WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

snood wrote:

What do you say about the noose in the office, MM?

Since I dont know what the noose is there for (and if you were honest you would admit the same thing),then I cant comment except to say that is a little tacky to have in his office.

As for Jim Webb,the Dem candidate,there is this from Wikipedia...

Quote:

In late September, Webb was asked if he had ever used the "N-word." Webb replied that "I don't think that there's anyone who grew up around the South that hasn't had the word pass through their lips at one time in their life." Webb noted that that word and a lot of other epithets were in "Fields of Fire," a novel Webb wrote about the Vietnam War.

Allen campaign officials referred reporters to Dan Cragg, a former acquaintance of Webb's. Cragg said that Webb told him in 1983 that Webb and members of his ROTC unit at the University of Southern California would "hop into their cars, and would go down to Watts," taking fake rifles, yell out epithets, "point the rifles at them, pull the triggers and then drive off laughing." Cragg had recorded the interview in which he claimed the anecdote was related, but it is absent from the tape.

Spokeswoman Kristian Denny Todd quoted Webb as saying: "In 1963, you couldn't go to Watts and do that kind of thing. You'd get killed. So of course I didn't do it. I would never do that. I would never want to do that." Webb also produced a friend from the time who claimed that Webb and himself has never driven to Watts as claimed. [51]

So,here we have the Dem candidate ADMITTING that he used racial epithets,and also using them in his book.

Why are you ignoring that?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Foxy, read the quote from Allen's little group.

You don't oppose race-mixing, do you Foxy?

I don't oppose race mixing but I evolved from a generation that largely did no matter what race we are talking about. How old is the picture? Under what circumstances was it taken? Is there anything in Allen's background to indicate he was a supporter of CACC or was that one of many groups attending a conservative conference or NRA group? (Charleston Heston being the photo makes me think the latter was likely the case.) Are you sure the photo is authentic?

There are pictures of me participating in numerous events in a segregated school. Does that make me a racist? (That same school was one of the first in our state to integrate. The teachers and kids, both black and white, were wonderful and the parents quickly adjusted to the idea and came to know that it was right.)

I also worked for an attorney one time, a former judge, who had a noose hanging in his office. This was not uncommon back in the wild and wooly west and was a symbol of 'the hanging judge' which had absolutely no racial connotations.

It is very easy to condemn somebody based on a picture, a symbol, an emblem, etc. etc. etc. But unless you've heard the person praise or commend or otherwise indicate support for others in the picture, the picture probably indicates nothing of ideology. There's a picture floating around the threads of Donald Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam Hussein and probably there are pictures of high level American officals shaking hands with Adolph Hitler.

I would like to see America return to a civil society that allowed people benefit of the doubt until they provided reason to believe they are other than they say they are. If we continue on this road of destroying people because of a picture or because they said a politically incorrect word or they stubbed their toe in some other way, we are not going to ever attract good decent people to elected office.

It would be good for the golden rule to apply even in politics.

0 Replies

MM doesn't know what the noose meant. I believe we're about through here.

0 Replies

Foxfyre, You want a return to "Civil Society" Just when did we have that?

Conservative Segregationist have used racial epithets, thrown rocks, beaten kids and even shot people.

And then there is the matter of the noose...

When have the pro-segregation conservatives ever been civil.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Foxfyre, You want a return to "Civil Society" Just when did we have that?

Conservative Segregationist have used racial epithets, thrown rocks, beaten kids and even shot people.

And then there is the matter of the noose...

When have the pro-segregation conservatives ever been civil.

Yes there have always been people who hated or looked down their noses at other people, especially people who had a different point of view or saw thngs differently. There have been prejudiced, bigoted, and evil people throughout all time and there always will be.

Good people however do not attempt to destroy people who have a different perspective or ideology. Only people willing to embrace evil to further an ideology do that. Good people judge a person on that person's track record and do not try to destroy somebody just because they disagree with him or her.

We used to have a whole country of mostly good people that could largely shout down or shut down those who would embrace evil for their own purposes, at least as a matter of policy. I wonder sometimes if we still do.

As for the noose, as I said, it never occurred to me that it wasn't a symbol of wild west justice i.e. Judge Roy Bean style which is what such a noose would signify around here. I wonder why it seems to represent something else to some of the rest of you?

0 Replies

Quote:

Good people however do not attempt to destroy people who have a different perspective or ideology. Only people willing to embrace evil to further an ideology do that. Good people judge a person on that person's track record and do not try to destroy somebody just because they disagree with him or her.

So you would disagree with what the conservatives did to Kerry, or to Clinton? You would also disagree with those attacking the "homosexual agenda" and those calling La Raza a racist organization.

Quote:

We used to have a whole country of mostly good people that could largely shout down or shut down those who would embrace evil for their own purposes, at least as a matter of policy. I wonder sometimes if we still do.

A ideology that says that white christians are superior to others in society is evil.

It seems your first paragraph contradicts your second paragraph. But when it comes to "shouting down or shutting down" George Allen and the other conservatives who oppose diversity in our society...

Well to answer your questiion, some of us still do.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The other thing to consider is WHY some Republicans oppose busing of school children and WHY some Republicans oppose many forms of Affirmative Action.

Because they believe government lacks any rightful power to decide what the place of individuals in society should be, and to try and put people in that place. This is true independently of what that place might be. The case was obvious before the 1960s, when the government-assigned place was often that of a second-class citizen in a segregated society. Republicans, "the party of Lincoln", have made that case with reasonable consistency. But even if the place of someone in society is one we like -- such as that of an equal in a happy mix of races -- there are good reasons to not give government the power to actively people there. Republicans are still making that case with reasonable consistency, and I agree with them about this case. Would you call me a racist for this?

0 Replies

Thomas, someone being against government intervention in social matters is not inherently a racist. Yes, you can be philosophically opposed to busing and affirmative action on these grounds-- and if this is the case, you will still have my respect.

That is not what I am opposed to.

There is a much more sinister ideology that is common in the conservative christian movement and is being heard from parts of the Republican party.

This ideology says that America is for people who are of "European descent" (that is white if you don't get the slightly more PC code word) and Christian. They feel non-European, or non-Christian influences are a threat to what they see as the real America.

This ideology is not new. In fact the Confederate flag and the noose have long been symbols of people who believe that Whites are superior to other races and should have special priviledges.

You are right that historically this was not a Republican/Democrat thing (the politics changed quite a bit during Reconstruction).

But it seems like everyone defending the Confederate flag and the noose today is a Republican.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

How old is the picture? Under what circumstances was it taken? Is there anything in Allen's background to indicate he was a supporter of CACC or was that one of many groups attending a conservative conference or NRA group? (Charleston Heston being the photo makes me think the latter was likely the case.) Are you sure the photo is authentic?

I'm always surprised just how many questions you will throw up to cast doubt on something without apparently the least curiosity in finding the answers to those questions. Why dont you just Google it? If you really want those answers? Are you just lazy, or is it more that you are perfectly happy throwing the possibility that you know, it might have been long ago, the photo might not be authentic, etc, out there - and leave it there, hoping noone will go through the dreary task of rebutting each of your questions, so they can remain up as just as many reasons to shrug off the news of the photo?

FWIW: the photo is from 1996. Not very long ago at all. Allen was already Governor.

The photo is authentic: it appeared in the Summer 1996 issue of the CCC's own newsletter, the Citizens Informer.

And this is how the photo came about:

Quote:

Governor Allen entered the Washington Hilton Hotel to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual gathering of conservative movement organizations, he strode to a booth at the entrance of the exhibition hall festooned with two large Confederate flags--a booth operated by the CCC, at the time a co-sponsor of CPAC. After speaking with CCC founder and former White Citizens Council organizer Gordon Lee Baum and two of his cohorts, Allen suggested that they pose for a photograph with then-National Rifle Association spokesman and actor Charlton Heston. The photo appeared in the Summer 1996 issue of the CCC's newsletter, the Citizens Informer.

According to Baum, Allen had not naively stumbled into a chance meeting with unfamiliar people. He knew exactly who and what the CCC was about and, from Baum's point of view, was engaged in a straightforward political transaction. "It helped us as much as it helped him," Baum told me. "We got our bona fides." And so did Allen.

As to whether there is any background on Allen and the group:

Quote:

Asked whether Allen supports or deplores the CCC, John Reid, his communications director, pleaded ignorance. "I am unaware of the group you mention or their agenda and because we have no record of the Senator having involvement with them I cannot offer you any opinion on them," Reid told me in an e-mail response. [..]

But George Allen's relationship with the CCC [..] went beyond poses and portraits. In 1995, he appointed a CCC sympathizer, Virginia lawyer R. Jackson Garnett, to head the Virginia Council on Day Care and serve on the Governor's Advisory Council on Self-Determination and Federalism. According to the CCC's Citizens Informer, Garnett delivered a speech before a CCC gathering saying that the Federalism Commission was "created to study abuses by the Federal government of constitutional powers that rightfully belong to the states."

Later that year, Garnett closed the Virginia Council on Day Care after accusing it, as he wrote in a letter to Governor Allen, of attempting to "form the minds of our young children with a radical ideology before they enter public schools." The Virginia Council had aroused Garnett's ire, according to the Virginian-Pilot newspaper, for preparing an "anti-bias" curriculum for daycare teachers. Allen approved the shut-down.

And then there's some of the other stuff, of course - it's not like the photo is an isolated object that comes out of nowhere and could thus generously be taken to mean just about anything:

Quote:

The year after his letter to the SCV, Allen issued a proclamation, drafted by the local SCV, declaring April as Confederate History and Heritage Month--the month Fort Sumter was attacked and Lincoln assassinated. Once again, Allen's proclamation was laced with neo-Confederate ideology, describing the Civil War as "a four-year struggle for independence and sovereign rights." He avoided any mention of slavery.

Days after Allen's proclamation, the SCV celebrated at the US Capitol. The featured speaker was Richard T. Hines, an influential Republican lobbyist and neo-Confederate financier who, a year earlier, had protested the erection of a memorial to black tennis star Arthur Ashe in downtown Richmond, Virginia as "an attempt to debunk our heritage." The NAACP condemned Allen's SCV-inspired proclamation, while Confederate Memorial Association President John Edward Hurley called the SCV's celebration at the Capitol one of "the worst capitulations to white supremacy" since the Ku Klux Klan marched down Pennsylvania Avenue in 1920. [..]

In 2000, [Allen] had hung a noose at his law office. When that fact was reported, he claimed it had "nothing to do with lynching." When it was reported that he also hung large Confederate flags in his house, he explained they were part of his flag collection. Allen had also opposed the 1991 Civil Rights Act and making Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a holiday. [..]

Source

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

You are right that historically this was not a Republican/Democrat thing (the politics changed quite a bit during Reconstruction).

Rather, it has always been "a Republican/Democrat" thing, and the polarities have switched. Martin Luther King, in his "I have a dream" speech, nMWA several brutely racist Southern governors. All of them were Democrats. What happened after that speech is that Republicans maintained their convictions of governmental non-interference in social affairs, while Democrats retained their racial activism while making a U-turn on its desired outcome. (Yes, that's a gross overgeneralization.)

ebrown_p wrote:

But it seems like everyone defending the Confederate flag and the noose today is a Republican.

The problem is that the confederate flag seems to mean different things to different people. To some it's a symbol of White Supremacism, which I have a problem with; to others it's a symbol of state independence from Washington, which I approve of. I haven't been to the South yet except for changing planes in Atlanta, but I'm pretty sure lots of Southern Democrats fly the Confederate flag with this latter understanding in mind. (For the record, I believe George Allen is trying to play to both sentiments, and I don't like it.)

ebrown_p wrote:

There is a much more sinister ideology that is common in the conservative christian movement and is being heard from parts of the Republican party.

I agree: In the Republican as in the Democratic case, the new policy now pleases the opposite clientele as the old one.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The other thing to consider is WHY some Republicans oppose busing of school children and WHY some Republicans oppose many forms of Affirmative Action.

Because they believe government lacks any rightful power to decide what the place of individuals in society should be, and to try and put people in that place. This is true independently of what that place might be. The case was obvious before the 1960s, when the government-assigned place was often that of a second-class citizen in a segregated society. Republicans, "the party of Lincoln", have made that case with reasonable consistency. But even if the place of someone in society is one we like -- such as that of an equal in a happy mix of races -- there are good reasons to not give government the power to actively people there. Republicans are still making that case with reasonable consistency, and I agree with them about this case. Would you call me a racist for this?

Would I call you a racist for your take on this? Absolutely not. You came close to what I was thinking when I asked the question.

At one time, racist or not, affirmative action was necessary to correct some very real inequities born of racism in our society. Those inequities no longer exist as a matter of either law or policy. Thus those still pushing Affirmative Action now are much more likely to be the racists, well intended or not, in their perception that minorities are unequal and/or incapable and/or unable to achieve their goals on their own initiative.

I think most conservatives look at busing in the same way. To bus kids from one school to another puts unnecessary strain on the family and weakens the immediate community by making those kids belong nowhere. It's also suggests that minority kids can't make it without Whitey's help. Conservatives reject that kind of stereotyping of people and believe the more excellent way is to make it easier for parents to enroll their kids in the school of their choice and thereby encourage all schools to achieve excellence so they can attract those kids. It's a no brainer that the parent will choose a good, affordable school closest to home if such is available.

Too many in the GOP have abandoned or violated their conservative principles these days, but the GOP is the place where you are most likely to find the true conservatives among us. I keep hoping the others will wake up and come to their senses.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Would I call you a racist for your take on this? Absolutely not. You came close to what I was thinking when I asked the question.

Embarrassingly enough, I was convinced your post was written by BBB when I was answering it -- and that she had been ironic. Evidently I'm getting senile. Embarrassed

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Would I call you a racist for your take on this? Absolutely not. You came close to what I was thinking when I asked the question.

Embarrassingly enough, I was convinced your post was written by BBB when I was answering it -- and that she had been ironic. Evidently I'm getting senile.

LOL. Well, while I'm not sure I enjoy being confused with BBB, I did enjoy your confession. Smile

0 Replies

Each of the below quotes is linked to its source in the item itself..

Quote:

Bob Gibson of The Daily Progress reports that two more Allen acquaintances say he regularly used the N-word.

For those keeping score at home:

- "He used the N-word on a regular basis back then." --Dr. Ken Shelton

- "It was so common with George when he was among his white friends. This is the terminology he used." --Edward J. Sabornie

- "George said 'only the niggers around here eat em.'" --Dr. Chris Taylor

- "I heard to my left the N-word and I heard it again and I looked around and I heard it again and there was this fellow sitting on the ground....I said to the boy beside me, a man, who is that kid? And he said, oh, that's George Allen." --Patricia Waring

- "He just threw it around so casually, it's like he didn't know any better....[W]henever he'd get a black card that he didn't like, he would refer to it as a 'nig--- card' he needed to get rid of." --Leah Deason

- "It was part of his everyday speech. It just rolled off his tongue. He'd get a black card he didn't like and he'd toss it back and say, 'I don't need that nig--- ten.'" --a former UVa classmate

- "I do not remember ever using that word." --George Allen

--Ryan Lizza

Can we say "lying" yet? Or do we have to assume massive amnesia?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Each of the below quotes is linked to its source in the item itself..

Quote:
Bob Gibson of The Daily Progress reports that two more Allen acquaintances say he regularly used the N-word.

For those keeping score at home:

- "He used the N-word on a regular basis back then." --Dr. Ken Shelton

- "It was so common with George when he was among his white friends. This is the terminology he used." --Edward J. Sabornie

- "George said 'only the niggers around here eat em.'" --Dr. Chris Taylor

- "I heard to my left the N-word and I heard it again and I looked around and I heard it again and there was this fellow sitting on the ground....I said to the boy beside me, a man, who is that kid? And he said, oh, that's George Allen." --Patricia Waring

- "He just threw it around so casually, it's like he didn't know any better....[W]henever he'd get a black card that he didn't like, he would refer to it as a 'nig--- card' he needed to get rid of." --Leah Deason

- "It was part of his everyday speech. It just rolled off his tongue. He'd get a black card he didn't like and he'd toss it back and say, 'I don't need that nig--- ten.'" --a former UVa classmate

- "I do not remember ever using that word." --George Allen

--Ryan Lizza

Can we say "lying" yet? Or do we have to assume massive amnesia?

How many of these people are anti-Bush, anti-GOP, or anti-George Allen people? Is there any verification that they actually exist? Does your Blog source provide that information anywhere? If not, I would think there is definitely lying going on, but as there are many verifiable witnesses who are supporting George Allen's statement on this, I would say that there is a strong probability that the liars are not George Allen and those who are vouching for him.

0 Replies

Foxfyre:

Quote:

I would say that there is a strong probability that the liars are not George Allen and those who are vouching for him.

Yeah, there's that possibility. Or maybe he did use it regularly, and has lied about it so much now that he and his supporters are in the position that they can never admit the truth. That's possible too.

0 Replies

Or maybe they are all true. It could be Allen used the word so much that he didn't even think about it when he used it.

Can you remember using the word "the" 20 years ago? I don't remember using it ...............

..........
(But I probably did.)

0 Replies

This bickering over whether George Allen used an offensive word or not is silly. He is probably lying, but who cares.

The question is whether he has racist attitudes

And though Foxfyre will tell you that you can't judge someone's heart, the question of whether our elected officials entertain racist ideas or harbor racist attitudes is very important.

The "whether Allen used the N word 20 years ago question" is completely irrelevant.

It is his pattern of behavior from 20 years ago to now that is a problem. Let's forget about the ethnic slurs, the Confederate flag, the noose (which Foxfyre is still explaining away as a symbol of white christian heritage), and the inexplicable "Welcome to America" comment to a dark-skinned American citizen.

The fact that Allen had strong connections to the CCC... which he has still refused to denounce... is enough for me.

He has not, and is apparently unwilling to, denounce the idea that white christians should be superior in American society.

Without all of the other racial problems... this is enough for me to denounce him as a dangerous kook.

(Then there is the new land deal corruption.... this guy is hitting all the bases)

0 Replies

Interesting how the Foley scandal hasn't changed the projected likelyhood of Senate and House control that much. Trading sites still put House at 42% likely GOP retains control, 71% GOP retains Senate. When you look at the individual races it is the Allen race that could be the one that shifts balance.

The recent revelation that North Korea has tested a nuke isn't getting a lot of play yet but it could before the week is out if it is confirmed with nuclear fallout readings. The seismic activity occurred and the US has said they have no reason not to believe North Korea's claim.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Interesting how the Foley scandal hasn't changed the projected likelyhood of Senate and House control that much. Trading sites still put House at 42% likely GOP retains control, 71% GOP retains Senate. When you look at the individual races it is the Allen race that could be the one that shifts balance.

I think it's quite consistent with the New York Times article I posted on the last page. Judging by the article, the attitude of evangelical Christians has three main elements: 1) It's Foley's ethics problem, not the Republicans'; 2) some evangelicals are bitter about the Republican party and may stay home in November, 3) It reinvigorates other evangelicals in supporting the Republicans. Foley reaffirmed them their conviction that homosexuality is evil, and that the Republican party is right to take a tough line on it. Only reaction #2 would harm Republican candidates for Congress. #1 is neutral, #3 supports them.

parados wrote:

The recent revelation that North Korea has tested a nuke isn't getting a lot of play yet but it could before the week is out if it is confirmed with nuclear fallout readings. The seismic activity occurred and the US has said they have no reason not to believe North Korea's claim.

And once public opinion reacts, it could go either way. It could go the way of "so much for Bush's visionary foreign policy". Or it could be "let's unite behind our president."

0 Replies

WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know