My personal experience, again, and that of William Henry in that bastion of Republican conservatism, the South, has been that my social and business associates that are conservative have either been overtly racist or let slip that they are of that persuasion. The overtly racist acquaintances, I've disassociated with many years ago. The business associates, I've callously kept a relationship up only as long as I could be sure they were still going to pay me money. In that way, I made a statement to myself of what I think of them. There money is just as good as anyone's but I no matter how much they have, I still think they are scum.
tresspasers, I don't believe you are a racist and I assume you are of the libertarian/conservative persuasion. Aren't you the least bit worried that the signals have been raised once again that old beliefs die very slow deaths and that many of the people of your same persuasion hold racist's viewpoints? I'm certainly more assured even with Byrd's unfortunate slip, that the liberal democrats I know are not racist. In fact, many of them are members of a minority of one kind or another. If you have no liberal Democratic friends but associated primarily with conservatives in your milieu, that's what grounds you have to make a judgement. Not that I am big on passing judgments -- that's for judges and something (whatever you want to call it) that is beyond our power. I think this is about people who pass judgements -- not just on a race but on anyone who is not exactly like they are. Ashcroft is perhaps effective at his job to the extent that he can be but I don't personally like what he stands for. He's an unqualified prig, for one thing. I think these confirmation hearings and the vote are going to tell some of the story but not all of it. The idea that we need more conservative judges is that they are victim oriented and not soft on criminals. Liberal judges have been rejected for being too criminal oriented and not protecting victims. I think there's been a lot of vilifying on both sides and it will be as equalized in the end result as it can be.
LW - I am both concerned and saddened that any Americans are racists today, but the reality that some conservatives are racists no more justifies the conclusion that most are than does the reality that some Americans are racists mean that most Americans are.
I live in the South. I know a few people who are less than enlightened when it comes to race. If they keep it to themselves, we're fine. If they make a comment that I think is racially offensive, I call them on it, right there, right then. I believe that evil thrives when good men do nothing. I believe that some residual racism continues to thrive because good people stand quietly by and allow it.
A few years ago I was singing with a band. During rehearsal one day, the drummer (who did not last long) made a racist remark. I told him I thought it was inappropriate and the he ought to be more evolved than that. I also told him that I have a brother-in-law who is black, and that I took offense personally because his comment denigrated a member of my family. His response was that he thought it was "great" that I was "standing by my sister like that", as if her decision to marry a black man was something shameful I had chosen to bear for her sake. I tore into him then, and we found a new drummer soon thereafter.
Another time, a sweet old woman in my church choir, of whom I was quite fond, decided to share a racial joke with me at a party the choir was having. I asked her--in front of everyone--whether she thought the joke was in keeping with the teachings of Jesus as she understood them, and told her that I found it offensive and that in the future I was not interested in hearing such jokes. She was mortified and left the party.
Now, I may not have cured either of these people, but I hope I reduced the likelihood that either would simply assume those around them shared their outdated and ignorant views.
So, if you are asking me to account for the hearts of other conservatives I can not. Neither can I state that no conservative politician harbors racism in his or her heart, but that's likewise a statement no one can make regarding Democrats. But I can look into my own heart and conscience and find both clear on this issue, and I believe that is something I share with most Americans, both liberal and conservative.
Where real racism exists, challenge it, expose it, root it out. But incessant and unthinking "playing" of the "race card" by so many liberals does nothing to serve that purpose. It is simply yet another form of bigotry, and serves only to continue the racial polarization of our society.
That a person votes against a so-called "black issue" does not make him or her a racist. That some people out there choose to assume that only racism can lead someone to vote against a so-called "black issue" does not make it true.
Those same people who jump to claim racism at any opportunity where a conservative is involved are just as quick to explain away any questionable remark or action by a liberal. That's not logic, that's bias, and the conclusions reached through this dual standard are flawed and meaningless, unless your only goal is political advantage. Then the dual standard makes perfect sense.
It seems to me that some people can't distinguish between what they believe and what they know. That you believe someone is a racist does not mean you know it. That you believe you know why someone did something does not mean your assumption is correct. That you don't care to hold yourself to a high standard of proof in leveling such a claim does not mean there's something wrong with those who do.
I think we've run the course on this one. I hope we can agree to disagree.
Facts please? Can you cite any links to verify your claim that you are not a bigot? Can you name some of the 'countless' other conservatives who are not bigoted and verify their non-bigotry?
I am facetiously asking for 'proof' in the expectation that you will see, will, that asking for such is merely a stalling tactic. And if you were to respond to my request for 'proof', I would simply say, "Well, that proves nothing."
Of course, if you didn't, then I would say, "See? No proof."...
It would be nice if thinking men and women would stop this annoying tactic. But they won't and so we must all play the game of straw man.
I'll take you at your word about not being a racist, without any evidence pro or con.
The evidence is overwhelming against the rest of your team, however, so they are not included.
And one other thing: you need to stop calling ME a bigot, especially since you have already called me ignorant and cowardly on this thread.
That doesn't help you make your case that you're not.
Proof - GWB just renominated Pickering!
Trespasser:
Works for me!
Pax!
Anon
Each of the individuals involved in this discussion over the last few pages has clear cause to take pride in the level of this discussion, both in terms of personal integrity and in intelligence.
These are passionate matters and they are not simple. Disagreement is to be expected, yes? My nightmare is a world full of people who think exactly like me. I am extremely pleased to be involved with each one of you in discussion (except perhaps LightWizard).
Disagreement is a part of political discussions and it's often difficult to find any common ground. We all tend to dig in and stauncly defend our viewpoint. It doesn't do anybody's argument any good when accusatory statements take over.
I have to go by impressions here but in the real world, believe me, I purposefully put out the bait with those I suspect of being racists, or bigots in any way. There nearly all stupid enough to fall for it and reveal themselves. Some arrogantly reveal it. Political bigotry does exists but there's so little to go on. There's no skin color and other indications of a person's "differences." There is class bigotry, too. I echo Blatham's thought about differences, only I'm glad that I'm not in a world of clones of myself. I would really be one hell of an argument fast!
I second that, blatham.
PS Not the part about Lightwizard. :-D
Yes, Blatham, you )*(&%^%^%#^%#
LW
Of course, "^%^%#" is not physically possible.
(the thread will now continue with its scheduled programming)
Blatham:
Take some more of your meds, you'de be surprised what is possible
Anon
PDiddie - If I claim that the Pentagon collapsed this morning, would it be a "stalling tactic" for you to ask me for proof of my claim?
If you said that it did not, would it be reasonable of me to challenge you to produce a news story stating that the Pentagon did not collapse today?
Clearly there is a difference between requesting that someone back up an affirmative statement, and asking someone to prove a negative. (Clearly I could prove that the Pentagon didn't collapse, but my point is that there would be no news story trumpeting this non-event.)
But again, I understand your position both on conservatives in general and on me personally. Is there really anything else to discuss?
A lame obfuscation, tres.
And off-topic. Imagine that.
No, we have nothing else to discuss.
Unless you have any other pejoratives you'd like to use...
OK...it IS time to knock off the snide and insulting tone here or the thread is locked.
Relevant New York Times editorial from today on Lott/Pickering
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/09/opinion/09THU1.html
Ah, Dubya seems to like to play Russian Roulette -- I think there's a bullet in the chamber this time and he's got it aimed at his foot.
Blatham:
You big bully!
Anon
Yes, but it is no small sacrifice I've made here. I had to use my own money to buy these shiny black boots.
Effective post, blatham. Not written as an indictment of all, or even most conservatives, but effective for being factual, even though written as opinion. Not to mention a relevant addition to the discussion.
Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that this was a consciously devisive move by bush? How does everyone else react to this in-your-face affront to bi-partisanship? How does this aline with his "uniter, not divider" rhetoric? After the rich-pandering economic "proposal", this shows incredible arrogance. Here's an editorial from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30783-2003Jan8.html
