14
   

FIRST IT IS THE BIRTHERS, AND NOW IT IS THE TENTHERS

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 04:19 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:


So, you mean National Review. See, when you write that The New Republic, founded in 1914 by Herbert Croly and Walter Lippmann , I have to think that's what you mean. It makes me wonder how I can take anything else you write to mean what it actually says.

Buckley worked as an editor for The American Mercury in 1951 and 1952, but left after spotting anti-Semitic tendencies in the magazine. Imagine that, a racist leaving a magazine due to anti-Semitic tendencies.

Yes, Buckley did have some racist views on blacks in the south in his early years, yet Buckley changed his views and by the mid-1960s renounced racism. This change was caused in part because of his reaction to the tactics used by white supremacists against the civil rights movement, and in part because of the influence of friends like Garry Wills, who confronted Buckley on the morality of his politics. Buckley later said it was a mistake for National Review to have opposed the civil rights legislation of 1964"65. He later grew to admire Martin Luther King, Jr. and supported creation of a national holiday for him. What an asshole racist!


You're right, I meant to say National Review, not the New Republic. I always get those two mixed up.

But it's inaccurate and illogical to claim that someone wasn't a racist b.c they weren't of a specific type. So when you say,

Quote:
Imagine that, a racist leaving a magazine due to anti-Semitic tendencies.


It's a little stupid.

And when you say,

Quote:

Yet, you still believe that the National Review was a racist magazine despite the fact that Buckley would not allow anti-Semitic people to work for it or contain any articles of that nature.


It's you being really stupid.

AND, when you say,

Quote:

However, if you can provide quotes backing up your statement that "the New Republic was founded by a racist and made famous by advocating white superiority.", I would enjoy reading them.


Why not ask Buckley himself?

Quote:
In a 1957 editorial titled ”Why the South Must Prevail,” the National Review said:

The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes " the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.


Buckley later regretted his earlier comments, but there's no evidence that he did so out of a genuine change in his beliefs; rather, he knew that failure to adjust to the shifting racial dynamic in America would lump him in with the Birchers he so hated.

You ought to own up to the fact that your leading politicians and media luminaries regularly engage in speech which is hateful towards minorities of many different stripes. Are you willing to admit this, or - in your mind - are you all a bunch of feel-good boy scouts, merely demonized by the Liberal Media?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 06:21 pm
I believe a big part of the problem is that the Democratic Party has become, in the eyes of some people, a mutual admiration society for far left leaning idealogues. So, which party can one vote for, if one is offended by the ideology of far left leaning idealogues? The Democratic Party was once a middle of the road party. In effect, I believe, the Democratic Party put up a virtual unwelcome sign to conservative voters, when it allowed the party to become what it is today in the eyes of many citizens. But, time will tell. I suspect there are fewer far left leaning citizens in the U.S. than the current administration would guess.

P.S. Anyone that talks about who is/was a racist is just wasting one's time, I believe, since racism, having different degrees of intensity, is still in society. So, it is sort of a non-sequitor, if we realize that even racists can contribute to the country. I see more contempt in the eyes of some people of color, when I pass, than what racist whites had during the Jim Crow era towards Blacks. Perhaps, that should be addressed too by the loving Democratic Party. Racism towards whites. Or, is that a secret?
DontTreadOnMe
 
  3  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 07:50 pm
@Foofie,
when was the last time someone told you you couldn't eat at the same counter as black people?
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 10:35 pm
@Foofie,
I could understand you better if you would define the meaning of those “far left leaning idealogues” holding a mutual admiration society in the Democratic Party, because you keep using a word, “Left” that does not mean what you think it means.

Why, how magnanimous of you to see the humanity in racists, considering that trait is fundamentally absent in them.

Perhaps it is not the color of your skin that sets some people off. You know it is entirely plausible that you are perceived as a terrible and obnoxious human being and that folks simply don’t like you.

Foofie you are smart enough to log on to a computer, but if you insist that you express your opinion on things you clearly know nothing, don’t be surprised that other people think that you are a poor excuse for a thinking human being.

btw: the issue is not that the Democratic Party has moved away from you, but that you are standing still.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 07:30 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Bullshit. You'd be hard pressed to find examples of the Dems going out of their way to support white, male causes each and every time, and put minorities and their causes down, the way Republicans do.


The civil rights act was opposed by many if not most dems and only passed because the repubs supported it.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 07:41 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
Bullshit. You'd be hard pressed to find examples of the Dems going out of their way to support white, male causes each and every time, and put minorities and their causes down, the way Republicans do.


The civil rights act was opposed by many if not most dems and only passed because the repubs supported it.


I'm calling bullshit on this one. You shouldn't just make things up, MM. According to Wikipedia, this was the voting breakdown:

The original House version:

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

(Source at Wikipedia, for which the article cites its source)


The first number is those voting for, and the second voting against. The Democrats voting for the Act overwhelmingly outnumber those voting against. This doesn't even remotely support your claim that most Democrats voted against it.

Where do you come up with **** like this?

By the way, if you look at their figures further, you'll see that no Republicans from the South voted for the Act, and that among those from the other states, the number of Democrats voting for the Act outnumber that of Republicans voting for the act. Of course, the Democrats controlled the Congress in 1964, so this would not be unexpected. But your claim that possibly even most Democrats voted against the act is even remotely borne out.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 08:09 am
Here is one example of a conservative using racist comments and pictures in the health debate and it is not some out of work lunatic fringe nut.

Quote:
The election of our first black president has brought with it a strange proliferation of online racism among conservatives.

And we've got the latest example.

On Sunday night, Dr. David McKalip forwarded to fellow members of a Google listserv affiliated with the Tea Party movement the image below. Above it, he wrote: "Funny stuff."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/obama-witchdoctor-muck.jpg

Now, Tea Party activists trafficking in racist imagery are pretty much dog bites man. But McKalip isn't just some random winger. He's a Florida neurosurgeon, who serves as a member of the American Medical Association's House of Delegates.

He's also an energetic conservative opponent of health-care reform. McKalip founded the anti-reform group Doctors For Patient Freedom, as well as what seems to be a now defunct group called Cut Taxes Now. Last month he joined GOP congressmen Tom Price and Phil Gingrey, among others, for a virtual town hall to warn about the coming "government takeover of medicine." And in a recent anti-reform op-ed published in the St. Petersburg Times, McKalip wrote that "Congress wants to create larger, government-funded programs for health care and more bureaucracy that ration care and impose cookbook medicine."

Asked about the email in a brief phone interview with TPMmuckraker, McKalip said he believes that by depicting the president as an African witch doctor, the "artist" who created the image "was expressing concerns that the health-care proposals [made by President Obama] would make the quality of medical care worse in our country." McKalip said he didn't know who created it.

But pressed on what was funny about an image that plays on racist stereotypes about Africans, McKalip declined to say, instead offering to talk about why he opposes Obama's health-care proposals.

"I have a busy day," he said eventually, before ending the call.

Late Update: An emailer points us to a picture of a Papua New Guinea tribesman wearing identical head-dress, feathers, and clothes to the man in the image forwarded by McKalip. So that suggests that McKalip's image was based on a Papua New Guinean, rather than an African. But it seems unlikely that McKalip himself was aware of this when he forwarded the email. It was he who first used the term "witch doctor" in our phone interview, and he didn't quibble with our suggestion that the image played on stereotypes of Africans.

Late Late Update: A blogger at Daily Kos has gotten a statement from the American Medical Association, which reads:

Delegates to the American Medical Association are selected through their individual state and specialty societies, and their individual views and actions do not, in any way, represent the official view of the AMA. We condemn any actions or comments that are racist, discriminatory or unprofessional.

The same blogger also reports:


I just got a call from the Director of Corporate Communications at Bayfront Medical Center in St. Pete and she's livid about what Dr. McKalip has done--he's works in the hospital. She said that she is an African American herself and the hospital will be investigating this matter!! I called earlier and left her a message. YAY!!!

We just made our own call to the communications director at Bayfront, Kanika Tomalin, and she wasn't willing to go quite that far. She said the issue was being "handled internally" but declined to elaborate, beyond stressing that though McKalip works at Bayfront, he does not speak for the hospital.

Late 7/24/09 Update: McKalip has now apologized. But not before blaming liberal activists for touting the e-mail.


source

Notice how he tried to brush off the stereotype by making some kind of excuse and when asked about what was funny about it, he made no comment. It is not not cool to be racist, so they go around it and leave wiggle room, but they are not fooling anyone except perhaps yourself if you buy his explanation.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 08:11 am
In my previous post, i meant to write that MM's claim is not even remotely borne out.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 08:13 am
@Setanta,
It would help if you would use what I actually wrote, not what you want to read.

My exact words were "many if not most".

You chose to ignore the word "many", thereby changing what I said to fit your arguement.
I thought you were better then CI, because that is a tactic he uses.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 08:27 am
@mysteryman,
I specified that my objection was to a suggestion that "most" did not support the act. I didn't object to the claim that many opposed it, but if you want it investigate that, based on the data i provided, your are going to be involved in one of those "what is is" arguments, justifying the definition of many which you wish to apply. The figures show that more than 60% of Democrats supported the Act in both House and Senate, and if you go to the linked source and look at the breakdown by region, you'll see that only ten Democratic members of Congress who were not from the South voted against the Act. You will also see that all Southern Republicans voted against the act--one Senator and ten Representatives.

Your post attempts to create an impression that Democrats cannot be relied upon to oppose racism, and that the vote on the Civil Rights Act is evidence of this. It was in response to Cyclo's claim that you would be hard pressed to find examples of Democrats going out of their way to support white, male causes--and you could only support such a claim by reference to the vote among Southern Democrats. You cannot support such a claim among Democrats over all. You called bullshit to Cyclo's claim, but then made a claim which is not borne out by the evidence, in so far as it responds to Cyclo's claim.

It is also noteworthy that of the five Senators who voted against the Act who were not from the South, Barry Goldwater, who would be the Republican standard bearer in the 1964 presidential election, was among the number. Apparently, Mr. Goldwater's vote against the Act was not decisive with delegates to the Republican nominating convention that year. So not only have you failed to refute Cyclo's claim, it appears that the matter of voting on the Civil Rights act bears him out, especially as in both the House and Senate, Republicans who were not from the South voted against the Act in a much higher proportion than their Democratic colleagues who were not from the South. Even among congressmen from the South, some Democrats voted for the Act, but no Republicans did. You called bullshit on Cyclo, and i've called bullshit on you for your specious claim.

That's a nice little comment you make there about me and about CI--you get to cast a slur at two members at once. However, i had no illusions that you were better than that.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 08:53 am
There is little doubt that the MODERN Republican party relies upon various -isms to retain control; they use wedges to divide people. I think people would be hard pressed to find any minority group which had not been insulted, put down, legislated against, or marginalized, by various leaders of the Republican party.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 08:58 am
@DontTreadOnMe,
DontTreadOnMe wrote:

when was the last time someone told you you couldn't eat at the same counter as black people?


Racism need not be part of local law to exist. I cannot go into certain neighborhoods, because I am melanin poor, so to speak. I cannot eat in restaurants in those neighborhoods, let alone walk through them. And, as I said before, the look of contempt (aka, hate) is very discerning on some melanin wealthy faces. Perhaps, I look too mainstream for some in those neighborhoods, which should not be a correlation to my being a white person to hate.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 09:00 am
Here is another fairly recent example of a republican making racial comments and then later covering it up when called on it.

Quote:
.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins on Thursday in Lawrence denied that she was speaking in racial terms when she invoked the term “great white hope” at a recent town hall forum.

Jenkins, a 46-year-old Topeka Republican serving her first term in the House, told a recent gathering in northeast Kansas that the Republican Party is looking for a “great white hope.”

was discussing the future of the Republican Party in response to a question about is there any hope for Republicans,” she said while touring Kansas University. “I was explaining that there are some bright lights in the House, and I was unaware of any negative connotation. If I offended somebody, obviously I apologize.”

Videotape shows Jenkins, a Republican, making the comment at an Aug. 19 forum. She was discussing the GOP’s future. Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2006, and in November, voters elected Barack Obama as the nation’s first black president. Jenkins is white.

During her Thursday morning interview, Jenkins, whose district includes western Lawrence, said she was speaking about “a bright light.”

“Republicans have been suffering in recent years, and we need a bright light,” she said.

The term “great white hope” stems from the early 1900s when there was a campaign to find a white boxer who could defeat heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson, who was black.

White House spokesman Bill Burton said he saw the comments and that a Jenkins spokeswoman backpedalled and called it “a poor choice of words.”

“We obviously give congresswoman Jenkins the benefit of the doubt,” Burton said at a briefing on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, where Obama is on vacation.

Tyler Longpine, a Kansas Democratic Party spokesman, also called the comment “a poor choice of words” but said he didn’t think it was anything more. He said a Democratic Party supporter shot the video earlier this month at a forum in Hiawatha and shared it with the state party.

Longpine also said if Jenkins hadn’t spoken in such partisan terms, “she could have kept her foot out of her mouth.”

In one note of irony, Jess Willard, a white man who knocked out Johnson in 1915 for the heavyweight championship, was born northwest of Topeka in St. Clere, about 30 miles from Holton, where Jenkins grew up.


source

But did she really not know the significance of the phrase when she uttered it?

Quote:
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.) took a bit of heat a few weeks ago for suggesting the GOP needed a "great white hope" to take on President Barack Obama in the next election.

The Kansas Republican backtracked from her remarks soon thereafter, insisting that she hadn't really understood the racial implications of the statement.

Alas, The Ottawa (Kans.) Herald finds one reason to doubt Jenkins's excuse. A month ago, the freshman lawmaker supported a resolution that included the very phrase "great white hope" in a historical context that made clear its origin.

In late July, the House of Representatives passed, by unanimous consent, a measure urging the president to pardon heavyweight champion boxer Jack Johnson, whose career brought him success in the ring and racist vitriol outside of it. Included in the resolution, which passed on July 29, was the following phrase:

"Whereas the victory by Jack Johnson over Tommy Burns prompted a search for a White boxer who could beat Jack Johnson, a recruitment effort that was dubbed the search for the 'great white hope.'"

For sports historical junkies: Johnson had to wait years to get a shot at the heavyweight title, because the top-ranked white boxers refused to fight him. Once he got the chance and defeated Burns, the boxing world went on a frantic search to find the "great white hope" to take back the title.

As Media Matters Action Network points out, one of those "great white hopes" was a boxer named Jess Willard, who actually lived just 27 miles from Jenkins' hometown of Holton, Kansas.

Johnson's fall would ultimately come when he took the gloves off. The target of racist violence, he was convicted in 1913 of violating the Mann Act against "transporting women across state lines for immoral purposes."





source
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 09:09 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
Perhaps, I look too mainstream for some in those neighborhoods, which should not be a correlation to my being a white person to hate.


in the early 80's i lived in toronto in a very well off neighbourhood, i was harassed by cops more than a few times as i walked home late at night, because i didn't look mainstream enough (the only explanation i can imagine, i never asked because i didn't care enough about the situation), as i followed a punk rock sort ethos and dress

it can happen to anyone in any number of situations
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 09:10 am
@kuvasz,
kuvasz wrote:


Why, how magnanimous of you to see the humanity in racists, considering that trait is fundamentally absent in them.



It is not the humanity that I see in racists, but it is the ethics, that I do not have an ethical right to disenfranchise any citizen, racist or not, from them being a patritiotic American. Have you not seen the Stars & Bars flags waving near the foxholes in Vietnam war movies? All Americans are humans, regardless of their likes or dislikes, regarding others. Racism, in my opinion, should not be a litmus test for one's value to a nation. The key, is not to act on one's less than loving feelings. But, as private citizens we do have a constitutional right to be as discriminating in our tastes, as to who to associate with, as we choose. I do not have to like any race, or ethnic group, or people from any region. I can think of people as hicks, or city slickers. That is my right to be discriminating. As long as I do not act on it, in an illegal manner. But, if I moved my seat away from you, for any reason on a train, that is my right, regardless of the reason.

And, like it or not, there are some people from some social/economic classes that avoid others of different social/economic classes; should that be looked upon as negative?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 09:13 am
@Foofie,
Please, Name me a single neighborhood in the US that you can not go to because of your skin color.

Maybe you wouldn't feel comfortable in some neighborhoods because your own prejudice causes fear... but I am at least as pale as you, there is nowhere in the US where my skin color would keep me from going if I had reason to go.

Your post, Foofie, is complete BS.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 09:25 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Please, Name me a single neighborhood in the US that you can not go to because of your skin color.

Maybe you wouldn't feel comfortable in some neighborhoods because your own prejudice causes fear... but I am at least as pale as you, there is nowhere in the US where my skin color would keep me from going if I had reason to go.

Your post, Foofie, is complete BS.



Are you not of Hispanic heritage? Blacks and Hispanics live side by side in city housing. I am not Hispanic. Just plain vanilla European and secular Jewish. I do get looks of contempt; even from Hispanics. Eso es la verdad.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 09:26 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Please, Name me a single neighborhood in the US that you can not go to because of your skin color.

Maybe you wouldn't feel comfortable in some neighborhoods because your own prejudice causes fear... but I am at least as pale as you, there is nowhere in the US where my skin color would keep me from going if I had reason to go.

Your post, Foofie, is complete BS.


It tries to formulate an equivalence between (her?) distaste for minority neighborhoods, and actual racism perpetrated against minorities in our history. Which is really ridiculous.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 09:39 am
@Foofie,
No Foofie, I am not of Hispanic heritage. Genetically I am a mix of German, English and Irish. I am as pale-skinned as anyone of Northern European descent.

So no, it isn't the color of your skin that makes you scared to be around "Blacks and Hispanics".
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 09:40 am
All people of all races have their racist among them, I don't think anyone is denying that.

However, that is a point which is straying from the point which is that this republican movement which seems be gaining ground since Obama became elected is being fueled by prominent white conservative republicans pundits, government offices or other important positions affecting the political climate. They have either said undeniable racist comments or comments that leave wiggle room for denial to fuel their base and it is happening and is not just a product of leftist drivel. They seemed to have smartened up since the days when they strung up black men on fiery crosses in their yards (now they carry around images of the same) and have used words which can be denied, but it is still the same old racism which is fueling much (not all) of the debates we have seen of late with the tea baggers and such.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/30/2025 at 11:58:42