these news sources seriously. They rely on less than credible information to form their opinion. And in most cases the validity of the news seems to go unchallenged by the recipients. You have to admit Lee the right wing propaganda circuits are much much larger, ordered and ingrained than any left wing machine out there. There is a reason for that. They work at it and rely on it to keep the troops properly motivated. Their main motivation is to keep those people in fear of all things liberal as though liberals are a pox on society. To be honest I would be embarrassed to admit that I might be so easily manipulated by modern day political hucksters.

Yes we do all have a lot in common. A lot more than some would care to admit. Take away the labels and we are all the same. Until people are capable of putting reason before bias we will not lessen that divide. So long as there are outlets and reason to promote those divides they will continue to thrive. Anyone who is serious about eliminating those divides will take it on their own to ignore those political hucksters and form opinion based on credible research.

Posted by: RickIL at October 13, 2008 11:33 PM
Comment #266764

Lee Jamison-
It’s not the bibliography that lends the credibility but what’s in it, and whether the person offering it is offering the sources up in good faith, knowing that they may be critiqued, or knocked down as evidence of something.

The most misleading part of news coverage of science is the notion that it’s some static bank of knowledge, and that all the theories out there are ironclad and perfectly proven. Actually, most everything is just the best approximation.

Next most misleading is this notion that many of these options presented to the public, like Milankovic Cycles, solar radiation, and natural sources haven’t already been investigated, much less found wanting. Trust me, they’ve looked into it.

The target of Rush’s bibliography, which would get rendered like a horse in a glue factory by the professionals, is the average person. They aren’t out to do the impossible and convince everybody that it’s all a fraud. They’re just trying to create enough doubt so people continue to tolerate their harmful businesses, or at least keep regulations off of them.

If they were truly scientific, you wouldn’t here the contrarians whining about equal time. You would not here them offering half-baked nonsense like cosmic rays without even so much as a model to test. You don’t have to prove anything to sow doubt.

That’s what they did with cigarettes, asbestos, and a multitude of other chemicals and hazards. And as usual, when anybody challenges their obscurity or fringiness, they’re bawling about political bias keeping them from getting their ideas to the public.

Never mind passing scientific or scholarly muster, they want to cut to the front of the line. Why should anybody respect a system designed to promote an agenda?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 13, 2008 11:56 PM
Comment #266769

Lee -

McComb - that’s up in the hills. We were down in the flatlands about 10 miles away from Indianola, and surrounded by cotton fields, soybean fields, catfish farms…and swarms of hostile skeeters.

On abortion, I’m afraid you’ve all got it wrong. Read the book ‘Freakonomics’ - it was a bestseller for good reason. The authors strive to be non-judgmental, but one of the things they point out is that the decline in crime rates in the 1990’s began about fifteen years after Roe v. Wade…and that the first five states to show a serious decline in crime were also the first five states that allowed abortion.

Why is this significant? Children who would have grown up unwanted and in poverty are much more likely to become criminals when they grow up. The young pregnant girl now had a choice whether to raise a child when she was neither emotionally or financially ready to support that child.

I can’t explain it nearly so clearly as ‘Freakonomics’ does…but I strongly encourage you to read the book - it kept me from being so anti-gun, so I can personally assure you the book is politically non-partisan.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 14, 2008 2:10 AM
Comment #266771

I’ve been thinking about that video…who labeled those people in the streets as ‘liberal’…they were New Yorkers, they would likely have demonstrated the same way if it had been a march of Obama backers…it is, after all, a pretty rude city…no one was hurt and no rocks were thrown…hmmm…yep, just New York…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 14, 2008 4:07 AM
Comment #266775

oldguy-
I was responding to Loyal Opposition, who was basically saying that my whole argument was invalidated by partisan prejudice. I was essentially telling him that the arguments he was making were materially rebutted by the facts I brought up.

The Government Sponsored Entities (or FMs, or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.) did not gain more market share as the bubble got bigger and badder, they lost it. Which implies by necessity that they weren’t inflating the bubble. They made fewer of the subprime loans, and better.

The other argument, also materially rebutted, regarded the CRA, which was demonstrated to only cover a small part of the offending market at best, and whose loans defaulted less.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 14, 2008 8:11 AM
Comment #266781

SD

Thank you, I thought you had applied your answer to the wrong thread. The liberal column and LO as well as yourself had been discussing the fannie, freddie situation.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 14, 2008 10:28 AM
Comment #266783

Oldguy, I was a young adult back then and stateside in the Army during the Viet Nam war. I know what I am talking about.

You misread the thread. I didn’t say he was in business. I said businesses weren’t refusing to serve or acting hostile toward U.S. soldiers between 1963 and 1965. A period of service for someone drafted in 1963.

The MSM didn’t even begin to cover anti-war sentiment until 1966, and the public was not very aware of the movement until 1967. Anyone who lived through that period as a young adult would remember this time line. And of course, it is verifiable in the historical records and literature if you would care to verify.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 14, 2008 10:40 AM
Comment #266795

Glenn,

Just to engage in a little truly dark rumination, minorities could also see abortion, because they are disproportionately affected by it as a form of eugenics. That is pretty much what you’re describing.

Democrats give less, oh, let’s say “wholesome” subgroups of the population an incentive and means to cull their own population. Your analogy would still work for the establishment of the Rupublican majority, too, since the constituencies being culled were skewed toward the Democratic Party. By 1994 the population drain tipped the scales toward Republicans.

That would also explain the Democratic Party push for the importation of poverty through illegal immigration (which big-business Republicans support to undermine wages). They need the voters to replace the ones they tossed in dumpsters two decades ago.

Yep Glenn, you’re probably right.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 14, 2008 12:33 PM
Comment #266800

Here, Remer calls me a liar about my own memories. Can it get any worse before the WatchBlog censors see fit to act?

“Jim M, thank you for that comment with the glaring LIE in it regarding not being served in uniform around 1963. 1963 predates the war protests and even anti-Viet Nam war sentiment. Even if this occurred near the end of your two year draft, the anti-war sentiment had not spread to the business community, even in N.Y, yet. If your comments are going to contain lies, they should at least be researched so the context doesn’t make it glaringly apparent.
10:51 PM

I did make one small error, I was drafted in November 1963 and was transferred to my permanent post at Fort Totten, NY in early 1964 where I was the Post Cashier following my basic training at Fort Gordon, GA.

For Remer to boldly call me a LIAR is outrageous and intolerable. The public places that refused my entry for being in uniform were all in Manhattan. One was a theater, two were bars, and one was a restaurant.

Remer mentions anti-Vietman war sentiment not being present in NYC at that time. How in the hell does Remer know this…did he live there at the time and was he in uniform? Has his brain become so huge that it can now divine what is truth and what is untruth? Obviously Remer has chosen to no longer follow the rules on this site about attacking the messenger.

While highly offended by his name-calling I must admit I am not surprised considering the source. I have found that as liberals appear to be ascending in the political world they become more intolerant of those with whom they disagree.

Posted by: Jim M at October 14, 2008 1:08 PM
Comment #266801

Jim M:

I have found that as liberals appear to be ascending in the political world they become more intolerant of those with whom they disagree.

You mean they are becoming more like Republicans? Like those who have called us traitors? Too bad, isn’t it, that those who dished it out can’t take it?


Posted by: womanmarine at October 14, 2008 1:13 PM
Comment #266807

So, womanmarine,

Is this all some childish game to liberals? How far will you go in making us “like it”?


David Remer,
Having read the comments above it appears to me you were out of line to pronounce Jim M’s comments a lie. While, yes, there had been almost no comment on the viet Nam war at that time there was substantial agitation over international pressures, particular nuclear fears, in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis (Oct. 1962). Don’t imagine those fears were not palpable. We did regular nuclear drills, even in my kindergarten class at the head of Texas Street in Downtown Shreveport, La., just four miles from the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the Western Hemisphere.

We continued vainly doing those drills for years after that. We would all have been vaporized in any attack. Remember that the anti-war movie “Fail Safe”, starring Henry Fonda came out in 1964. It played on the fear that New Yorkers already had, as Fonda bombs New York at the end of the movie to show his good will to the Soviets for a mistaken bombing there.

Viet Nam was never the only anti-war show in town.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 14, 2008 1:41 PM
Comment #266808

Lee:

I dunno. Is it for Republicans? Who said anything about making you like it?

Posted by: womanmarine at October 14, 2008 1:44 PM
Comment #266810

Oh, and who could forget Dr. Strangelove (1964, Peter Sellers in his best role[s])?!? My elder son and I have talked for hours over that one.

The heavy cloud of the Bomb was on everyone’s mind, even mine, and I was only five and six in ‘63/’64.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 14, 2008 1:53 PM
Comment #266812

Let me emphasize that I don’t expect liberals to roll over and die in our debates. I wanted to have a discussion on prejudice because of what I see as an ever-ratcheting cycle of demonization.

Demonization can’t solve any of our problems, even if it delivers you a temporary political victory. Victories won by making monsters of a large portion of society will only make the whole society ungovernable and give the more effectively “monsterized” population a reason to take their grievances underground.

Another way to look at it is this- If you really did think you were “smarter” you could afford to act like adults with recalcitrant children. That’s not what liberals are doing. You are seeking to label us as beasts who need to be contained , controlled, or worse.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 14, 2008 2:03 PM
Comment #266817

Lee:

Just my own experience, but it seems to me that most of the demonization started with calling folks who didn’t agree with the war “traitors”. I don’t think I have demonized anyone, not republicans nor any one else who disagrees with me, but you have to admit there has been (and is) some demonization coming from the right. Just check the speeches and ads of the republican party. I don’t see that happening in the ads from democrats.

And, I don’t believe democrats think they are smarter than republicans any more than republicans think they are smarter than democrats. It’s all in how you take what’s being said, and in what you are saying. You admit to being prejudiced, then say we shouldn’t be. Sorry, I don’t buy it, any of it.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 14, 2008 3:20 PM
Comment #266818

Lee -

Touche - nice comeback, didn’t expect that one. But you and I both know that whites will be a minority a little over thirty years from now.

I remember doing the ‘duck-and-cover’ drills even when I was in grade school in the Delta…and talking with my fellow sailors about what we would do when - not ‘if’ - the Soviets launched. We had already bought our rifles and had our survival stuff in our cars. Yeah, it was that crazy. But then we all remembered how, just the year before while we were deployed on board Ranger to the Indian Ocean, a Soviet destroyer had tried to penetrate our destroyer screen and wound up sideswiping the Kidd (at least I think it was the Kidd), both ships at GQ with main guns pointed at the other ship, ready to fire. We had been that close to a shooting war. And that was in ‘83.

I remember the hysteria so very well - and it affected nearly everything.

Today, the threat is not nuclear war, but economic domination by China. Our spending more on defense than all the other world’s countries combined…is precisely what our enemies want. It’s not our military or our national sovereignty they’re after, but our economic strength…and our Cold-War politicians (like Bush and McCain) are their best unwitting allies.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 14, 2008 3:30 PM
Comment #266823

Lee Jamison-
The unfortunate fact is, the party has become monsters. What is a monster? A creature you can’t reason with, which seeks to destroy you, which left undefeated will continue leaving a trail of destruction.

Unfair?

You guys taught yourselves to be relentless and uncompromising, to admit no fault, no weakness. You embraced the most radical policies of your party, and throughout the Bush Administration pushed them without regard to anybody else’s wishes; heck, sometimes, you pushed them just to piss us off!

As people have died, lost their homes, seen their economy collapse, their country’s reputation descend, the solidarity of the Republicans in pushing their policy, once a source of election winning discipline is now an anchor tied around the feet of their party. The Republicans have made it clear that they have an agenda and will push it regardless of the consequences.

People have had enough. They’d like you back when you can work well and play well with others.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 14, 2008 4:03 PM
Comment #266825

Glenn,

I just saw this economic blog with a really interesting take on the Chinese economy.

In a second blog, not necessarily glowing over us, You see we have a little less than twice the GDP overall with one third the population.

China has serious environmental issues which literally threaten their economy, stuff that makes the problems of even Russia look piddling. They have one other very serious problem. They are dependent on us, so when we sneeze they catch cold.

China will grow out of that with time, but then they will have to deal seriously with the governmental and liberty issues to develop a true consumer economy.

Our spending on defense has been a choice that kept us out of world wars. It has also given us time to develop a far more integrated global economy than used to be the case, a good thing overall.

Now a naive Europe ought to stand on its own feet militarily. Russia is still a serious problem in that regard.

Finally, let’s consider how international economics is becoming a “war by other means”. Chinese domination is a serious issue if their government can’t become more consonant with the governments of their trading partners. The same is true of places like Russia and the Middle East. Especially with Muslim countries, with their tradition of authoritarian leadership, there is an issue of the inefficiency of such governance. It is simply unable to maintain parity with more agile republican (little r) governments. That imbalance, and the tendency of popular leaders in those regions to be demagogues, feeding on the poverty of their followers as demagogues of the past like Hitler, Huey Long, and Theodore Bilbo did in their own respective places, creates a potential for problems in the future.

We will be sorely challenged in the next decade and a half. We’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg.

womanmarine,
Ah, yes. When we’re all suffering under the burden of an ever ratcheting grind of demonization and have gotten to the point that we’re at each other’s throats, let’s remeber fondly who someone thinks started it all. Nothing like the coals of hatred to keep your heart warm.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 14, 2008 4:09 PM
Comment #266826

So, Stephen, let me see if I’ve got this right. Because Republicans played unfair politcs, it’s alright for Democrats to forget the goals they sought and the people they served (or claimed to serve) and play unfair politics themselves just to win and get even with those waskally wepublicans?

That’s a high calling.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 14, 2008 4:16 PM
Comment #266828

Lee:

I haven’t done it before, and I’m not doing it now. What makes you think you are superior? Your posts seem to indicate that you’re above it all. You’re not.

I agree, this should not be going on, but how many republicans said John Kerry should have responded to the dirt the republicans threw and that’s why he lost the election? Come on now. Lets be honest here. I am not a young one. I have seen so much, and in my 61 years, the worst has been this last republican administration, in my opinion based on all I remember from when I first realized what politics was. So you can be sarcastic, and passive-aggressive in your posts all you want. Some of us aren’t going to respond in the way you would prefer.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 14, 2008 4:20 PM
Comment #266832

The heavy cloud of the Bomb was on everyone’s mind, even mine, and I was only five and six in ‘63/’64.
Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 14, 2008 01:53 PM

Lee, Fort Totten served all the missile bases around NYC with financial services and payroll. We had drills nearly every month simulating a nuclear attack and of course, we never knew if it was a drill or the real thing. I always thought how odd it was to have everyone running to the armory for our weapons. Hell, they would have only melted in our hands in a nuclear blast with us at ground zero. My cashier’s office was in the finance and accounting building and my boss and most of the employees were civilians who treated me well. It was only in the city while in uniform that I experience such hostility.

Posted by: Jim M at October 14, 2008 5:01 PM
Comment #266833

Well, since I gave everyone the video showing graphic liberal tolerance…or distinct lack thereof…I now give you something even better.

Get your T-Shirt before all the best sizes are gone!!!

Some tolerance. Did these PHDs get their degree in Hate Speech?

Oh, sorry. Only Conservatives use hate speech. My apologies. The people in the picture are obviously David Duke Republicans.

Posted by: Jim T at October 14, 2008 5:05 PM
Comment #266836

womanmarine,

I am not superior. Not do I represent myself as such. Nor even do I seek to treat you as though your experience in life is somehow wrong or invalid. As I have said before I have liberal friends, among whom one is one of my two or three closest confidants. She would never dream of treating people as stupid out of philosophical differences. She is , as far as i know, going to vote for Obama. That is her decision to make.

But the stuff I raised in the article is not like that. These cobblings of disparate events in an effort to make conservatives out to be something they are not, either. These are dangerous to the fabric of society.

It is one thing to attack John Kerry’s war record and statements like Nixon sent him to Cambodia around Christmas of 1968. It is quite another to say something to the effect that John Kerry supporters have to be baby killers. Conservatives were strong in attacking Kerry himself as Democrats have been strong in attacking McCain on his associations with the Keating scandal, but we didn’t attack the Democrat rank and file. Doing that is crazy.

On this string and one on the Dem side I have discussed specific instances in which far more sinister events gave conservatives cause to worry about elements in the Democratic Party’s constituency. Quanell X’s actions in the 2000 campaign are deeply frightening, (as are some of his actions since)not the least because you and others seem to think they are a trifle. Yet you would take isolated people cherry-picked from this rally and that rally and use them as evidence that Quanell, with his roving band of rifle-toting intimidators should be cowering in fear?

It is the candidates, and the ideas they bring to the issues we on this site are pledged to be debating, grilling, and shining the light of scrutiny on. We’re not here to claim this person or that or this constituency or that needs to step back down the evolutionary ladder.

Attacking and dehumanizing groups is just as bad as attacking and dehumanizing individual people. I only have to be an ordinary person to feel passionately about that.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 14, 2008 5:55 PM
Comment #266837

Jim T -

At first you’ll see this as a cheap dodge, bro, but where’s the evidence that the t-shirts are made by Obama supporters and NOT by McCain supporters trying to foist a red herring on us?

The picture, BTW, is apparently of WOW staffers - as in “World of Warcraft”. I’m not aware whether Blizzard Entertainment has endorsed either candidate…but here we have your ASSUMPTION that the wearers are liberals. It should also be noted that many - if not most - computer professionals support the Republicans.

I saw on Google that the t-shirts (and like buttons) are for sale on Zazzle.com and CafePress.com…and that the term “Republic**t” is in the Urban Dictionary and has been around at least since 2003 when it was applied to Ann (“women shouldn’t be allowed to vote”) Coulter.

You know how I debated for years on a religious forum. I remember how I found out one of the detractors of the Church had made a phony website, claiming to be the site of a Church officer with authority to speak for the Church. I was the one who caught the guy admitting to his priest online that the site was actually his.

The moral of the story being that when you see something that appears to be from one side AND makes that side look really bad, you should check to see if it’s actually from the other side.

Speaking of which, how about all those Republican accusations against ACORN in Colorado, about all those fraudulent ballots? Seems the Republicans didn’t care that ACORN had ALREADY pointed out the apparent fraud to the state before the Republicans ever knew about them. All that mattered was that the Republicans felt they had an opportunity to make ACORN - and Obama - look bad. The truth - and right and wrong - simply had no bearing in their eyes.

Again, when there’s an accusation of wrongdoing, look not only at the accused…but also at the accuser.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 14, 2008 5:55 PM
Comment #266838

Glenn


“but where’s the evidence that the t-shirts are made by Obama supporters and NOT by McCain supporters trying to foist a red herring on us?”


who’s to say the haters at the mc cain rallies are not obama supporters doing the exact same thing ?


“The moral of the story being that when you see something that appears to be from one side AND makes that side look really bad, you should check to see if it’s actually from the other side.”

thats an exellent point glenn.

Posted by: dbs at October 14, 2008 6:15 PM
Comment #266846

The biggest problem with the outbursts at the McCain/Palin rallies, is that McCain has waited so long to address them, and Palin not at all. Should have been done the first time to have any credibility.

I suppose the whole crowd that booed McCain were plants too?

Posted by: womanmarine at October 14, 2008 7:47 PM
Comment #266847

Lee

You can’t have it both ways. If leftist opinion bothers you that much I might suggest you ignore it. After all isn’t that what you are suggesting liberals should do in the face of bigotry. You expect us to lie down and be docile creatures while right wing as—s run rampant over us because well, that is what would be best in the interest of erasing divide and creating unity. Unity by way of conceding an election to those who would stoop to hateful fear inducing swift boat tactics. I don’t believe I have read anywhere here where you are chastising the right for ignorantly propagating biases. All you have done is attempt to demonize us on the left for reacting to bigoted politics of a rather sleazy nature. This is not about superiority or one upmanship. It is about winning and losing. As us on the left see it, if the right wins, we all lose. And we sure as hell don’t plan on losing because we didn’t have the balls to stand up to cheap rovian attacks. Trust me, we learned that tactic from the masters themselves.

Posted by: RickIL at October 14, 2008 7:59 PM
Comment #266850

dbs -

It’s not the vitriol of the people at the McCain rallies that should alarm you - it’s the total lack of response from Palin and (until recently) McCain.

At one rally when Hillary was still a contender, someone attending the McCain rally stood up and asked McCain, “What are you going to do about that bi*ch?” Did McCain rebuke the guy for calling his senatorial colleague a ‘b*tch’? No. He simply answered the guy as if nothing untoward had been said.

Tell you what, dbs - why don’t you show up at an Obama rally and yell ‘kill him’ when Obama’s talking about McCain? How about asking what to do about “that b*tch” when Obama’s talking about Sarah Palin? See what happens to you. See the reaction of not only those around you, but of the candidate himself…AND see what the national media does to you.

But I don’t think you would do that. You’re not stupid - you know better. You KNOW Obama and Biden would let NO such insult pass…and you KNOW McCain and Palin have ALREADY let such insults pass.

There’s the proof, dbs. It’s all in the leadership, in how tolerant, even encouraging the candidate is or is NOT when such insults are made.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 14, 2008 8:15 PM
Comment #266852

Answer to the question from Oldguy. NO.

Posted by: ray at October 14, 2008 9:04 PM
Comment #266854

ray

Thanks for your answer, even though it is 25 hours later.

I disagree, I think it is racism on the part of blacks to vote by 90+% for BHO. Among whites it is about a 50-50 vote between a black candidate and a white candidate. 90% of blacks for a black is pure racism. They are voting for him because he is black.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 14, 2008 9:21 PM
Comment #266855

Lee Jamison-
Your problem is that you have basically convinced people of exactly what you wanted to convince them of: that you are conservatives and that you’ll march lockstep on the path to pushing your agenda.

The problem is, the country has changed. And why did they change? Your policies failed. What do they see you doing now? Fighting ruthlessly, tooth and nail, to continue those policies!

That’s why I meant. Essentially, at a time when people had already lost patience with your party, you decided to further test their tolerance for your shenanigans.

Yes, there are some obnoxious Obama-Biden Supporters. You’d think that that with millions of supporters that we’d somehow luck out and only have nice men, women, girls, and boys.

But here’s the thing: Our leader has been tough on McCain, but he hasn’t been accusing him of being a Manchurian candidate, just associating him with Bush, and questioning his judgment. You don’t have somebody threatening to kill somebody at a rally. Now, some Democrats, surprisingly enough are not nice people. You’d think we’d only have gentle people in a party of millions.

Let me put things like this: Democrats just want the Republicans unable to cause gridlock by procedural means. It’s your party’s incompetence and wrongheaded policy that’s the problem. We’re not trying to destroy McCain’s image, he’s doing that to himself by not standing up and opposing the extremists who seem on the verge of inciting violence. When Kos talks about breaking their backs, he’s talking politically, not literally.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 14, 2008 9:40 PM
Comment #266858

oldguy-
The blacks in America generally vote overwhelmingly for the Democrat. Is the greater proportion the result of racism?

The problem with inserting that particular argument in there is that it validates the same tactic when used in reverse. And you guys would hate us claiming that.

Isn’t it convenient that you guys get to do this free and clear?

Is it racism for normally Democratic Blacks to vote for a Democrat who happens to be first Black nominee for president of their party EVER? No, it’s a cultural event unlike anything that has ever occurred in any anybody’s lifetime!

You want people to deliberately sit on the sidelines, deliberately ignore that impulse, that pride, that hope he might represent to them. Why? Because you think that their following of this impulse represents a message of hatred towards white people!

Just how do you justify that claim? What positive evidence is there that voting for Obama is an expression of disrespect towards whites?

Ultimately, I think it’s easier to justify being part of history rather than being politically correct towards the White Candidate whose political values are antithetical to those of most Black people.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 14, 2008 10:15 PM
Comment #266882

>Another way to look at it is this- If you really did think you were “smarter” you could afford to act like adults with recalcitrant children. That’s not what liberals are doing. You are seeking to label us as beasts who need to be contained , controlled, or worse.
Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 14, 2008 02:03 PM

Lee,

And your point being???

It’s you (the Republican party) who have caused us to feel threatened…caused us to feel helpless in the wake of the devastation you’ve sown…caused us to fear additional years of downward spiral…caused us to be embarrassed for our national dishonor in Iraq…you are not children who need to sit in the corner, you are misfits who need to recreate your party platform and campaign strategies…you’ve used caveat emptor as a battle banner for so long to describe the best business practices, you think it belongs in national politics as well…you got your wish, we are being wary…now live with it.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 15, 2008 6:29 AM
Comment #266886

Oldguy, sorry I can’t just sit here and wait for you to slime us all and then reply right away. I have been pounding the pavement looking for a job as the party you worship has made northern Indiana ( per the New York Times ) one of the worst areas in the U. S. for unemployment. We cannot afford more rich people looking out only for their rich friends. Period. Also, show me some cause and effect there if you could, which you can’t. Just because 90% of Blacks vote for Obama doesn’t mean that they are voting for the Black candidate, it means to me that they are smart enough to not vote for someone that is not in their best interests. I am smart enough not to vote for McC, why not them too? Your turn, I’ll wait right here.

Posted by: ray at October 15, 2008 7:16 AM
Comment #266895

ray

Northern Indiana? Is that part of Lake County, where ACORN is being investigated for voter fraud?

Maybe you should look for a job in an area that is not controlled by dems. Every state controlled by dems has employment problems and every major city controlled by dems is loosing business and seeing “white flight”. Maybe you shouldn’t blame republicans, maybe you should blame the dems that control your area and are against business?

The problem with lefties is they can’t have things both ways: you hate republicans and big business and yet you need big business for employment. What is a person to do?

I don’t need any statistics. It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure why blacks are voting for BHO. I talked to a friend of mine, that I used to work with, before I retired. He is black and we used to debate each other about politics, when we worked together. He asked me what I thought of Palin and I asked him if he was voting for McCain. When he said he was voting for BHO, I asked him why and he said “it was time to put a bro in office”. It was interesting that he didn’t offer any reason to vote for BHO, except that he was a bro.

Of course, this is only one person. But I don’t think the majority of blacks care about any policies, they only know he is a bro. This is no different than whites voting because “he is articulate, his wife is pretty, he looks presidential, he’s handsome, or a dozen other reasons that don’t mean a thing”. While it is true, blacks as a whole have always voted for dems, because of the free handouts. Let me ask you a question, the United States is made up of immigrants from all over the world. They come here from every country with the goal of seeing the American dream. Why is it that ALL ethnic backgrounds find that dream, but the blacks that have been here since the times of the early settlers, still have not been able to succeed and still need government help?

Posted by: Oldguy at October 15, 2008 9:25 AM
Comment #266900

Oldguy -

Perhaps you should scratch a little deeper into the ACORN scandal.

For instance, how about that government raid on the ACORN offices there in Las Vegas? How DARE ACORN try to subvert democracy by turning in fraudulent voter registrations?!?!?!?

Now flip the coin over…and see the OTHER side of the story.

Seems ACORN had ALREADY reported the suspect voter registrations to the government - but ACORN HAD to turn them in ANYWAY, because they are REQUIRED by federal law to turn in EVERY voter registration they receive, fraudulent or not!

So who’s the bad guy here?

And then there’s New Mexico Attorney General David Iglesias, who was pressured by the Bush administration to bring charges against ACORN before an election…and he refused to do so because there was “no case worth bringing”. And what happened? He was suddenly fired.

So yes, Oldguy, there are probably those within ACORN who do the wrong thing and manually fill out a few voter registrations - just like there ARE malcontents within ANY group - but the vast majority of voter registrations are good to go…and the Republicans have been doing their level best to discredit the group for doing what the Republicans are unable to do.

AND WHILE WE’RE TALKING ABOUT VOTER FRAUD, how about “election fraud”? That’s a WORSE crime than ‘voter fraud’, Oldguy. Would you like to discuss Republican ELECTION fraud? Hm?

BIG believers in democracy, those neo-cons…. NOT!

“Things would be easier in a dictatorship, so long as I’m the dictator.” G. W. Bush

“I always aspire to be a dictator.” J. McCain

(P.S. - the second quote was likely a slip of the tongue. the first was certainly not.)

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 15, 2008 10:04 AM
Comment #266903

Stephen,
I love the way when Kos is talking about doing violence it’s necessarily figurative, but when some unwise conservative says the same thing it is necessarily literal. Then again, liberals are too smart to be literal. You younger guys must have learned all this stuff in college level sensitivity courses.

As for the “downward spiral”, Is it not interesting that in the midst of this worldwide economic problem, the single greates indicator of which is not an American market guage, but the LIBOR, the London Interbank Offered Rate. This is an international short term interest rate offered as a daily standard rate on loans from bank to bank. It is high right now because banks throught the world, not just in the U.S., are fearful of the security of their capital.

Given that fact, one would think that if the world viewed the problems as being primarily in weakness in the American economy that the best indicator of that economic strength, the dollar, would fall precipitously at a time when stock markets throughout the world have evaporated one fourth of the monetary value of the whole Earth. In fact, though, such is not the case. From the beginning of the international bank meltdown the fundamental strength of the American economy has meant that the dollar has become the value haven of the world. Even commodity traders are diving out of oil and grains to get into dollars.

Now, Stephen, you can scoff at this based on the gloom-and-doom reporting by Obama supporters in news offices in New York and Washington, but the facts speak for themselves.

In real metrics unemployment is half what it was at the end of the Carter presidency, and his 1976 campaign (the first in which I could vote) was almost identical to Obama’s campaign today. Like Carter, Obama’s plan is to only tax the arteries. He’ll be happy to (pretend to) leave veins and capillaries alone. Like Carter, the result will still be that, even though those arteries have way more blood than they need, the economy is bled white.

RickIl,
“I don’t believe I have read anywhere here where you are chastising the right for ignorantly propagating biases. All you have done is attempt to demonize us on the left for reacting to bigoted politics of a rather sleazy nature.”

Let me give you a specific case, then. Last night I heard Pat Gray of Houston Radio Station KSEV refer to a caller who supported Obama based only on his race “stupid”. He then went on to extend that condemnation to “…these Obama supporters…”. This is unconscionable.

He would argue that the caller in question had said he would be looking forward to (paraphrasing as accurately as I can recall) “…hearing you guys moan and cry because you finally got screwed.” That is no excuse.

The voting citizen in America is a fully vested co-sovereign- an owner- of the republic. The reasons they choose to do as they will may seem to us unwise, but as with ownership of any kind those reasons must be the object of education, not condemnation.

Pat Gray, a very close friend of CNN afternoon host Glen Beck, was dead wrong to condemn this caller, and even more wrong to extend his judgemental tirade to Obama supporters in general.

The owners of this country have to be off limits. Politics should be about the employees.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 15, 2008 10:13 AM
Comment #266907

Lee

The voting citizen in America is a fully vested co-sovereign- an owner- of the republic. The reasons they choose to do as they will may seem to us unwise, but as with ownership of any kind those reasons must be the object of education, not condemnation.

Agreed. We all have a responsibility in going to the polls with informed decision. As educated compassionate people we also have a responsibility in condemnation of bigotry and purpose driven false accusation wherever they exist. It would be irresponsible to allow them to grow into full fledged uncontrollable monsters of fear, doubt and hatred.

Posted by: RickIL at October 15, 2008 11:08 AM
Comment #266908

Oldguy-
ACORN is not being investigated for voter fraud, people they paid are being investigated for voter registration fraud, which, as far as the evidence goes, rarely turns into false votes being cast. Additionally, ACORN is assisting these investigation.

I think if you took a serious look at who controls what in terms of seats in both the US and State Congresses, you would find your generalization not only hasty, but incorrect.

As for not needing statistics? Well, what are you basing your opinion on then?

Is it wrong that after two hundred years of seeing only whites get this far, that blacks back the first African American to be nominated by a major party?

The rest of your claims are as troubling as they are poorly founded.

But I don’t think the majority of blacks care about any policies

I think they have plenty of policies they care about. Why shouldn’t they? Are you saying blacks aren’t smart enough, or self-interested enough?

While it is true, blacks as a whole have always voted for dems, because of the free handouts.

I think you should have given that last sentence more thought before you set it down. Consider what you’re essentially saying: Blacks vote for Democrats so that Democrats can give them things without them having to work for them.

Do you actually believe blacks are generally that lazy, that lacking in initiative?

Let me ask you a question, the United States is made up of immigrants from all over the world. They come here from every country with the goal of seeing the American dream. Why is it that ALL ethnic backgrounds find that dream, but the blacks that have been here since the times of the early settlers, still have not been able to succeed and still need government help?

I don’t know, are you positing something inherently wrong here with Black people, or the culture? The truth is, the vast majority of African Americans have worked their way out of poverty I think my coworkers and a number of my bosses would be surprised to learn that they haven’t been successful, that they haven’t gotten beyond government help.

The real thing about African Americans, is that you have had a long history of enslavement and subsequent oppression that made it difficult for people to rise of their own devices. You can’t do that for so long and not create negative drags on the culture.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 15, 2008 11:12 AM
Comment #266909

>The real thing about African Americans, is that you have had a long history of enslavement and subsequent oppression that made it difficult for people to rise of their own devices. You can’t do that for so long and not create negative drags on the culture.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 15, 2008 11:12 AM

Stephen,

Amen!!!

Posted by: Marysdude at October 15, 2008 11:23 AM
Comment #266956

Lee Jamison-
What, you think Kos is actually exhorting his people to go out and give people back injuries? There’s plenty of anger among Democrats for the last eight years, but our culture doesn’t encourage people to think in terms of arming themselves, nor to think of their Republican fellow citizens as likely turncoats in any coming conflict. We say that Republicans have done things whose net result, not intended result, was to strengthen the terrorists. We say that the supply-side, economic elite-oriented policies are wrong and have created bad results. We don’t typically act as if Republicans intended to crater the economy.

Yes, some of us are rude. Yes, we get sarcastic and snarky about you fellows. But the people who have shirts that say that Sarah Palin is a C U Next Tuesday are a bare minority. Obama’s made a point of not supporting rumor mongering, nor disprespectful behavior beyond the standard campaign critiques by his people. You don’t have his people saying “Sidney” with a lisp trying to imply something about McCain that’s not true. You don’t have him trying to tie McCain to G. Gordon Liddy, or him bringing up Palin’s connections to AIP, despite the fact that it could be a devastating attack against Palin.

There have been times when some in the netroots left have begged him to hit harder, to have his surrogates stop being so damn respectful. But he’s kept his cool.

His keeping his cool encourages his supporters to keep this business-like. But McCain filling the election campaign with this greater desperation isn’t exactly helping things.

As for taxation? The thing that always springs to my my mind is that so long as tax rates are moderate, people will simply feel motivated to make more money to make up for what they don’t make. One good thing is, that since tax savings at the bottom tiers of the tax brackets get passed up the line, most people will see the benefit of Obama’s tax cuts, including rich people. They won’t see ten thousand or 100,000 dollar tax savings, but they will see the money that seeps up from the middle class as they pay for what they sell.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 15, 2008 4:02 PM
Comment #266964

Stephen Daugherty, you have been hitting it out of the park recently. Please continue. Oldguy, nope, not Lake Co. but how nice of you to feel bad for me for losing my job instead of throwing that bull out what you did. I was going to stay here and debate you in real time but my son lost his job too so we spent a good part of the day filling out applications. OG, you do know that there’s a big difference between some employee getting lazy and filling out voter registration cards by getting names in a phone book and those people actually voting, right? Watch the debate tonight, really, it’s only going to be like a scary movie, spread your fingers apart a bit and look at the tv if you can. Your oldguy is going to have his nether regions handed to him yet again by the next President of the United States, Barack Obama. God, it felt good to type that.

Posted by: ray at October 15, 2008 4:37 PM
Comment #266968

Update. It’s been since 1984 I believe since Indiana voted a majority for a Democrat. It’s over already, Obama is obviously going to win and McC still has to spend time here trying to save this state from going to Obama. Indiana was always a sure thing for any Republican candidate for President, despite my vote. I love it that they have to defend a sure thing like that, and I would bet my last paycheck that Obama wins anyway.

Posted by: ray at October 15, 2008 5:10 PM
Comment #266969

Marysdude,
>The real thing about African Americans, is that you have had a long history of enslavement and subsequent oppression that made it difficult for people to rise of their own devices. You can’t do that for so long and not create negative drags on the culture.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 15, 2008 11:12 AM

Stephen,

Amen!!!”

Posted by: Marysdude at October 15, 2008 11:23 AM

While you’re crowing so about Stephen’s excuse for a lack of accomplishment, just take a gander at my great uncle’s painful admission of his own culpability from up the string.

Quoting Carl Rowan speaking of him, Oliver Emmerich writes- “‘‘As I pressed the troubled Emmerich, he rationalized with talk about negro illegitimacy and crimes in Mississippi, about the educational and cultural lag of the blacks.’’
Then he added, ‘‘Enimerich said, ‘‘It’s not our fault if the Negro is only a century away from the jungle. I say that’s just not enough time to civilize people.’ “

Hear anything similar between the two?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 15, 2008 5:40 PM
Comment #266972

>Hear anything similar between the two?
Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 15, 2008 05:40 PM

Lee,

Not much.

One says these folks have been held back by way of oppression, and have a hard time catching up because of that drag. In other words it will take heroic measures to overcome the actions of their oppressors.

The other says the oppressors are going to somehow ‘civilize’ the beasts, who are just out of the ‘jungle’.

If there are similarities, they are certainly a stretch…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 15, 2008 5:59 PM
Comment #267001

Ray

I’m not concerned about whether Indiana is democrat or republican. I’m just curios if the area you live in is controlled by democrats or republicans. Is it an industrialized area?

>The real thing about African Americans, is that you have had a long history of enslavement and subsequent oppression that made it difficult for people to rise of their own devices. You can’t do that for so long and not create negative drags on the culture.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 15, 2008 11:12 AM
Stephen,
Amen!!!
Posted by: Marysdude at October 15, 2008 11:23 AM

This statement is pure crap. Don’t you think the excuse of slavery is getting kind of old? They have been free from slavery for about 150 years and the dems have them right where they want them. Dependent upon government.

You miss the point completely. We can look at the history of America; the Irish that migrated here in the early 1800’s from deplorable conditions to a country that hated them for taking jobs away from American citizens; Europeans who came here after WWI and WWII from devastated countries, with nothing more than the cloths on their backs; today they come from war torn countries in Europe and the middle-east, from India and Pakistan; they all come here to succeed and to make something of themselves.

Do these Americans ask for reparations from the countries they came from? NO, they sought educations, they took the lowest menial jobs, in fact many took more than one job, with the idea of continuously advancing themselves. They don’t ask for handouts.

But the Democratic Party has made slaves of the blacks. In my lifetime I have seen a local low-income Projects demolished and rebuilt 3 times and the children’s, children’s, children still live in those projects. They have no desire to better themselves, they have no education because they drop out, and they live on welfare and food stamps. They live in government subsidized housing. They have children and no father to take care of them.

I do not blame the blacks; I blame the Democratic Party for taking away any personal responsibility. And when a black does make something of them self and breaks loose from his or her environment, they are ostracized and ridiculed by liberals, i.e. Condy Rice, Clarence Thomas, and even Bill Cosby, who has dealt with this very subject. I do not believe blacks are unintelligent, I do not believe they are lazy, but I do believe the Democratic Party has used and abused them.

Now concerning ACORN; there are investigations going on in 14+ states, investigating voter fraud and ACORN is involved and you still say they have done nothing wrong. In fact I have read some of the posts justifying voter fraud because of the 2000 and 2004 elections. Get over it, you lost both times. Only a democrat can justify breaking the law.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 15, 2008 9:27 PM
Comment #267004

>Now concerning ACORN; there are investigations going on in 14+ states, investigating voter fraud

Posted by: Oldguy at October 15, 2008 09:27 PM

Old,

Sorry, but, wrong again…ACORN is being investigated for ‘voter REGISTRATION fraud’, not voter fraud. If you don’t understand the difference, I’ll try to inform you.

Voter fraud: someone goes to the voter booth who does not qualify to be there, casts a vote, and goes home happy in the knowledge he has beaten the system.

Registration fraud: some hourly wage earner hasn’t signed up his quota of new voters this day, so he makes up some information, fills out the proper forms and turns the names in to the local election commission, so that if that person shows up to vote, they’ll let him. Since that person that ACORN filled out the form for, does not exist, it is impossible for him (it?) to commit voter fraud. He (it?) cannot go home happy, because as a nonentity, there is no home…

Get it now?

ACORN has not been charged with anything yet, and if they do get charged, it will be for ‘registration fraud’.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 15, 2008 10:14 PM
Comment #267006

>Don’t you think the excuse of slavery is getting kind of old? They have been free from slavery for about 150 years.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 15, 2008 09:27 PM

Old,

I find it very convenient that you have ignored Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and that the power structure has, until very recently leaned against African Americans. 1964 President Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act. The Civil War has actually been over for 143 years, but black people have not until the last two decades had as much money allocated into the schools they attend as other school systems. The areas they had to gravitate to because of those lacks were generally run down, and nurturing was almost nil, for obvious reasons.

With all that in mind we are, according to you, to assume that because of the Emancipation Proclamation they should be caught up with you?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 15, 2008 10:31 PM
Comment #267011

Dude -

Perhaps Oldguy also is unaware that if you are tasked to collect and hand in voter registrations, you are required by federal law to hand in every one of those voter registrations…no matter how fraudulent those registrations are.

ACORN did as they were required by law to do…AND at the same time pointed out the fraudulent voter registrations…and THEN the Republicans stomped and cried out how ACORN was subverting democracy.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 15, 2008 11:19 PM
Comment #267020

Glenn,

Perhaps if you have no salient points, you just slap-shot? The right leaners and conservative independents (I’ve never understood the difference between the two) are fast running out of things on Obama to bitch about…we’ll still have to listen about ACORN and Ayers until this election is over…if we’re lucky, Obama will have said or done something that they don’t agree with and they can quit talking about these two things.

I think we’ve gone over the reasons Ayers and ACORN are not important, during a serious economic collapse, and we’ve explained what they really are and how they lack substance, until we are blue in the face…alas…it has done no good.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 15, 2008 11:48 PM
Comment #267026

Jim M,

I have been refused entry for my dress before, it had nothing to do with anti-war sentiment. I know others who have been refused entry for being drunken louts.

David, is quite correct that your memory of anti-war sentiment is a fiction. Even in N.Y.
Let’s presume for a second that your assertion is completely true. It is still a lie that there was any anti-war movement at that time. There are individuals who will refuse service to blacks to this day. They may claim the apartment was rented or the kitchen was closed to avoid prosecution. That doesn’t make a movement.

I grew up in Ohio. There were antiwar protests, particularly after Kent State. But they were always small. The fiction of massive groups of people spitting on soldiers is just that…fiction.

There was a “church” group protesting soldier funerals in Oklahoma (I think), recently. Bikers intervened by a show of force. I’m not sure which side was more bizarre, but neither were large or mainstream.

The lie is what you attempted to sell, massive derision of soldiers. It wasn’t true in the sixties, it’s not true today.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 16, 2008 12:20 AM
Comment #267029

You are right goog, I joined the Corps in ‘58, and was in until ‘78. I did two and a half tours, going and coming by both flights and ship. I left my family in Missouri while I was away, and spent my in-states time on the East Coast. In other words my travels, during the Viet Nam war was quite extensive. I met thousands of folks during that period, and never once was I vilified, spit upon or refused any sort of service.

I know there were instances of that kind of thing, but prevalent??? Nope.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 16, 2008 12:39 AM
Comment #267043

Oldguy-
Let me put this plainly for you: most Blacks are law-abiding, hard-working, Working class, Middle class people. They aren’t dependent on Government anymore than the rest of us. But they have a recent, living memory of the importance of civil rights, of the importance of helping the needy, and they’re not going to stab the people left behind in the back.

Their economic development is not yet at parity, and they have to deal, as we all do, with where they started, economically speaking. Even if you advance, where you start on the economic ladder helps determine the pace at which you advance.

There are middle aged blacks and elderly who have living memory of a time where the economic endeavors of the average African American were deliberately surpressed by both legal and informal social measures. However far and fast they advance, they’ve had to start from that, almost like they immigrated from another country three or four decades ago.

They’ve done great in getting as far as they have, and right now, they’re doing better than hispanics currently are.

Lastly, let me repeat this for your benefit: ACORN is cooperating in the investigations, which were in fact a fraud perpetrated upon them. None of the false names are going to walk into a voting booth and vote, they just are defrauding an organization that’s done its best to ensure people exercise their right to vote. I hope those who broke the law go to jail.

But I wonder, having said that, will you alter by one iota that talking point you keep repeating about us justifying law-breaking. I’d be surprised, because the Republicans have made a nice habit of overlooking what people said to tell them what they think they mean.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 16, 2008 8:50 AM
Comment #267045

Oldguy, I live in Elkhart County IN. Yep, it WAS an industrial area until your party was in power the last 8 years.

Posted by: ray at October 16, 2008 9:25 AM
Comment #267046

I am so much more brilliant in person. Oldguy, yes, my county is controlled by the Republicans, though the majority is certainly shrinking. Probably after the way McC got thumped last night, we Democrats might even gain some seats here locally as well. After all, who wants to be Republican these dsys?

Posted by: ray at October 16, 2008 9:30 AM
Comment #267060

The problem isn’t really prejudice, it is that our two party system is fundamentally broken. Because of the enormous amounts of money required to run for public office, any candidate who does not sign on with one of the major parties has very little chance of mounting a successful campaign. And once signed on has a very difficult time getting elected unless they tout the party line. Case in point there are only two independents in Congress and one of them used to be a Democrat and was re-elected to his seat. An alternative way of affecting government would be these forums encouraging all outraged citizens to vote for ANYONE BUT MCCAIN OR OBAMA. There are over 200 registered candidates for President with approximately 10 or so in each state (check out votesmart.org for the list of candidates for your state). If we mount a grass roots campaign here in the waning days of the election cycle to get a majority in every state for ANY CANDIDATE EXCEPT MCCAIN OR OBAMA, while voting OUT any incumbant in either local, state or national office, that would make a very Loud and Clear statement to our governement officials that we are sick and tired of their BS government by the few and for the few. Personally I will be voting for a third party candidate on election day….I’m not sure yet whether it will be Cynthia McKinley of the Green party (way left of left) or Charles Jay of the Boston Tea Party (way right of right), I would prefer a centrist, moderate candidate, but there don’t seem to be any of those running in Florida. Unfortunately, the powers that be (the media) elected not to invite any of the third party candidates to the presidential debates (because you see they are some of the few who shape public policy now instead of journalists who unbiasedly report the news).

Posted by: deborah at October 16, 2008 12:25 PM
Comment #267203

On Elkhart, IN, isn’t Miles Laboratories located there any more?

On prejudice, I have some prejudices, and many more postjudices, based on the way someone is in reality. BHO lies every time his lips move, or his pen writes.

Lee E J, anything that serves the cult is good, anything not in support of promoting the cult is bad. It makes attempts at discussion of reality impossible, because so many have swallowed David Axelrod’s ventriloquist act hook, line and sinker.

DRRemer is right about ACORN, and many other things.

I voted early a couple of days ago, and a 19 year old in front of me expressed surprise at the number of elderly people voting. Since she was wearing a green t-shirt, I hope that she was voting all Green, like me, but who knows.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 17, 2008 2:17 PM
Comment #267333

Ohrealy, Miles Laboratory is not here anymore and hasn’t been for years. Elkhart is not like it was 20 years ago, but then what is? I live in Goshen, 15 miles away.

Posted by: ray at October 18, 2008 11:28 AM
Comment #267457

ray, thanks for reminding me. I had forgotten that I had to call Pittsburgh for someone’s pension information. I just thought they still hade some kind of facility in Elkhart. It’s just another example of how globalism affects a city the size of Elkhart. People who live in places like that should come to cities like Chicago, where there is always an abundant supply of jobs. I just had another argument Friday with another Russian immigrant. This time about Illinois’ paperwork regulations, which I have been dealing with for fourteen years.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 19, 2008 2:45 PM
Comment #267538

Hi everyone, it is nearly election time in the US. So it’s time for you to send your message to American voters by posting a photo message in the hope of a better world.


Time is running out, and it might be the last chance for you to raise your voice.

Please do not hesitate to post your message or if you did so already, just send a message to your friends to view our page or site.

Take part in making OUR world better, take action now,

Give US a hope

GIVE USA HOPE!

www.giveusahope.com

Posted by: giveusahope at October 20, 2008 10:44 AM
Post a comment