Some liberal things just don't work

We are all familiar with Obama Administration studies showing the “Head Start” doesn’t work and is just a waste of money. Now we find out that extending Medicaid doesn’t make the recipients healthier.

Having health insurance makes the poor spend more on health care. But it doesn't help them become healthier. In other words, taxpayers are paying for nothing. This is a article of liberal faith that the poor will benefit for more spending. It just is not true.

While we are at it, what about "hate crimes?" We hear a lot about them but there are not very many and many are hoaxes. Read the link about why so many hate crimes are hoaxes.

The most interesting part is about a feminist activist who sent herself hateful Facebook posts. She was caught, but nothing much will happen. In fact the school where it took place (University of Wyoming) said " "The fact that the Facebook post apparently was a fabrication does not change the necessity for continued vigilance ..." So the girl lied but she spoke an "liberal essential truth." Sort of Orwellian.

Remember when those Duke Lacrosse players were falsely accused of rape. They suffered a long ordeal in the courts. In that case, Duke and the prosecutors were essentially committing an ongoing hate crime. When their innocence was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, the PC folks still somehow felt they had it coming.

Our liberal friends like their stories and don't want to let facts stand in the way.

Lots of things happen more or less on their own and lots of official efforts don't have any impact. There is a good general line that I think should be generally applied.

If something NEED not be done, it need NOT be done. Just because you can identify a problem, it does not follow that an activist solution will do any good.

Posted by Christine & John at May 2, 2013 7:13 PM
Comments
Comment #365265

“Hate Crimes” are my favorite boondoggle. Are there really any “Love Crimes”?

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 2, 2013 7:51 PM
Comment #365266

Royal

Indeed, the concept of hate crimes is flawed. I remember that case of Mathew Shepard, the gay guy killed in Wyoming. Wyoming has the death penalty. How would a hate crime statute made it any more risky?

Posted by: C&J at May 2, 2013 9:03 PM
Comment #365267

I think I’ve said before that I think the term “Hate Crime” is a poor choice of words. This ought to be referred to as an “intimidation crime”, because it is the intimidation that we seek to criminalize.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 2, 2013 9:12 PM
Comment #365269

Warren

All criminals seek to intimidate.

The idea of “intimidation crimes” is not much better. There is almost none of this happening anymore, except in the fertile minds of activist. True story. Some women complained about the UCONN husky logo, saying that it looked like a rapist.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/04/take-the-test-feminist-shenanigans-or-satire/
This link has some stupid feminist tricks.

We just have to call shenanigans on the whole idea that American is infused with racism and sexism. Hate crimes are part of this.

Posted by: C&J at May 2, 2013 9:23 PM
Comment #365270

Again, your zealots and partisans cling to one study in order to further their destruction of liberal programs. While it’s true that benefits fade out going towards the teenage years, studies following children all the way forward to adulthood find that the results fade back in.

As for Medicaid, it does prevent the kind of massive financial catastrophes that not having insurance creates, and it created significant improvements in mental health outcomes.

We’ve had more than a few people make headlines who should have been treated. Take the hint, and take care of them now before they do more harm to themselves or others.

Royal Flush-
Never heard of Crimes of Passion? I think hate crimes are deserving of somewhat greater punishment. Motivation matters to how severe a sentence should be. After all, would you argue, dear sir, that crimes committed in the course of an act of terrorism are not more grievous than the ordinary kind? “Hate Crime” is short hand for crimes motivated by bigotry, and the intent to put the target of that bigotry in a subjugated position.

Overall-
Republicans are too quick to jump on single studies about subjects and oversimplify their results, especially when they’re going after the liberal programs they hate.

There’s so much of this counterintuitive style headline grabbing, that the details get lost in the shuffle. The irony is, many of the facts I grabbed to refute your oversimplified assertions come from the actual articles.

Jumping to conclusions seems to be an Olympic event for the GOP. But the party’s real intellectual underpinnings have suffered. Republicans can constantly snipe at and pick at Liberal policy, but they have no new ideas, and worse very little self consciousness about what results their favorite policies have achieved.

Or not achieved.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 2, 2013 9:38 PM
Comment #365272

Stephen

Re hate crimes - they are too often politically tainted. As I mentioned many times, my son was attacked and badly beaten by a group of six black thugs. It was a hate crime, but not called that because it was black on white. Meanwhile, somebody spray paints a wall with slurs and that is taken very seriously.

Re headstart - the best science available says it doesn’t work. Your linked article is wishful thinking. She ends with “only time will tell”. The program started in the 1960s. Time done told.

Head Start might work if its purpose was to purge poor kids of the poor attitudes of their parents. That is how we made Americans out of millions of benighted immigrants in the early 20th Century. Unfortunately our muscular confidence in the righteousness of our way of life has faded.

Posted by: C&J at May 2, 2013 10:33 PM
Comment #365273

C&J-
If everything was a clean slate, and everything were equal, anti-white racism would get the same attention.

It doesn’t because we are the majority, enjoyed the advantages of that at their expense, and they, not us, had to endure a permanent regime of racism against them that knocked them down deliberately when they tried to rise above where their place was deemed to be.

That’s not fair. If it was truly provable that it was a hate crime (proof and reasonable doubt being the yardsticks of our system) Then I’m all for applying the appropriate harsher penalties.

As for Headstart, you cite ONE study. I know science well enough to know that any ONE study can have problems with its methods, which means any conclusions drawn from it will share in those errors.

I’ll repeat: the article indicates that performance improves above that of peers when kids age past 14.

You want to know why your single result is problematic in terms of these conclusions? Because only now is that result showing up. If it were really that obvious, why has it taken 40 years to find out, rather than, say, 20?

As for muscular confidence in the righteousness of our way of life? That sounds too damn passive for my tastes, too self-indulgent. How about a sense of adventure? How about rewarding people for innovation, rather than speculation?

The problem is, we’ve made the American dream into just that. We sell it, unfortunately, as a way to lure people into behavior that doesn’t help them.

My love of country isn’t simply my sense of connection to it, my love of its civil liberties and whatnot, but also my sense that if something is wrong with my county, I take enough pride in it that I try and fix it, try and solve the problem at hand.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 3, 2013 1:08 AM
Comment #365274

Stephen

It is a clean slate. Violence committed for racist reasons is the same no matter the race of the perps or victims.

You have degenerated so far into liberal racism that you cannot see the truth.

Re improving past 14 - how do you even study this? Is it not true that other variables will have made an impact by then. Did anybody actually conduct such a study, or did they just observe?

But you are talking race. Let’s say it plain. The behaviors of many young blacks is what keeps them poor and often makes them dangerous. Racism as currently practiced against them is a minor factor and the special privileges of affirmative action more than make up for it.

If head start was to alter the terrible ghetto cultures, it would be a good thing. But the people who run those programs have abdicated the responsibly. They, like you, make excuses. And the soft bigotry of low expectations keeps the problem fresh.

I am not talking about defending our “way of life” per se. I am telling you that the poor generally have poor habits. That is why they stay poor. I speak from experience. Had I maintained my inherited habits, I would have been a failure AND deserved to fail. Chief among the “sins” of the poor is a feeling of being a victim coupled with a entitlement that someone else is responsible. What you tell them enhances this. It is among the chief sins of liberalism.

Clearly “people of color” can be wildly successful in the U.S. Yes, they can. President Obama is a good example. None of us will be as successful in the U.S. as this man. Consider his life. He is the son of an immigrant with no American connections. He grew up in a broken home. And still America provided enough opportunity for him to become president. One big reason he succeeded is that he was not raised in the black ghetto culture. His habits are those of a Midwestern mainstream culture. Those values are better. We should wish more of that.

Posted by: C&J at May 3, 2013 6:25 AM
Comment #365276

“If head start was to alter the terrible ghetto cultures, it would be a good thing. But the people who run those programs have abdicated the responsibly.”

C&J, you are simply wrong about this. One of the principal tenets of head start is to provide an alternative social and learning environment for young children and to work with parents to establish family structures more conducive to learning. Whether the programs are successful is another question. However, the goals of the programs are entirely consistent with yours.

I don’t know how to convince you. How about a short little story on the experience of some reporters visiting a luncheon at a head start program. Not a lot about learning skill development but it does say something about your concern about altering ghetto cultural. http://articles.dailyamerican.com/2008-01-25/news/26323677_1_leisurely-lunch-social-skills-rhyme

Posted by: Rich at May 3, 2013 9:13 AM
Comment #365279

I still don’t understand people’s confusion and opposition about hate crimes. There is not one charge if you kill a person. Intent is considered in the charge. There’s not one charge if you steal from someone. How much or what you steal matters. There’s not one type of assault and it’s not the same kind if you threaten versus if you physically attack a person. At every level our crimes have degrees and differences, so tell me again why can’t we label a crime that has an element of bigotry associated with it a hate crime instead of simply a crime?

Yes, some labels of hate crime are not accurate. But there were over 6000 crimes in 2011 labeled that way so it’s not like these things are rare and a few hoaxes prove they are all false.

Often times it seems like the biggest opposition to the hate crimes label comes from straight white Christian men in America. You only have to examine the outrage by the Tim Tebow fans over the coming out of Jason Collins to understand how out of touch this group of people really is.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 3, 2013 10:27 AM
Comment #365282

Liberal ‘policy’ is based in emotion that comes from a constant false sense of unfairness and victimhood. It doesn’t work because it treats people differently instead of equally. Treating people differently creates resentment and division.
Perhaps the leftist hatred and stereotyping of “straight white Christian men” like Tim Tebow has created some resentment? Lord knows it has caused the division the leftists want.

Posted by: kctim at May 3, 2013 12:42 PM
Comment #365284

kctim: “Perhaps the leftist hatred and stereotyping of ‘straight white Christian men’ like Tim Tebow has created some resentment?”

And why would they feel resentment?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 3, 2013 1:30 PM
Comment #365292

Daugherty wrote; ” After all, would you argue, dear sir, that crimes committed in the course of an act of terrorism are not more grievous than the ordinary kind? “Hate Crime” is short hand for crimes motivated by bigotry, and the intent to put the target of that bigotry in a subjugated position…”

I find this definition of “bigotry” in Wikipedia fairly correct and encompassing.

“Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person’s race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.”

Let’s examine just one subset of bigotry…”socioeconomic status”. It appears to me that every single liberal writing on WB is a bigot, with Daugherty gaining the Blue Ribbon.

Beyond that, Daugherty writes; an act of terrorism is more “grievous” than the “ordinary” kind. So now, it is the grievousness of the crime, not bigotry that counts. And, finally he gets it right despite not even knowing it.

Yes, it is the “grievousness” of the crime that determines the appropriate punishment and not “bigotry”.

In Daugherty’s world he should expect less punishment for killing a poor person (un-bigoted because he is also poor) than killing a rich person (bigoted because he is not rich).

Adam Ducker is just as befuddled as Daugherty which he demonstrates by writing; “At every level our crimes have degrees and differences, so tell me again why can’t we label a crime that has an element of bigotry associated with it a hate crime instead of simply a crime?”

He describes criminal acts as having degrees and differences which is correct. And, our justice system already metes out justice in that fashion. Adding a label of “bigotry” adds another dimension to criminality I do not find appropriate.

If I rob someone at gun point with a smile on my face and ask for the property by saying please, is that less objectionable (and not a hate crime) than robbing someone at gun point while frowning and saying “Asshole”, “Slut”, “Whitey”, “Kike”, Ni**er”, or “whatever” give me your property”?

The liberal mind wishes to criminalize our thoughts and words, along with our actions.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 3, 2013 3:59 PM
Comment #365293

I don’t know Adam, why would a “straight white Christian man” feel resentment for the way they are portrayed and treated by the left and its media?
Maybe the answer is somewhere in the reason why you choose to castigate Tim Tebow instead of Mike Wallace?

Posted by: kctim at May 3, 2013 4:23 PM
Comment #365295
All criminals seek to intimidate.

No, some criminals are simply greedy and seeking additional material possessions.

Also, I think the intimidation needs to be nonspecific in order to warrant additional punishment. The class of people intimidated by the crime must be greater than the actual victim(s). We already criminalize witness intimidation, why not other forms?

There is almost none of this happening anymore, except in the fertile minds of activist.

Just because a crime occurs rarely doesn’t prevent it from being a crime. If people stopped murdering each other tomorrow would you respond by legalizing murder?

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 3, 2013 4:32 PM
Comment #365300

“The liberal mind wishes to criminalize our thoughts and words, along with our actions.”

Well, not just the liberal mind. Subjective intent is not an uncommon element of many criminal statutes, e.g., first degree murder.

The issue is simply that liberals think that violent crimes against a person based simply upon his/her status are particularly heinous. Conservatives don’t. So be it.

Posted by: Rich at May 3, 2013 5:18 PM
Comment #365301

Rich writes; “Well, not just the liberal mind. Subjective intent is not an uncommon element of many criminal statutes, e.g., first degree murder.”

Correct, the judicial system already does differentiate among similar crimes by degree. For example; we have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder and possibly 4th degree murder in some states. Should we now add “hate” murder to the list?

Some crimes are particularly heinous and should be punished accordingly. For example, 1st degree usually means; killing with the intent to kill. Usually requires premeditation. Also includes felony murder - an unplanned murder that occurs during the commission of a felony (example is defendant burglarizes a house and during the burglary kills the homeowner - no premeditation but committed during a felony).

Please explain the difference to me of “killing with the intent to kill for any reason” and “killing with the intent to kill because one hates a certain aspect of the victim.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 3, 2013 5:43 PM
Comment #365304

Rich

IF it helps get rid of ghetto culture, I am pleased. I am not sure it works that way.

Re status - this is a big liberal-conservative divide. Conservatives prefer to judge by behavior. Liberals point to status. As a conservative, I think that judging by status is immoral. It matters only what people do.

I am more afraid of a criminal who does not hate me but is willing to kill me to gain something, than I am of someone who hates me but doesn’t do anything about it.

Adam

Re hate crimes – if someone kills, beats, robs or rapes – I understand that the state of mind is something we might consider. But “hate crime” has come to encompass speech and thought. It is none of your business who I hate or love; only behaviors should be actionable. In other words, if something would normally be a crime, I think that intent could make a difference. But just hating should not be subject to law. You mention the football fans. I don’t know the situation, but the way you describe it the fans were simply expressing their disfavor. It may be ugly of them, but unless they actually make physical attacks it should not be a crime.

Most of us don’t really even know who we love and hate. Any married person knows that those two emotions often stand close to each other.

Even with most crimes hate makes not too much difference. If a murder is premeditated, with the possible exception of misguided “mercy”, it is by definition based on hate. Being willing to kill indicates a type of hate.

Posted by: C&J at May 3, 2013 6:01 PM
Comment #365307

Royal Flush,

I don’t think that I could convince you that there is a significant difference.

In my opinion, perpetrating a violent crime against another simply because of their color, ethnicity, sexual persuasion, etc. is more egregious than for other reasons. It is so impersonal and divorced from any understandable, albeit inexcusable, reason, e.g., money, personal conflict, etc. Just because of who he is by virtue of birth. Just for hate of a race, ethnicity, etc. For me, that is beyond the pale.

Posted by: Rich at May 3, 2013 6:26 PM
Comment #365312

C&J: “If a murder is premeditated, with the possible exception of misguided “mercy”, it is by definition based on hate.”

I agree that the term “hate crime” is probably not that semantically useful but “bias crime” as some say doesn’t seem to convey how terrible such crimes are. Many of our laws take into account the mental state so I don’t see why hate crimes are so baffling to some folks.

“It may be ugly of them, but unless they actually make physical attacks it should not be a crime.”

What I was referring to was not a crime but simply the statements by Tim Tebow himself and many of his fans who were outraged that the NBA player was treated like a hero when Tebow was put down by some for expressing his Christian views. This whole thing about Christians finding ways to feel oppressed is as obnoxious as it is amusing to me.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 3, 2013 7:08 PM
Comment #365314

Rich, I agree that we probably can’t convince each other of our views. I simply believe that we should punish the crime and leave the psycho-babble out of it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 3, 2013 7:10 PM
Comment #365318

Adam

I am neither religious, famous nor gay. But if I were famous I believe I would get a lot more love from the mainstream media if I came out as gay than I would if I came out as Christian.

I joke with Chrissy that if I ever wanted to leave her, I would just have to claim to be gay and she would be unable to complain w/o being politically incorrect.

Do this thought experiment. I 50 year old man leaves his wife claiming he is gay and in love with a 25 year old man versus a 50 year old man who leaves his wife claiming he is in love with a 25 year old woman - who is less sympathetic to the MSM?

Anyway - it is none of your business or mine who hates whom unless they act on this hate. But it IS our business if someone who doesn’t hate anybody acts on his impulse to commit violence.

Actually the most dangerous folks are sociopaths, who tend not to hate anybody at all. They injure or kill for strictly practical reasons.

Posted by: C&J at May 3, 2013 7:38 PM
Comment #365319

Since the title of this post is, “Some liberal things just don’t work”

I would like to comment on something that liberals (Obama) wanted, that just didn’t work.

Obama wanted gun control, background checks, which would lead to registration, which would lead to confiscation: but instead, Obama caused an explosion of gun ownership. But let’s look on the bright side; the number of these guns bought, was based on the number of back ground checks. So we know we have background checks and they work:

“There have been 72,005,482 background checks for gun purchases since President Obama took office, according to data released by the FBI.

In 2009, the FBI conducted 14,033,824 background checks. If we subtract the month of January (Obama did not assume office until the end of the month) we get 12,819,939.

The FBI conducted 14,409,616 background checks in 2010, 16,454,951 in 2011, and 19,592,303 in 2012.

Add to that the first four months of 2013 (2,495,440, 2,309,393, 2,209,407 and 1,714,433 respectively) and the total number of background checks under President Obama comes to 72,005,482.

Obama has been President for 1,550 days. That works out to 46,455 background checks for gun purchases each day.”

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/46455-background-checks-gun-purchases-each-day-under-obama

Stephen said:

“My love of country isn’t simply my sense of connection to it, my love of its civil liberties and whatnot, but also my sense that if something is wrong with my county, I take enough pride in it that I try and fix it, try and solve the problem at hand.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 3, 2013 1:08 AM

Stephen, your love of country is contingent upon your ability to change it to a socialist nation. Don’t try to get all patriotic on us; we know what you are…

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 3, 2013 7:38 PM
Comment #365332
Liberal ‘policy’ is based in emotion that comes from a constant false sense of unfairness and victimhood.

Kctim, you seem to be slipping farther and farther away from reality my friend. Was the civil rights movement based upon a “false sense of unfairness”? The recent push towards same sex marriage you claim was based upon a “false sense of victimhood”? Surely you can remember back far enough to know what you guys said about black and whites marrying. But it just didn’t happen as is the case with most of the far right rhetoric being bandied about here.


Perhaps the leftist hatred and stereotyping of “straight white Christian men” like Tim Tebow has created some resentment? Lord knows it has caused the division the leftists want.

Talking about emotions, we see here just how emotional extremist can get when they get pushed back. The irrational idea that “straight white christian men” did not pick the fight is nonsensical kctim. Since the collapse of communism in the late 80’s people like Falwell needed scapegoats to keep the dollars rolling in so they attacked liberals gays and others. They of course picked upon the weaker amongst us and for many years did their best to create the division and resentment you speak of. What irks you is the vocal opposition, created by the Falwell’s and the Limbaugh’s of the far right, being shoved down their throats in recent years by those they scapegoated.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 3, 2013 9:50 PM
Comment #365348

It’s widely known that the Deep South banned interracial marriages until 1967, but less widely known that many other states did the same (California until 1948, for example) - or that three brazen attempts were made to ban interracial marriages nationally by amending the U.S. Constitution.

1871
Rep. Andrew King (D-MO) proposes a U.S. constitutional amendment banning all marriage between whites and people of color in every state throughout the country. It will be the first of three such attempts.

1912
Rep. Seaborn Roddenbery (D-GA) makes a second attempt to revise the U.S. Constitution in order to ban interracial marriage in all 50 states.

1928
Sen. Coleman Blease (D-SC), a Ku Klux Klan supporter who had previously served as South Carolina’s governor, makes a third and final serious attempt to revise the U.S. Constitution in order to ban interracial marriage in every state. Like its predecessors, it fails.

The onset of Radical Reconstruction in March 1867 meant further changes would come to the state’s laws. At the new constitutional convention required by the federal Reconstruction acts, black delegates led by William Grey of Phillips County, along with their white Republican allies, defeated a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would have prohibited marriage between black and white citizens. The failure of the delegates to attach an anti-marriage clause to the new state constitution signaled that the effort to prevent interracial marriage would have little support in a Republican-controlled state. In fact, after the convention, the legislature never discussed enacting a new anti-miscegenation law, and the state omitted the statute from the revised civil code in 1874. Many Arkansas interracial couples married with impunity throughout the Radical Reconstruction period.

The Democratic Party reemerged in 1874 as the dominant political organization in Arkansas. But, to discourage federal interference in the state, Democratic leaders established “fusion” governments at the county level that allowed white and black Republicans to retain some local power. Although the anti-miscegenation law reappeared in the civil code of 1876, enforcement was sporadic at best. Well into the 1880s, many interracial couples lived together as husband and wife with little state interference.

As in other Southern states, racial attitudes became less tolerant in the 1890s. The emergence of the Populist Party with its appeal to poor people motivated Democrats to work to disenfranchise African Americans. Simultaneously with the effort to repress African Americans, state authorities tightened their enforcement of anti-miscegenation edicts. Increasingly, interracial couples found themselves in courtrooms, fighting to sustain their relationships. At least one of the interracial couples that married in 1874, Thomas and Mary Dodson, had their nuptials declared invalid in Dodson v. State (1894).

In 1911, the legislature, led by M. B. Kersh of Lincoln County, passed a measure banning interracial cohabitation. The law made such an offense a felony punishable by one month to a year in prison. In theory, the act gave authorities more power to prohibit and punish interracial coupling. But there is no evidence that it made much difference in helping the state prevent sex across the color line.

The post–World War II era found Arkansas laboring to reassert its commitment to maintaining Jim Crow laws—those designed to keep African Americans in subjugation. In 1947, concerned about the growing militancy of African Americans and their demands for civil equality, state legislators enacted a slate of provisions that further segregated black and white people. Included was a revised anti-miscegenation law that prescribed specific penalties for people convicted of having interracial relationships. The penalty for a first conviction was a fine of $20 to $100. Second convictions subjected individuals to a $100 fine and up to a year in prison. Third and subsequent convictions would result in one to three years in prison.

Anti-miscegenation laws remained part of the state civil code until 1968. However, in the twentieth century before their eradication, the state appeared to have been frustrated in its limited attempts to enforce the laws. In fact, in the three cases that made it to the state Supreme Court on appeal in the twentieth century, the state lost each case on the grounds that it had not satisfactorily proven that a relationship had existed between the accused people. After the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the rights of states to ban interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), the legislature quickly moved to bring the state’s laws into compliance with the high court’s ruling.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 4, 2013 2:24 AM
Comment #365349

C&J-
Degenerated into liberal racism. That, I guess, because I don’t pretend that things started out equal. We have to indulge this Conservative fantasy that now that the traditional racism of the past no longer is legal, that everything’s okay, and set right now.

You’ll probably say, no, it hasn’t all been set right, and will quickly backpedal from the implications of that by saying it will be a character building exercise for people to overcome all that.

And to a point, that would be right. Except at a certain point, you’re just asking more of people than you would tolerate for yourself.

And that is where your less than clever attempt to turn the charge of racism against me breaks down. See what we’re talking about here is not merely a idea, or a principle, but a result.

If we’re setting up people to fail, with a double standard that demands angelic behavior of them we don’t have to demonstrate, that demands greater intellectual achievement that the rest of us don’t have to achieve, and a more profound struggle against poverty that we don’t have to engage in so much ourselves, then what claim do we have to the notion that we’ve really learned?

If we hold ourselves to a lower standard, that standard should apply to them. Blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities should not have to prove themselves constantly superior in order to gain the same milestones in their careers and lives. Each person IN PRACTICE should gain the same progress for the same effort. The extent to which we don’t establish equal standards for equal incentives, is the extent to which a casual, unthinking prejudice exists in how we do things.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s personal or not. That it might not be personal makes it worse, because nothing animates it but a lazy unwillingness to change a system that already favors you. I’ve got mine, you can go ahead and fight for yours. If you have to fight harder, it’s just character building, so suck it up, buttercup!

I think we should be the ones who have to suck it up, a little bit, because it might seem unfair that we don’t get as many of the jobs as we used to, even though we were always getting more than our fair share. Any reduction will seem unfair to those used to getting what they want.

I don’t think prejudice and discrimination are as easy to purge from society in practice as they are in principle. We can all agree that people deserve to be treated as equals. But if we have to give something up, or take the risk of not being as wealthy, as lucky, or as otherwise benefited as we were before, it gets a little more tricky! It’s one thing to Give something that requires no sacrifice, no concession, no compromise. What happens when that’s no longer possible, or no longer the workable solution?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 4, 2013 2:33 AM
Comment #365350

Weary Willie-
I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that Democrats no longer offer such Amendments, haven’t for decades. the reason is simple: it no longer fits who we are as a party.

Parties change. You need no more proof of this than the fact that It was once the Democrats who were talking Nullificaton, Secession, and the Tenth Amendment. It was they who spoke of States’ Rights. That was their rhetoric, pre-civil war.

Now Republicans say those things, and I think some simply don’t realize there’s a history behind those catch phrases. But it illustrates the change in the party, and how much things have changed for them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 4, 2013 2:40 AM
Comment #365351

Stephen Daugherty, I think it’s the Democratics saying the Republicans are saying those things. There is a history of Democratics trying to discredit Republicans by misinforming the people about subjects they are themselves guilty of. This, to me, appears to be another case of Democratics bringing up a point, previously a non-issue, blaming Republicans for the existence of the previous non-issue, and then claiming the moral high-ground in order to make a political point.

Surely you can remember back far enough to know what you guys said about black and whites marrying. But it just didn’t happen as is the case with most of the far right rhetoric being bandied about here.

j2t2’s comment demonstrates this tactic. He is trying to equate same-sex marriage with inter-racial marriage and blaming Republicans for opposition to both. It is clearly not the case that Republicans were against inter-racial marriage, as my previous quotes demonstrate. Your attempts to wash the Democratic party clean and allowing j2t2’s comment to stand demonstrates the partisan tactic I am talking about.

The Democratic’s arguments to discredit their opposition are getting more and more shallow as they go. Your party’s goals cannot stand up to scrutiny and you must throw mud to deflect and discredit those that disagree with them.

I long for the day when the media no longer protects your party. I long for the day when the light of truth shines on it’s destructive policies and exposes them for what they are. I long for the day when Wilson and Roosevelt stand in the same light as Marx and Stalin when the destruction of their respective countries are documented in history.

But for now we all must endure the blatant misinformation that you, j2t2, the msm, and the Democratic Party are heaping onto the uninformed public. A public that blindly swallows your tripe, hook, line, and sinker.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 4, 2013 3:08 AM
Comment #365355

Weary Willie; another attempt by Stephen Daugherty to change history. We’ve been down this road before; Stephen’s warped mind cannot understand he difference between the Democrat and Republican Party. According to him, the Democrat Party of the 60’s is now the Republican Party, and the Republican Party of the 60’s is now the Democratic Party.

“Weary Willie-
I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that Democrats no longer offer such Amendments, haven’t for decades. the reason is simple: it no longer fits who we are as a party.”

This is not true; the Democrat Party of today is still the racist party of yesterday.

“Parties change. You need no more proof of this than the fact that It was once the Democrats who were talking Nullificaton, Secession, and the Tenth Amendment. It was they who spoke of States’ Rights. That was their rhetoric, pre-civil war.”

No Stephen; secession was about the right to own slaves, and you still have hat mentality today.

“Now Republicans say those things, and I think some simply don’t realize there’s a history behind those catch phrases. But it illustrates the change in the party, and how much things have changed for them.”

What things Stephen? The right to own slaves. I’ll would consider what Stephen says as possible if it wasn’t for the fact that the Democratic Party is still the most racist party. Name one conservative black American who has not been trashed by the left for simply daring to think outside of the box the Democratic Party has created for them. Sorry Stephen, more of your sanctimonious BS.

Posted by: TomT at May 4, 2013 6:54 AM
Comment #365359

C&J: “…who is less sympathetic to the MSM?”

The guy leaving his wife for a younger woman of course, which is a bit of a cliche in our culture already anyway. The implication from Tebow and others is it’s somehow bad in the media to be Christian when you’re a hero if you’re gay. The reality is there is probably not a more favorable place on the planet to be a Christian, let alone a white Christian male.

It’s also a cliche for pro athletes to invoke God while being an openly gay man in a major US sport is a first. That being said, Tebow is perfectly entitled to his views but he’s not entitled to a false sense of martyrdom as he and other Christians do in America.

The point of bringing up the Tebow thing was simply that this false sense of martyrdom that some feel is a good example I think of why so many people think hate crimes are phony. Obviously you don’t fit that mold, I agree.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 4, 2013 8:44 AM
Comment #365360

TomT: “According to him, the Democrat Party of the 60’s is now the Republican Party, and the Republican Party of the 60’s is now the Democratic Party.”

Woops. It’s another creeping case of reality having a liberal bias.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 4, 2013 8:49 AM
Comment #365361

Adam

This was a long time ago. Virtually all the Democratic party leaders who ruled the old South are now dead and most of them were still Democrats on the day they died.

No party is the party of 1960. There is some turn around. For example, it is very easy for me to use quotations from John Kennedy or Martin Luther King to attack current Democrats.

Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country is a useful antidote to the idea that the state should take care of everybody.

Judging people by the content of their characters, not the color of their skin flies in the face of Democratic identity politics and affirmative action.

But the idea that parties have changed places is silly an ahistorical. I know you all like to cling to this myth that somehow there was this change. If you want, I will take John Kennedy and give you Richard Nixon, but after a couple generations the old things are not the same reality.


Posted by: C&J at May 4, 2013 9:04 AM
Comment #365363

C&J: “I know you all like to cling to this myth that somehow there was this change.”

That’s like saying I cling to the myth that the Earth rotates around the sun. The shift happened. It didn’t happen on every issue. The modern GOP is very much the party of old on it’s support for markets and business. But it did happen on several key policy issues. The years between the great depression and the the 1970’s was a time of pretty big change in party affiliation and alignment. I’m not sure why you’d call it a myth.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 4, 2013 9:29 AM
Comment #365364
Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country is a useful antidote to the idea that the state should take care of everybody.


C&J are you sure that was the intent of his words?
From the same inaugural speech-
“If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”

JFK 01/20/1961

Posted by: j2t2 at May 4, 2013 9:46 AM
Comment #365366

How does society help the poor j2, by giving them food, shelter and money for generations? Or does society help them by educating them to be self sufficient and not relying on government to support them? Helping people for a limited time until they get back on their feet is one thing, giving them a free ride for generations is another. Through the welfare program we have created a society of people who think government owes them a living. Lately it has been the same with unemployment compensation.

Posted by: KAP at May 4, 2013 12:03 PM
Comment #365369

KAP, although there is some truth to your generalization that “the welfare program we have created a society of people who think government owes them a living.” for the most part that isn’t the case. This type of mythology and the rationalizations it leads to ,IMHO, actually makes these programs worse.

Lately it has been the same with unemployment compensation.

Perhaps we should look at the “job creators” and ask why they have failed us if you believe this.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 4, 2013 1:18 PM
Comment #365370

C/J titled this blog…”Some liberal things just don’t work”

Well, here’s a prime example of more liberalism that simply stinks.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/02/opinion/navarrette-noncitizens-juries/

California mulls letting noncitizens serve on juries
By Ruben Navarrette, CNN Contributor
updated 10:12 AM EDT, Thu May 2, 2013

“Just last week, the state Assembly approved AB 1401, a bill that would allow noncitizens to serve on juries if they are in the country legally. The vote, 45 to 26, wasn’t even close.

All the “yes” votes came from Democrats. No surprise there. Getting noncitizens on juries is the first step toward what Democrats are really after — getting more of them to vote, at least in non-federal elections.”

I am still rubbing my eyes in disbelief at this liberal outrage. I can’t wait to read the liberal responses in favor of this from our usual liberal stalwarts on WB.

I suppose the next step for the California Libberatti is to allow non-citizens to hold publicly elected state offices. Will a non-citizen be a future governor of CA? Hell…given enough time one could become POTUS with an amendment to the Constitution. Then the world will know just how “fair” America has become.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 4, 2013 2:58 PM
Comment #365371
Perhaps we should look at the “job creators” and ask why they have failed us if you believe this.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 4, 2013 1:18 PM

Perhaps you should shake off your “Government is God” mentality and look at this:
http://www.thepowerhour.com/news2/tax_list.htm

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 4, 2013 3:38 PM
Comment #365372

http://www.atr.org/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes-listed-a7010#ixzz1zTXuZUYl

Here’s one with pictures, j2t2. They might help.
http://whatistaxed.com/other_taxes.htm


Posted by: Weary Willie at May 4, 2013 3:45 PM
Comment #365374

Hey Daugherty…I just heard on ABC news that today is “Comic Book” day…I’ll bet you are really excited.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 4, 2013 4:05 PM
Comment #365375

Maybe j2 if you liberal/progressive Democrats wouldn’t
promise cradle to grave hand outs that assumption wouldn’t be there. As far as job creators failing us it’s unemployment extensions that the government has handed out that has failed us. 26 weeks and after take what’s available your done. People not accepting a job that pays a few bucks less an hour that are failing us also. American greed is the big problem. The lowly factory worker wanting the same pay as the CEO.

Posted by: KAP at May 4, 2013 4:31 PM
Comment #365376

j2t2

I think that Kennedy believed in doing one’s duty, as I do. This did not mean that “the rich” just pay for the poor. It meant that we are all on a team and have the duty to do our best and not wimp out. If we do our part, we can expect help from our teammates. But both the fortunate and others have to work hard for the common good.

It is not admirable to demand rights w/o taking responsibility.

Kennedy served in the Navy, even though he could have avoided it. Today we ask nothing of many of our citizens, but they ask a lot of us. This is wrong. I am confident that Kennedy would also have thought so.

I take seriously my duty to help others. But I expect them to do their part, as I do when I need help. To do otherwise is the behavior of parasites and poor citizens.

Re job creators - nobody has failed you. If you have troubles, you have failed yourself and failed in your duty to others. We will help you, but you should strive to make yourself worthy of help.

Posted by: C&J at May 4, 2013 6:25 PM
Comment #365379

Martin Luther King was a registered Republican. By todays liberal standards, he would just be another Oreo, Uncle Tom, think out of the box, conservative.

The left wants to revise history so bad. Adam Ducker and Stephen Daugherty just can’t stand the fact that it was Democrats who fought in favor of slavery, it was Democrats like Robert Byrd who created and supported the KKK, it was Democrats like George Wallace who fought civil rights, it was Democrats like Margaret Sanger who organized Planned Parenthood for the purpose of neutering black Americans, and it is Democrats who have attacked every successful conservative black American.

Those pesky historical facts…let’s just reach up our ass and pull out bogus facts like…hmmm… todays Republicans were yesterdays Democrats, bah,ha,ha,ha.

Who placed blacks on welfare; who placed them in government housing, called ghettos;

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 4, 2013 9:19 PM
Comment #365380

Weary Willie-
No, I am correct in that Republicans have been heard discussing such things, especially lately. It can be explained partly by the fact that the GOP of the 1970’s sought out the Southern White Male Demographic as a means to take back power.

And it’s Democrats. People talk of aristocrats, not aristocratics, technocrats, not technocratics There are certain words that are valid as both nouns and adjectives/adverbs. Democratic is not one of them. Republican is.

You ought to check out what the platform of the Republicans in 2012 was. Lo and behold, the Tenth Amendment pops up! And as part of the platform, you claiming its an isolated person won’t fly. This was how Republicans described their own party.

A huge proportion of those who said they were very conservative spoke out in favor of secession. Again, this is them telling the rest of this, not simply somebody putting words in their mouths.

I don’t have to go far to find somebody who talked about States Rights. I only have to go to Reagan, who caused quite a stir.

Unfortunately for you, plenty of Republicans in State Legislatures are putting their money where their mouth is on States Rights, and are pushing forward constitutionally questionable bills they claim give them the ability to nullify federal authority on given issues.

And listen to the words of your new NRA President.

The NRA was started, 1871, right here in New York state. It was started by some Yankee generals who didn’t like the way my southern boys had the ability to shoot in what we call the ‘War of Northern Aggression.’ Now y’all call it the Civil War, but we call it the War of Northern Aggression down South.”

At least those of us who buy into a heavily confederate-biased view of history, one that discounts such things as, say, the shelling of Fort Sumter, and the revolt against a duly elected government.

The media protects the GOP more than mine. I don’t have to make anything up, because what Republicans say these days, from Death Panels to Legitimate Rape, is genuinely ****ed up.

You’ve been sold a pack of lies, by people who need you to be very suspicious of their opponents, while very suggestible about their friends. We’re not Marxists here. We’re much like you. But you’re blinded to that, so the thought of compromises literally becomes unthinkable. I mean, who can compromise with folks who want to destroy the country, destroy our society, destroy our morality? You get sold on this so you don’t punish your people when they screw up. That’s the whole point of liberal bias theory, and it’s the reason you have so many morons nowadays that screw things up for you in elections. Why? Because if all you have to do is say the right things, then an idiot can do the job, and many times, and an idiot will do the job.

If, though, the standards are higher, screw-ups are not so tolerated, and results are made to matter more, and not just ideological results, well then, the selective forces will get better people for you.

Your choice.

And for your information, I’m not just brutally honest, I’m honest to a fault. I’ll say things I might regret being so open and honest about. The idea you have that I really just want to misinform you in order to manipulate you is far from the truth. I don’t want to play stupid little political games, I want good results from my government whatever size it is. I think size is a minor factor, and just a generalized sort of complaint that can be pulled out to prime people for deregulation and all that stuff even if they aren’t the beneficiaries, or even perhaps the victim of the drawing back.

This is about facing reality.

TomT-
What amuses me about your charge is that at a basic level, you’re treating the fact that people who weren’t working were being given money as equivalent to an institution where people who were worked to the point of death and beyond for no money.

Sounds like opposite things to me, if we’re taking all your arguments at face value. Which tells us something about the nature of your argument: You’re essentially saying that people are being bribed to support us. The “Free Stuff” argument.

We’re not racists, you’re simply desperate for buttons you can push that still have strength enough to shock people.

As for why Black Republicans get trashed? Well, why do White Republicans get trashed? With examples like Clarence Thomas, Hermain Cain, Alan Keyes, and Allen West, and few moderates like, say, Colin Powell, it’s no wonder that they have a bad reputation.

You just don’t pick somewhat conservative black faces to put up on stage, people everybody likes, you field these guys whose extremity would be disturbing to people just as much if they were white.

C&J-
Nixon deliberately implemented the Southern Strategy. There was a huge change. The Republican Party used to be a somewhat Northwestern and Midwestern party, the Party of Lincoln. The Solid South used to be solidly Democratic. Nowadays, It’s Republican, and most of the Northern states go for Democrats.

As for pulling out JFK?

Wow. How devastating. At least, if I were anything like your silly stereotype.

Do you recall the taxes or the price controls under Kennedy? Do you recall how far government reached in that time, how accepted this was, even by the Republicans of the day?

As for Nixon? What does it tell you that today’s Republicans still have trouble believing he got his own ass in trouble? That what he did, the attempt to manipulate elections, the ordering of break-ins, the covering up, the obstruction of justice, were all justified?

As for judging people by the content of their character?

Tell me how talking about welfare queens, generalizing all kinds of things about Democrats and their motives falls into that.

You treat anybody who draws a public check as if they were a parasite. How many honest people down on their luck do you lump in with the chronic lazybones? You really don’t register that most people would rather not be on assistance.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 4, 2013 10:24 PM
Comment #365381

Stephen

Kennedy cut taxes and the Federal government was smaller then than it is today.

RE judging character - I judge by behaviors. Taking public assistance is a behavior. Anybody can fall on hard times. If you never get up, that says something about you.

RE wanting to be on assistance. I don’t suppose anybody wants to be on assistance. But many people engage in behaviors that get them on it. Chrissy and I were eligible for food stamps when we were younger. We really didn’t need them and did not apply for them. I think this is a good thing. You don’t. You think we were chumps.

I still believe that we should ask not what our country can do for us. I still believe in being of service. That means I want to put in more than I take. I tell my kids not to take everything they are entitled to. You think that is old fashioned.

RE Southerners - the racism we say in the solid Democratic south is gone. No serious politician today holds attitudes like George Wallace or other Southern Democrats of old. I don’t blame current Democrats for the racist history of their party. But it makes even less sense to blame Republicans for the racist history of the Democratic party.

What has happened is that Democrats have often become racist, as you have, in a new fashion. It was racist to believe that you could judge individuals by their race. It still is. You do that, therefore you are racist.

The fact that it is to some extent PC to be racist in this way hides the fact that it is racist.

We look back at the Democrats of 1950 and see they were racist. They were not villains in their own minds. People will look back at attitudes like yours and call them racist too.

You are saying that individuals of today should be treated differently because people who resembled them physically were treated differently fifty years ago. By your standards, you are privileged in relation to President Obama. Does that really makes sense to you? Is racism so strong in you that the truth makes no difference?

If you show me a Republican who thinks that a person’s race is more important than his behavior, I will deplore that. I also do it with Democrats and with you. In this case, I am non-partisan.

Posted by: C&J at May 4, 2013 11:17 PM
Comment #365383

“We look back at the Democrats of 1950 and see they were racist.”

That is not true, C&J. It was not a party issue, it was a regional issue. Southern politicians, regardless of party, supported segregation and opposed civil rights bills.

The Democratic Party split in 1948 over its adoption of a vigorous Civil Rights platform at its Convention in 1948. That resulted in defection of Southern Democrats who formed the Dixiecrat party and ran their own candidate for president (Strom Thurmond).

The eventual winner of the 1948 election, Harry Truman, went on to fully integrate the armed services and the civil service by executive order. He also formed the first Civil Rights Commission.

It was a Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson, that led the fight for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Posted by: Rich at May 5, 2013 9:18 AM
Comment #365384

Royal Flush: “Hey Daugherty…I just heard on ABC news that today is ‘Comic Book’ day…I’ll bet you are really excited.”

For the record I enjoy comic books myself. And I don’t have to tell people they’re “graphic novels” to make myself feel less like a child. They’re comic books. I like them.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 5, 2013 9:50 AM
Comment #365385

DSP2195: “Martin Luther King was a registered Republican.”

Yes, we’ve heard that before. It might even be accurate. But tell me what good is a registered Republican that votes for Democrats? That’s what folks saying this junk fail to admit. Read nearly any biography of MLK and you’ll find he supported Johnson for president and not just because he liked Johnson but because of the other Democrats Johnson would bring with him. If it would make you feel better I could go out and register as Republican in Arkansas but then still vote for Democrats. I’d be as Republican as MLK ever was. Of course I’m not disputing that MLK was conservative on some issues. But then again so am I, not that I’m trying to compare myself to MLK however.

“Adam Ducker and Stephen Daugherty just can’t stand the fact that it was Democrats who fought in favor of slavery, it was Democrats like Robert Byrd who created and supported the KKK, it was Democrats like George Wallace who fought civil rights…”

I’m pretty sure that Stephen and I have no trouble admitting those things about the Democrats and slavery that are true. We are fine with the past, all of the past. You appear to be fine with just the past up until civil rights and you’ll ignore all history after that to pretend it’s just a myth that positions shifted in the two parties. I guess you think there was just some sort of magical realignment of states around the time of civil rights that had nothing to do with race or political leanings?

Wallace is a great example, so thanks for bringing that up. Wallace stopped being a Democrat in 1964 after he washed out of the Democratic primary where he ran on an anti-integration plank. By 1968 Wallace was running as a third party. Why was that you think? If Democrats were and are the party of segregation and racism why would Wallace who supported both leave the party? What party was that, by the way? The American Independent Party, a conservative third party.

Speaking of leaving the party, somebody else left around then too named Strom Thurmond, who just so happened to not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 either. He didn’t go third party though, he just went straight to the GOP where he became a hero. He was one of many high profile party switchers.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 5, 2013 10:23 AM
Comment #365386

And again, the Democratics are as clean as the wind driven snow.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 5, 2013 11:12 AM
Comment #365389

I don’t have much time to respond today, but I will ask Adam Ducker to explain this comment:

“I’m pretty sure that Stephen and I have no trouble admitting those things about the Democrats and slavery that are true. We are fine with the past, all of the past.”

Tell you what Adam; you show me one response from Stephen where he agrees with this comment?

Stephen is an apologist for the Democratic Party and rather than disagree with their past, he attempts to revise history and say the Democrats of the past, are really the Republicans of today.

Re/MLK; he was a conservative alright and he voted for Republicans. He supported LBJ because LBJ pushed civil rights. LBJ did not have the support of Democrats to pass Civil Rights and it was Republicans who supported and passed the Bill. This is what LBJ said about civil rights:

“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” – Lyndon B. Johnson

Tell me Adam, does this comment sound racist to you???

Then, the next question has to be, why was LBJ supporting civil rights?

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 5, 2013 1:24 PM
Comment #365390

C&J-
Cut taxes from what to what?
91% to 70%, on the top marginal rate. Corporate Tax rate went from a little over half, to a little under. If Kennedy is the example, then we have a long way to go before we have to feel guilty about raising taxes.

Also, he wasn’t doing what you folks have been trying to do. He wasn’t doing it to force the reduction of government. He was doing it as Keynesian Stimulus, and openly so. He was opposed by Business groups that, at the time, favored balanced budget conservatism, rather than the Arthur Laffer supply side culture.

As for judging character? Look, we were just hit with one of the biggest economic crises of either of our lifetimes. If they’re aren’t any jobs available, if you’re having to deal with all kinds of problems, getting up may be more than just a matter of demonstrating some kind of personal grit. Sure, we want people to get back up. Isn’t that the point of the infrastructure projects, of the stimulus package projects? We didn’t simply hand people money, we very often sponsored projects that helped, one way or another, people to get jobs.

As for wanting to be on assistance?

I actually don’t think you’re chumps. If you could manage it, and did manage to get by without food assistance, good for you. But you didn’t ask this to start with. You simply assumed my response, and that’s the problem with you, and those like you. Years and years of propaganda have blinded you to reality, to what people like me actually think.

If you really asked, you might be surprised. But nobody asks. They insist on telling me what I believe, rather than asking what my actual beliefs are, and when I tell them, honestly, what I believe, I am scoffed at. They tell me I’m just saying these things to deceive them, to further my evil plans.

These accusations you give of racism are a similar level of bull****.

You cannot remedy or punish racism without doing something for the people who have been wronged that you don’t do for the people who haven’t. We are not starting from an equal, leveled playing field, we are starting from a position where whether we believe in race as a valid biological or social category or not, we still have many people who look alike who are less wealthy, less integrated into the higher ranks of society, and more likely to be in poverty, than a different category of people who look alike.

Rather than torture the English language, we use the old terms, White, Black, whatever. But the fact is, we have enjoyed an unfair advantage, and that is wrong. We have profited from that unfair advantage, in getting more jobs, getting better educations, etc, and that is wrong.

We could go all the way into reparations, and just have each person paid back for all the lost opportunity, but that’s not realistic, and it wouldn’t necessarily restore the substance of what was lost.

That is why I favor affirmative action, and other such corrective mechanisms. Not to disadvantage white people, but to remove an advantage from us that we did not earn!

At the end of the day, I’d like there to be a point at which these programs are phased out. If we do our job right, then this can happen. But the point I’m trying to make isn’t a racist one, it’s about a correction of racism’s result. It’s about getting people to the point where historically it doesn’t matter anymore what your background was.

We’re not there yet.

My party is looking to make up for its errors. What is your party willing to do, having deliberately sought the voters alienated by the success of the civil rights movement, having forsaked its own history in order to undo the advantage the Democrats had in American politics?

You are saying that individuals of today should be treated differently because people who resembled them physically were treated differently fifty years ago. By your standards, you are privileged in relation to President Obama. Does that really makes sense to you? Is racism so strong in you that the truth makes no difference?

There are times in which I am tempted to tell people to go **** themselves. This is one of those times.

It bears mentioning that Obama’s white grandparents raised him for much of his childhood, and that his mother, his only present parent in his life, was white as well. They were middle class, unlike forty percent of the people who looked like Obama in 1961.

There are still about twice as many Blacks in poverty as there are Whites. There is still a great degree to which, if you simply went by population alone, you would expect far more black people in charge than you really see.

You says it’s racism that drives my political views. Well, gee, you like pushing that button, don’t you? Feel good taking revenge for all those people who objected to that emphasis on the bussing issue, or who objected to the whole Welfare Queen myth?

You call me a racist because I do not ignore the substantial headstart that people like me get, of living in better neighborhoods, (and not being driven off), of having parents and grandparents who had actual assets to their name, rather than being impoverished by the effects of years of institutional and private racism. I don’t see it as fundamentally fair to leave people with the same innate talents and abilities that folks like you and me have unaided. And that goes for anybody, really. I think we should do our best to make sure everybody has the best shot they can get.

And if they still screw up? Then that’s their business. Maybe the learn, maybe they don’t, but the point is, they’ll have the chance.

So what’s racist about it? I start from a rather literal reading of the notion that all people are created equal, that, given the chance, the education, employment, etc., folks should be able to perform to the same level. I’m not against my own race, I just don’t think we would suffer too horribly if we didn’t have this disproportionate advantage.

I think we need to be willing to give people the chance. Somebody was willing to give me the chance, and I think I’m better off for that. Who am I to refuse somebody else the same opportunity?

Quit which the cheap rhetorical tricks. You’re not talking to a person who believe one set of people or another are inferior. Nor to somebody who sees equal circumstances, and tries to set one person above another.

(By the way, irrespective of race, I also believe in helping give opportunities to poor white people as well, so there’s no difference in that.)

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 5, 2013 1:55 PM
Comment #365391
Perhaps you should shake off your “Government is God” mentality and look at this:

Weary I don’t have a GoG mentality at all. It may appear that way to you and others who fall for the conservative myth that government can do nothing right. The link to the list of taxes is actually wanting us to believe things would be well if we didn’t have these taxes because they didn’t exist 100 hundred years ago and every thing was wonderful then.

As far as job creators failing us it’s unemployment extensions that the government has handed out that has failed us.

The stimulus was almost 40 per cent tax cuts to stimulate the “job creators” to hire people. The conservative myth tells us lower taxes spurs job growth. The job creators haven’t hired they have sat on their money. How can you expect someone to work when their simply isn’t an employer that will hire them. The out of work aren’t lazy that’s another conservative myth. If it wasn’t for government jobs the GWB era was terrible for job growth in this country, with the meltdown it only got worse and then when conservatives took control of the HoR they have insisted upon cutting government jobs and have held the country hostage to get their way. With state governments laying off KAP the job market is terrible. Yet you blame those on unemployment for the problem. It is akin to blaming the cops for the bank getting robbed.

26 weeks and after take what’s available your done. People not accepting a job that pays a few bucks less an hour that are failing us also.

Most people that can find a job do just that KAP. Many have trapped themselves into poverty with the lowered wages that have resulted from the conservative led march to third world status.


American greed is the big problem. The lowly factory worker wanting the same pay as the CEO.

Well this is just laughable KAP, certainly you aren’t calling the out of work worker greedy. How can you actually believe this nonsense that workers expect to be paid 380 times what they are paid now for doing the same job? That is conservative myth that I find hard for even conservatives to believe.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 5, 2013 2:38 PM
Comment #365393

Stephen

I judge by content of character; you judge by color of skin. I think my way is simply better. You have complicated reasons to defend your point of view.

RE jobs - my son got a job working nights. He is a college graduate but he took a job as night shift in a warehouse. I am proud of his choice. Many college grads would think it was not worth their time. He is better than that.

Re not taking food stamps - you say “good for you” which is usually a way of dismissing virtue that you cannot achieve. It is easy to make excuses for bad behavior and dismiss people who have achieved better. It is also wrong.

Re people like me - speak for yourself Kimosabe. My grandfather was enslaved by the Russian Czar and came with no assets. My father died when I was already more than 40 and left my sister and me $20,000. That was nice, but my half did not change my life nor did her half change my sister’s. How much do you think the Obama girls will inherit? Will it be more or less than $10,000 each. By your standards, we are privileged over them.

BTW - my cousins were enslaved and killed by Nazis. Some of us have living memory of slavery.

Posted by: C&J at May 5, 2013 6:03 PM
Comment #365394

DSP2195: “Tell you what Adam; you show me one response from Stephen where he agrees with this comment?”

Let’s let Stephen tell us how he feels about racist conservative Democrats that opposed ending slavery and opposed civil rights.

“Re/MLK; he was a conservative alright and he voted for Republicans.”

The confusion comes from the fact that MLK’s father was a full blown Republican which makes sense given the time line. MLK never admitted to voting for a single Republican and spoke the opposite in fact in his letters and writings. If he voted for Republicans then name one.

“Tell me Adam, does this comment sound racist to you???”

I think history shows President Johnson to be a very contradictory person and tapes of his comments show him at times to be crude and rude and even racist. I doubt he shared the same passion for civil rights that President Kennedy had and his motives on civil rights were apparently questioned even before he was Vice President and then President.

“Then, the next question has to be, why was LBJ supporting civil rights?”

I’m not sure really but I’d have to guess political oppurtunism. The winds were shifting direction and LBJ knew that.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 5, 2013 6:15 PM
Comment #365395
Re job creators - nobody has failed you. If you have troubles, you have failed yourself and failed in your duty to others. We will help you, but you should strive to make yourself worthy of help.

C&J, Job creators have failed the country. Of course you don’t like to hold these job creators responsible as you do others. But the fact is they have let America down. They were given tax cuts to produce jobs in this country. Conservatives have been telling us more tax cuts would create jobs and yet we still have to many American out of work.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 5, 2013 8:55 PM
Comment #365396

j2, Obamacare has a lot to do with jobs NOT being available. They are waiting for it’s implementation to see how much they will be screwed.

Posted by: KAP at May 5, 2013 9:00 PM
Comment #365397

ps j2, then we will really see the unemployment figures go down or IMO they will go up.

Posted by: KAP at May 5, 2013 9:03 PM
Comment #365398

j2t2

Who are these job creators that let all you passive guys down? Maybe all those guys who supported Obama, like GE or Warren Buffet?

I feel sorry for you. People like me maybe run into problems because we take initiative, but I would rather have this problem than yours. THEY let YOU down. That says it all about you, maybe a little less about them than you imagine.

I think a line from Shakespeare applies here, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”

Posted by: C&J at May 5, 2013 9:18 PM
Comment #365400

“LBJ did not have the support of Democrats to pass Civil Rights and it was Republicans who supported and passed the Bill.”

That is not true. A majority of Democrats in both houses supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Republicans did support the bill with the exception of Southern Republicans. But, the fight for the bill was lead by Democrats.

It was President Kennedy who initiated the legislation in 1963 and President Johnson who pursued the passage of the act after Kennedy’s assassination. “No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy’s memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long.” President Johnson before joint session of congress, November 27, 1963.

It should be also noted that the Democratic leadership in both houses fought hard not only for passage of the bill but to strengthen the bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

It was Southern members of both parties that didn’t support the civil rights bill. After the passage of the Civil Rights bill in 1964, the solid Democratic South turned to the Republican party which to their shame embraced them with the Nixon Southern strategy. As Stephen already noted, the most prominent early defection was Strom Thurmond who had led the earlier Dixiecrat revolt from the Democratic party.

Posted by: Rich at May 5, 2013 10:33 PM
Comment #365408

Rich

A larger % of Republicans voted for the bill than did Democrats.

I don’t see why you guys want to label Republicans as racist and then change history to justify it.

The simple facts are that until the 1960s most people were what we would call today racist. As “the Negro” progressed, the idea of inferiority became less tenable. There were legal structures that acted against blacks and cultural norms that supported them. The 1964 Civil Rights Acts removed most of the legal structure of discrimination. This law was supported by a majority of Democrats in congress and an even larger majority of Republicans. It was bipartisan. These are facts. If you don’t believe them, you are ignorant of history.

These are the interpretation that are not so simple. After the 1960s, the Civil Rights movement leadership changed from seeking simple equality to asking for more active measures to achieve it. Affirmative Action, created by the Kennedy Administration to “cast a wider net,” morphed into a system of goals and quotas. These quotas were declared unconstitutional in 1978, but goals remained strong and often had the force of quotas.

The Texas case now before the Supreme Court could change that. We may yet achieve something approaching Martin Luther Kings dream of judging people by the content of their characters and not the color of their skins.

Posted by: C&J at May 6, 2013 5:47 AM
Comment #365412

C&J,

It is not liberals who want to change history on the Civil Rights Act. It is conservatives. DSP2195 made the same assertion that you have made in the past, i.e., that a majority of Democrats did not support passage of the Civil Rights Act. You also said on this thread that the Democrats of the 50s were racist.

What is true is that the national Democratic Party was strongly in favor of civil rights beginning with the courageous campaign of Harry S. Truman in 1948 which resulted in the Dixiecrat revolt almost costing him the election. That was followed by HST’s executive action desegregating the armed services, the civil service and the first Civil Rights Commission. JFK, LBJ and the Democratic Congressional leadership initiated and managed passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In essence, the national Democratic Party gave up its “solid South” in favor of civil rights. It did so knowingly. The idea that increased Democratic black vote after its passage would offset the loss of the electoral votes from the South is pure nonsense. LBJ fully understood what would happen. If he was anything, he was a masterful politician. The South was lost. He knew it. The Nixon Southern Strategy was no surprise to Democrats. It was a price the Democrats paid for civil rights.


Posted by: Rich at May 6, 2013 10:17 AM
Comment #365413

“Let’s let Stephen tell us how he feels about racist conservative Democrats that opposed ending slavery and opposed civil rights.”

Hold on MR. Ducker; it was you who made this comment:

“I’m pretty sure that Stephen and I have no trouble admitting those things about the Democrats and slavery that are true. We are fine with the past, all of the past.”

When I asked you to show me proof of your statement:

“Tell you what Adam; you show me one response from Stephen where he agrees with this comment?”

You now begin to waffle and say it is Stephen who should respond. Sorry Adam, but Stephen cannot respond in agreement with you. Adam, you are a liberal and hold to a liberal agenda, but you have also been known to find fault with your side; but Stephen is a talking head for the left. He cannot say anything against Obama or the left agenda. He is an apologist for liberalism and Obama. This is the only reason I asked for your proof; it doesn’t exist.

C&J; we all know the racism of the southern Democrats and we know their fight against blacks having equal rights. When civil rights finally passed and the face of the south began to change, i.e. the registered Democrats of the south began to register as Republicans. The bible belt Christians of the south were the first to see the racism and began to accept blacks and black churches as equals and thus supporting conservative ideals. It was at this time that democrat liberalism began to change history and make claims that their party was the party of black civil rights. By Adam Ducker’s agreement that LBJ was a southern racist democrat, who used civil rights (of which he personally did not support) as a means to gain black votes. It was in these years (well before the birth of most liberals on WB) that the democrats (who controlled the Congress for 4-5v decades) passed Bills insuring that blacks would live in confined government housing projects, called ghettos. It was organizations like Planned Parenthood who would carry out the mass murder of black infants and thus fulfill the goals of Margaret Sanger, to control the birth rate of blacks. Welfare was encouraged by the Democratic Party as a means to destroy the black family. Black leaders, including Hollywood’s Bill Cosby have declared this very fact. This is part of the Democratic playbook. We find the Obama administration doing the very same thing with Welfare and food stamps as they are actively promoting these free services in Mexico; telling Mexicans how to receive these services when the illegally enter America.

The Democratic Party was enslaving blacks in the previous centuries, and they are still enslaving blacks today. MLK said “the truth will set you free” and the truth is knowledge. Isn’t it strange that the Democrats call for more and more money to be thrown at education and yet the success rate of black students in the inner city ghettos becomes less and less. The real education of blacks is found in the success of Charter schools, and yet it is these charter schools that the left vehemently opposes. This shows me that the democrats are not interested in educating blacks.

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 6, 2013 10:27 AM
Comment #365415

Rich, you are talking, when you should be listening. Enough facts have been given to show the racism of the southern Democratic Party and you are ignoring these facts. Even your own side recognizes the racism of these democrat politicians. But this comment is directly out of a fantasy book:

“In essence, the national Democratic Party gave up its “solid South” in favor of civil rights. It did so knowingly. The idea that increased Democratic black vote after its passage would offset the loss of the electoral votes from the South is pure nonsense. LBJ fully understood what would happen. If he was anything, he was a masterful politician. The South was lost. He knew it. The Nixon Southern Strategy was no surprise to Democrats. It was a price the Democrats paid for civil rights.”

The Democratic party has never sacrificed anything for anyone. Check out LBJ’s comment about how long blacks would be voting to the Democratic Party. Are you going to sit there and tell us that democrats support gay marriage for any other reason than votes, do they support amnesty and open borders for any other reason than votes; no Rich, everything the Democrats do is the result of votes.

Correction; there is a sacrifice from the left. The Democratic Party will sacrifice Hillary Clintons 2nd run for president. The Democratic party is guilty of eating their own when it is expedient.

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 6, 2013 10:42 AM
Comment #365421

DSP2195: “You now begin to waffle and say it is Stephen who should respond.”

Sorry. Stephen’s here and he can defend himself against your nonsense if he feels like it. I’ve never seen him deny the reality of the history of southern Democrats as you claim.

“It was organizations like Planned Parenthood who would carry out the mass murder of black infants and thus fulfill the goals of Margaret Sanger, to control the birth rate of blacks.”

This is of course complete nonsense and unsupported by reality.

“Welfare was encouraged by the Democratic Party as a means to destroy the black family. Black leaders, including Hollywood’s Bill Cosby have declared this very fact.”

Did Cosby say such a thing? I understand he’s been critical of the black community and has encouraged personal responsibility but I missed the part where he said the Democratic Party’s intent is to destroy black families.

“Re/MLK; he was a conservative alright and he voted for Republicans.”

Still waiting for the name of a Republican MLK voted for. You like to demand your facts from us so I’ll keep demanding this one from you.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 6, 2013 2:07 PM
Comment #365426

J2

I do not live in the past and to try and compare any “struggle” today with the actual injustice that happened back then is ridiculous.

The recent push towards redefining marriage is most definetely using the false sense of victimhood to garner approval. Inter-racial marriage was about equality, gay-marriage is about redefining. Unlike back then, NOBODY is denied the priviledge of marrying someone of the opposite sex and NOBODY is allowed to marry somebody of the same sex.
They are nowhere near being the same.

“Since the collapse of communism in the late 80’s people like Falwell needed scapegoats to keep the dollars rolling in so they attacked liberals gays and others.”

So because Tebow is religious, he is the same as Falwell and should be condemned, but people like Mike Wallace should be ignored?

And I hate to burst the hate bubble you got going on, but people like Falwell are not why half the country disagree with liberals. It is failed liberal policy and the division it creates.

“What irks you is the vocal opposition…”

Nope. What irks me is the lie and condemn culture you guys have forced upon the whole country. A culture where disagreeing with gay marriage means one hates homosexuals. A culture where not wanting to pay for a womans abortion means one hates and is at war with women. A culture where not believing in special treatment makes one a racist. A culture where supporting the 2nd Amendment makes one a child killer with blood on their hands.

The simple fact is that liberals must use government to force people to accept their policy, and in a free country that means liberal policy does not work.

Posted by: kctim at May 6, 2013 4:18 PM
Comment #365430

Rich

RE “…that a majority of Democrats did not support passage of the Civil Rights Act. You also said on this thread that the Democrats of the 50s were racist.”

I was mistaken about this and I think you corrected me. It is true, however, that Republican % support was greater and in the 1950s probably most Americans held what we would today call racist attitudes, Democrats perhaps more than Republicans.

The whole U.S. has now changed. Racism as it was pre-Civil Rights, is largely gone. Can you imagine today a black kid with good grades and a good record not getting into a good university and having graduated getting a good job just because of race?

Posted by: C&J at May 6, 2013 6:10 PM
Comment #365435

C&J,

I realize that you had previously acknowledged your error regarding the vote by party line for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In all fairness, I should have noted that and apologize for implying otherwise.

Posted by: Rich at May 6, 2013 8:27 PM
Comment #365438
Who are these job creators that let all you passive guys down?

Good question C&J lets ask our representatives in Congress who helped create this conservative myth.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13471379-conservativecorporate-america-let-us-laud-our-patriotic-jobcreators

http://www.gop.gov/indepth/jobs

I feel sorry for you…..

Don’t C&J, worry more about the elitist intellectual conservatives like yourself who spout JFK quotes and then change what was said in such a nonsensical way as you just did. Go re-read what I said and you may notice how silly your comment is.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 6, 2013 10:21 PM
Comment #365442

j2t2

“Elitist” - thank you. I would like to think of myself that way, but I don’t think I qualify.

The reason I feel sorry for you is that I feel like a free man with a reasonable control over my destiny. You clearly feel like a victim of the arbitrary actions of others. I used to feel as you do when I was younger. It was unpleasant.

Re JFK - It makes sense to me that ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country implies that we all should be doing our duty for our country and trying to take less than we give. I try to do that. It used to be a common American virtue. I would hate to think it has become the field of only elitists.

Posted by: C&J at May 6, 2013 11:18 PM
Comment #365466
The reason I feel sorry for you is that I feel like a free man with a reasonable control over my destiny. You clearly feel like a victim of the arbitrary actions of others. I used to feel as you do when I was younger. It was unpleasant.

I really can’t say I have ever felt like that C&J. Ya see the problem is you are trying to attach this lame construct to me based upon a comment I made. But you know that, please tell me you know that.Don’t make me think that for all your education you cannot tell the difference between “Perhaps we should look at the “job creators” and ask why they have failed us if you believe this.” and “The conservative myth tells us lower taxes spurs job growth. The job creators haven’t hired they have sat on their money.” and your false construct that it is me personally that they have failed. After all it was clearly explained twice now.

So how about the real issue here? Why are you letting the “job creators ” off the hook when you want to hold every one else to the JFK quote?

Posted by: j2t2 at May 7, 2013 10:07 PM
Comment #365468

J2t2

Nobody is “on the hook” so I need not let them off. Firms and individuals should hire as many or as few people they think they need. Government should strive to create conditions by which the people can prosper.

If firms or individuals are “sitting on their money” it means either that they don’t feel they can make money investing it or that they don’t care about making money. In either case, it is their business.

RE choices - I feel responsible for many of my life’s outcomes and that makes me feel happier. I was saying that it seems you don’t enjoy this feeling. If you think others have let you down, it implies that they have the power to control you.

RE JFK - His admonition applies to individuals. We all need to try to do our duty and bear our responsibilities.

Posted by: C&J at May 7, 2013 10:39 PM
Post a comment