A great American.
It’s too bad liberalism today still wants to judge and divide people by skin color for special privileges.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2013 at 1340 hrs
Tell me that men and women are judged solely by the content of their character and Dr Kings message will have been successful.
When a persons right to vote is being suppressed , it’s Mississippi in 1963 .
All done in the spirit of “fairness”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2013 at 1606 hrs
Mark,
I’ll bite.
Who’s vote is being suppressed?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2013 at 1633 hrs
You know, that’s not the only speech Dr. King ever made. Here’s an excerpt from a speech he made in 1965. The subject is labor unions.
“The labor movement was the principal force that transformed misery and despair into hope and progress. Out of its bold struggles, economic and social reform gave birth to unemployment insurance, old-age pensions, government relief for the destitute and, above all, new wage levels that meant not mere survival but a tolerable life. The captains of industry did not lead this transformation; they resisted it until they were overcome. When in the thirties the wave of union organization crested over the nation, it carried to secure shores not only itself but the whole society.”
Wonder what Walker and WMC think of that?
Posted by Northern Pike on January 21, 2013 at 1710 hrs
I’m sure 60 years from now conservatives will wax absurdly about how equality for homosexuals is really a conservative value.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 0017 hrs
Not unlike Kennedy & LBJ, MLK was also a major skirt chaser (and a “reverend” too). That seems to be forgotten.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 0805 hrs
Let’s see , in order to combat voter fraud that is almost non existent , states passed laws to make it more difficult to vote for African Americans , the elderly ,students and people with disabilities.
States like Florida refuse to improve voter access .
The courts have delayed the implementation of these laws in many but not all cases.
I’m pretty sure Dr King would have had a few things to say about this.
The statement would probably not begin, “I agree with Kevin that we have entirely too many people voting “
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 0811 hrs
Rehashing an old subject Mark: Kindly explain why it would be more difficult?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 0841 hrs
Mark,
So Dr. King’s message is lost on you?
Minorities, as a group, are not smart enough to get a Voter ID?
I don’t buy that for a minute.
Inability to get an picture ID, when they are given for free at DMV, is an issue of “content of character”, not color of skin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 0945 hrs
Great point, Kevin. If a certain group isn’t caterd to, it’s “unfair” in a liberal’s eyes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1008 hrs
Scott. would that be similar to how progressives now wax absurdly that human life is a progressive value?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1044 hrs
northernpike- Walker and other conservatives would say the same thing. They would agree with King’s statement.
They would then continue and say that all of those things are now law. Some (not all, some get it) unions have become bloated, inflexible drags on american business, government, taxpayers and workers and have outlived their usefullness.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1228 hrs
Scott. would that be similar to how progressives now wax absurdly that human life is a progressive value?
No, because in your example it’s a matter of disagreement about what a person is. In my example it’s conservatives not owning their own history and thus failing to learn from it. And I’m serious, by the way. I believe with all my heart that in a few decades conservatives of the future will proclaim that marriage equality is a natural outgrowth of conservative thought. And in the next breath they’ll declare some other group’s equality a threat to everything that is good and right. I wonder if conservatives could, for just one moment, acknowledge that the anti-civli rights folks were taking the conservative position on the issue. I wonder if they might then ask themselves whether there’s a lesson in that, and whether that lesson might better inform their positions on current issues.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1405 hrs
I wonder if conservatives could, for just one moment, acknowledge that the anti-civli rights folks were taking the conservative position on the issue.
2/3rds of Wisconsin voted to make marriage between one man and one woman.
2/3rds of WI is conservative? Really?
Only 8% of black Evangelicals support gay marriage. (Which means 92% of black Evangelicals are still Christian on the issue, that is a good thing)
African Americans our of any group in America are the one’s that overwhelmingly support traditional marriage.
African Americans are now conservative? really?
Last I checked, African Americans vote Democrat and many of them consider themselves liberal.
Al Gore’s dad, a Democrat, opposed civil rights initiatives.
So please stop pretending that conservatives are the only one’s that support traditional biblical marriage.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1424 hrs
Let’s start then scott, with progressives. In the past century they’ve advocated eugenics, then marxist dictatorships, then more marxist dictatorships, then a status quo that enslaved Eastern Europe and now a contempt for the basic humanity of ttheir political opponents that they can’t even contain. Today they rationalize away the mass murder and poverty that accompanied their advocacy and believe themselves possessed of a moral superiority while they advocate the same policies all over again.
Hell. now that I put in words progressives can’t even own their present much less their past.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1456 hrs
BVBB - reread your post . Your moral superiority is showing.
—————————————————
Kevin, it’s my busy season and I assume a slower time for you.
Read up on the recent legal decisions postponing the Voter ID laws . I agree with those judges.
Im pretty sure minorities in this country would trade in a heart beat all those “perks” ascribed to them for a country that doesn’t discriminate .
Only in America can the majority somehow believe they. are somehow oppressed .
Take the “war on Christmas “. The last time I checked, Christmas and the Christians were winning that “war ” handily.
DR King wanted more voters , not less . Voter registration drives were a key part of his non violent path to change
If you have another message than that, you are making it up out of whole cloth.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1556 hrs
Kevin, what was the conservative position on civil rights back in the 60s? What was the liberal one?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1617 hrs
Let’s start then scott, with progressives.
Yes, let’s.
If your workplace is safe; if your children go to school rather than being forced into labor; if you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a forty-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights- you can thank liberals. if your food is not poisoned and your water is drinkable – you can thank liberals. If your parents are eligible for Medicare and Social Security, so they can grow old in dignity without bankrupting your family – you can thank liberals. If our rivers are getting cleaner and our air isn’t black with pollution; if our wilderness is protected and our countryside is still green – you can thank liberals. If people of all races can share the same public facilities; if everyone has the right to vote; if couples fall in love and marry regardless of race; if we have finally begun to transcend a segregated society – you can thank liberals. Progressive innovations like those and so many others were achieved by long, difficult struggles against entrenched power. What defined conservatism, and conservatives, was their opposition to everyone of those advances.
- Joe Conason
You’re welcome.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1623 hrs
Mark,
Read up on the recent legal decisions postponing the Voter ID laws . I agree with those judges. Im pretty sure minorities in this country would trade in a heart beat all those “perks” ascribed to them for a country that doesn’t discriminate.
So you believe minorities, as a whole, are not as easily able to get a free Voter ID? That means you are judging color of skin vs. content of character.
Dr. King would be disappointed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1624 hrs
Scott,
You mean you do not want to discuss the overwhelming support of traditional marriage in the “liberal” African American community…a traditional Democrat constituency.
In fact, that Democrat constituency is more correct on traditional marriage than white evangelical conservatives.
To talk about a decade before I was born, it would help to define “civil rights”.
I define “civil rights” as not obligating, or enslaving, my fellow man to provide goods or services to others against one’s permission.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1627 hrs
I’m seriously asking. Do you know what the conservative position was on civil rights back then?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1639 hrs
Scott,
I’m seriously asking what you mean by “civil rights”.
Conservatives/Libertarians are the “civil rights” advocates as I define “civil rights”. I don’t think that has changed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1646 hrs
I’m not asking about your personal definitions. I’m talking about a real thing that happened called the civil rights movement. You’ve heard of it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955–1968)
What, in your opinion, was the conservative position on it? What was the liberal one?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1700 hrs
I’m sure true conservatives supported it.
Racist liberals like the elder Gore did not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1719 hrs
ಠ_ಠ
Seriously? You can’t even acknowledge that the conservative position was to be against the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King? You can’t admit that the liberal position was to support it and him?
I’m not talking about conservatives, then or now, Kevin. It’s interesting that modern black Americans often take a conservative position on gay rights, but that doesn’t make their position the liberal one. Conservative and Liberal are real words that have real meanings, and people are more complicated than just to “be” one or the other in every area of life.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1736 hrs
Racists were against Dr. King’s movement.
Racists, as with the elder Gore, were also liberal.
Racists, were not exclusively liberal or conservative.
I refuse to play your game that all conservatives were racists. Personally, I don’t view racists as true conservatives, thus why I use term “true conservative”. Most racists, who sort people by color of their skin reside in the liberal side of the aisle today.
Traditional marriage is not a “conservative” position either.
Large blocks of liberals embrace the traditional view of marriage.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1753 hrs
I refuse to play your game that all conservatives were racists.
You misunderstand my point. I’m not trying to call you a racist. If I thought you were one, I’d just come out and say it.
Conservative, in a broad sense, means one who wants things to remain the same rather than change. And in that specific historical moment, it meant opposition to the civil rights movement.
Feel free to acknowledge that this is true, as far as it goes. Perhaps you’d rather argue with me about whether it is or isn’t the same thing when modern conservatives oppose marriage equality. I say it is precisely the same thing—the conservative resistance to expanding rights and opportunity to those who were previously denied them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1757 hrs
Kevin- Gore Sr. was one of the Senators pushing LBJ on the ‘57 civil rights bill and was one of the new socially liberal Democratic Senators from the South that helped break the old line Southern Democratic Senators.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1942 hrs
Maybe I can make myself clearer. I’m not talking about people. I’m talking about ideas. People are complicated. No matter how they identify themselves vis a vis the largest political divides of their times, they are likely to have positions that fall on both sides of those divides. Rather than talk about people and say that everyone who identified themselves as “conservative” were against civil rights, I’m talking about the idea itself. Being against civil rights was itself, the idea, clearly a very conservative one. Why? It resisted change to the existing social order and opposes the expansion of rights to those previously denied.
Black Americans who oppose marriage equality may indeed label themselves liberals in the larger political milieu. But opposition to marriage equality is itself a conservative position. Why? It resists change to the existing social order and opposes the expansion of rights to those previously denied.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1947 hrs
Gore Sr. was one of the Senators pushing LBJ on the ‘57 civil rights bill
I keep reminding myself that you can never go wrong double checking what people say in these comments. Frickin’ figures.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1949 hrs
Conservative, in a broad sense, means one who wants things to remain the same rather than change.
I don’t agree with that at all.
Conservatives want to reform schools with school choice. Liberals are for failing status quo.
Conservatives want to reform medicare to keep it solvent. Democrats want to keep it status quo and make it into a fiscal disaster like in IL.
Conservatives want to reform Social Security to make people wealthy with the possibility of private accounts. Liberals want to keep it same and shaft people and families that die early.
Conservatives want to fix the deficit. Obama does not even want to talk about it while he continues to spend us into oblivion.
That may be your definition of conservative, but conservatism (or Libertarian movement) today is a vibrant reform movement aimed at fixing what is ailing America…decades of big government liberalism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1950 hrs
Scott,
Gore Sr. voted against the civil rights act of 1964.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1954 hrs
To, scott you’re not welcome. But then the motivation behind progressivism has always been hate, fear and jealousy, as witnessed by their attituted towards theit fellow men and compulsion to credit themselves for societal “benefits” real or imagined, voluntary or involuntary, while simultaneously finding scapegoats for their failures.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 2018 hrs
After all these years, Scott still hasn’t kicked the pathologically-lying-about-history-to-slander-people-he-hates habit.
Because Scott lacks the integrity to admit any aspect of his misconduct, engaging him in debate on the subject would be a colossal waste of time (as everyone here can attest from personal experience). So instead, I direct the following link to any other interested parties of a more open-minded persuasion:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson
I eagerly await our intrepid Maddow/Krugman fan’s explanation for why he should still be able to pretend conservatism was bad on civil rights because National Review falls outside his ideological comfort zone.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on January 22, 2013 at 2143 hrs
And then there’s his mind-numbing, dimestore understanding of political ideology. American political conservatism has never had anything to do with “oppos[ing] the expansion of rights to those previously denied,” or with some sort of instinctive adherence to the status quo whatever it happens to be.
Conservatism is all about conserving a certain set of propositions: the principles of human nature, natural individual rights, and limited republican (small-r) government, as these things are defined by the Founders and the Enlightenment thinkers that informed works like the Declaration and the Federalist Papers. Period.
Understanding and believing in those values leads directly to embracing the very principles Dr. King articulates in the video above….no matter what ignorant hacks prefer to believe.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on January 22, 2013 at 2212 hrs
Oh, Calivin. You’re still mad that I made some good points about abortion that you didn’t like. One day we should discuss that again.
Meanwhile, I’ll promise to read that article if you promise to look up the word “conservative” in a dictionary and cut-and-past the results here in full.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 2244 hrs
“American political conservatism has never had anything to do with “oppos[ing] the expansion of rights to those previously denied,” or with some sort of instinctive adherence to the status quo whatever it happens to be.”
Can we say confirmation bias, Calvin, on your part? Because the historical record runs counter to your assertion.
William Buckley, the bastion of conservatism, early in his career promoted the right of a white minority in the South to enforce “Jim Crow” regardless of federal intrusion. To his credit, he reversed course, stating that he erred in thinking that integration would slowly work its way into southern culture without compulsion of Congressional statutes. The link also shows the relationship between conservative politics and racist tendencies.
And who can forget Lee Atwater (1981)...Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964 and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: “You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘N****r, n****r, n****r.’ By 1968, you can’t say ‘n****r,’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like ‘forced busing’, ‘states’ rights’, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘N****r, n****r.’”
Now, let’s be honest. There have been racists in BOTH political parties. There have been champions of racial equality in BOTH political parties. For people to state that one political party was “better” or “worse” at race relations is from my perspective is whitewashing their own bias.
Here is an interesting psychological perspective on racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistication.
Food for thought.http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/faculty/bobo/pdf documents/Racism.pdf
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 2343 hrs
Now, let’s be honest. There have been racists in BOTH political parties. There have been champions of racial equality in BOTH political parties. For people to state that one political party was “better” or “worse” at race relations is from my perspective is whitewashing their own bias.
I agree completely.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 0051 hrs
Scott,
However, the racism, today, in the Democratic Party is more overt.
There is constant public effort by Democrats to sort people by skin color…many times for special treatment in relation to government programs.
Sorting by skin color is racist.
Looking at content of character should be the standard…don’t you agree?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 0755 hrs
Kevin- Gore Sr voted for the Civil Rights bills in ‘57 and ‘65 as well as refusing to sign the 1956 Southern Manifesto. He voted against the 1964 Civil Rights bill because he was facing a very tough challenge from a Republican who was using his support for civil rights to try to defeat him. It was the main crux of the Senate reelection in 1964 and he barely survived due to LBJ’s landslide victory.
He was considered one of the new southern liberals (relative term).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1042 hrs
I would also like to point out that I grew up in the South during the civil rights era and do not try to rewrite history Kevin. Growing up and then serving in the military in the South, I saw the difference of how minorities (black and hispanic) were treated in Texas vs on base.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1046 hrs
Wait, Kevin was wrong when he said Gore Sr. was a racist who didn’t support civil rights?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1552 hrs
Scott,
If you voted against the civil rights act of 1964, I’ve been told that makes you racist by my liberal friends.
Have I been misinformed by my liberal friends?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1556 hrs
What do your liberal friends say it means if you can’t admit you were wrong?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1601 hrs
So voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not make you racist?
If so, will you extend the same courtesy to others who voted “no”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1612 hrs
When looking at the entirety of his acts and views on civil rights, it makes him a politician.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1630 hrs
Johm.
Scott was trying to smear conservatives in general by using opposition to civil rights legislation as an issue.
I just curious if we can afford others who voted “no” to civil rights legislation the same excuse…“they were just being a politician”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1645 hrs
RE: Scott,
You’re still mad that I made some good points about abortion that you didn’t like. One day we should discuss that again.
Mad? Nah, your abysmal performance there was hilarious, not to mention a complete (if redundant) vindication of your reputation as a laughingstock. But, if you’re really itching to prove your grasp of the subject sucks less these days, here’s where to find me: http://liveactionnews.org/author/calvin-freiburger/
I’ll promise to read that article if you promise to look up the word “conservative” in a dictionary and cut-and-past the results here in full.
Wow. If you don’t know that words have more than one meaning and really think that a single dictionary definition is adequate to define a political philosophy, you’re even more of an illiterate boob than I thought.
Apparently in Scott’s mind, understanding philosophies isn’t a matter of studying history and philosophers and movements, or tracing the evolution of ideas and causes from their adherents to their originators. You just have to read a couple lines in a dictionary. Are you trying to sound ignorant, or does it just come naturally?
On the off chance that taking you up on your promise might get you to face your fear of National Review’s cooties, here ya go: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/conservative
Definition of conservative
adjective1averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values: they were very conservative in their outlook
(of dress or taste) sober and conventional: a conservative suit2(in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas.
(Conservative) relating to the Conservative Party of Great Britain or a similar party elsewhere: the Conservative government3(of an estimate) purposely low for the sake of caution: police placed the value of the haul at a conservative £500,000
4(of surgery or medical treatment) intended to control rather than eliminate a condition, with existing tissue preserved as far as possible.
noun
1a person who is averse to change and holds traditional values: he remains a conservative in constitutional matters
2 (Conservative) a supporter or member of the Conservative Party of Great Britain or a similar party elsewhere.
(Funny how even here we don’t see anything about denying anyone rights…..)
Your move. Best get to readin’.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on January 23, 2013 at 1828 hrs
RE: greencarman,
Can we say confirmation bias, Calvin, on your part?
You could, if you were lying.
Because the historical record runs counter to your assertion.
Funny, I don’t see a “historical record” in your comment. I just see you recycling a couple of lazy left-wing smears.
Aside from their general affinity for defamation, liberals analysis of Republicans and civil rights fails because they don’t care about understanding the constitutional concepts that we differ with them on. Case in point: because liberals don’t understand or respect the concept of Congress being limited to enumerated powers, they can’t understand why conservatives of the day might have thought aspects of the 64 CRA exceeded those powers, and assume it must have to do with racism.
And, of course, the cherry-picking conveniently ignores the fact that more Republicans voted for the 64 CRA than Democrats, or all the previous civil rights acts that Republicans enacted over Democrat opposition…..
Some further reading on the subject for those who’d like to dispel myths rather than perpetuate them:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/civil_rights_the_conservative.html
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.928/article_detail.asp
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2012/07/11/the-southern-strategy-myth-and-the-lost-majority/Posted by Calvin Freiburger on January 23, 2013 at 1842 hrs
Calvin, I said “Conservative, in a broad sense, means one who wants things to remain the same rather than change.”
Kevin said “I don’t agree with that at all.”
The dictionary actually contains the words “averse to change.”
Furthermore, that conservative aversion to change is related to American political conservatives denying rights to others.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1918 hrs
Conservative, in a broad sense
So, broader than the specific political philosophy and movement you’re claiming to discuss. That brings us right back to the fact that you’re fixating on one definition of one characteristic that happens to share a name with something else.
And you don’t see how intellectually shoddy that is? If I did the very same thing to “liberal” that you’re doing to “conservative”—cherry-picking the words’ meaning as “loose” or “licentious,” and claiming that’s adequate grounds to define American political liberalism as such—you really expect anyone here to believe you wouldn’t be the first to scream bloody murder?
I don’t know which question would be more fitting: how dumb you are, or how dumb you think everyone else is.
The dictionary actually contains the words “averse to change.”
And if you didn’t have such an uninformed, anti-intellectual approach to the subject, you’d know how those words do—and do not—apply to conservatism the American political philosophy. Conservatives are “averse to change” away from certain principles of government they believe are worth conserving, NOT “averse to change” generally. Like you do with every issue, you’ve invented a cartoon version of conservatism that’s easier for you to tear down than the real thing, then stamp your feet when someone suggests that you grow up.
American political conservatives denying rights to others.
You’re just repeating your original lie. I for one think your lying is premeditated, and that you don’t particularly care whether what you’re saying about conservatives is true. But, on the slight chance that you really are just that damn ignorant, keeping your promise to read the Williamson piece will be a good introduction to your education.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on January 23, 2013 at 1940 hrs
Tone it down, bro. Seriously.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1953 hrs
Feldstein bullies non-stop on this thread, and the moment someone hits him back with a great rebuttal, he cries like a little bitch.
He tried the same stunt here two years ago to slur the right, and promptly got his ass kicked:
http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/comment/
What a nasty piece of trash Fatty Feldstein is.
Posted by Badger on January 23, 2013 at 2017 hrs
I’m not bullying anyone. Stop whining. I just think there should be a limit to how personal we should be making this, Badger. It’s something that you don’t get and never have.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 2022 hrs
I’m not whining, crybaby. Just pointing out what a fraud you are.
If you’re this much of an asshole, it’s probably why you pay out two alimonies.
Posted by Badger on January 23, 2013 at 2025 hrs
No, I don’t. And my personal life isn’t at issue here, Badger. It’s amazing how often I need to remind you of this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 2028 hrs
Cry some more, lying crybaby. You’re just a sociopathic, narcissitic asshole incapable of telling the truth.
The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can get on the path of recovery.
Posted by Badger on January 23, 2013 at 2035 hrs
No, Scott, I won’t tone it down. You’re a cheap thug without an ounce of honesty or integrity. Everyone here knows it. We’ve lost count of the lies, slurs, and double-standards you’ve been caught dead-to-rights engaging in. I almost pity the way you don’t know how thin your facade has worn. I had forgotten Badger’s example; only the most fanatical and shameless of people would pen such words as “racism, sexism and bigotry are inherently conservative.”
You incessantly tell the vilest slander imaginable out of one side of your mouth then whine about the very discussions you poison getting too “personal.” No civil exchange of ideas is possible in any forum corrupted by the presence of people like you, which is why it’s the duty of good people to call you what you are and ostracize you.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on January 23, 2013 at 2044 hrs
Oh, and I held up my end of the bargain. Now keep your promise. Read the article.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on January 23, 2013 at 2045 hrs
Thank you, Calvin. You are a gentleman and a scholar.
Posted by Badger on January 23, 2013 at 2049 hrs
Thanks, Badger. What we’re seeing is a classic archetype: a bully who’s really a coward beneath the boorish exterior. Scott meets someone who doesn’t flinch at his thuggery, and he folds like a cheap suit.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on January 23, 2013 at 2054 hrs
“Funny, I don’t see a “historical record” in your comment. I just see you recycling a couple of lazy left-wing smears.”
Calvin, the source I cited provided specific facts—his own words, mind you—of a conservative icon on how he personally viewed race relations in the South. It is news to me that evidence proffered equates to “smears”. Rather than make a broad statement, please show me how Buckley’s statements and actions are completely taken out of context using the source I linked to.
You really should check your links. The first one you cite (realclearpolitics) in essence refutes your contention that ““American political conservatism has never had anything to do with “oppos[ing] the expansion of rights to those previously denied,” or with some sort of instinctive adherence to the status quo whatever it happens to be.”
In this piece, conservative icon Jonah Goldberg admits “liberals were on the right side of history on the issue of race. And conservatives should probably admit that more often”, that Buckley has an uneven track record when it comes to race.
Is Goldberg lapsing in judgement when he makes this assertion, Calvin?The source also explains how Buckley and Barry Goldwater opposed several civil rights acts, not on the basis of race, but on whether the federal government ought not intervene in state matters. One could reasonably surmise that this conservative principle in effect sanctioned Jim Crow; that is, conservatives impeded racial progress by refusing to set aside this principle in the best interests of the nation.
Even Buckley admits southern states were flaunting federal authority when it came to ensuring legal equality for all citizens. Seemingly, he and Goldwater were content that if “the conservative understanding of constitutional government meant that segregation would persist for decades…then segregation would persist.” Their position tacitly endorsed Jim Crow, and reasonably could be construed by people at the bare minimum as “racially insensitive” and at most “borderline racist”.
Your source also makes this admission: “Buckley never retracted his limited-government arguments against the civil rights agenda, nor did he relinquish the hope that civil rights could be advanced in ways that impinged only slightly on the conservative project of restoring the founders’ republic.”
Conservatives seek to keep traditions alive and maintain the status quo. That is their nature. Liberals seek to make changes to those traditions—radically altering them if necessary—and disrupt the status quo. That is their nature.
So the conservatives’ initial tolerance of segregation for the sake of limited government highlights their reluctant admission that the end of Jim Crow was achieved by increasing, rather than decreasing, federal authority in this specific case.
The second link provides counterarguments—some valid and some that overreach in their position—to several books which argues that the southern strategy was firmly grounded in racial politics.
The third link is a source written by a staunch conservative seeks to dispel conventional views of past political coalitions. Here is a position that challenges the author’s assertions.www.tnr.com/book/review/lost-majority-future-government-sean-trende#
Let me repeat…There have been racists in BOTH political parties. There have been champions of racial equality in BOTH political parties. For people to state that one political party was “better” or “worse” at race relations is from my perspective is whitewashing their own bias.Continue to do so at your leisure, Calvin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 2132 hrs
Calvin, do you think that Atwater’s statements that I provided are tantamount to “lefty smears”???
Now, after the Election of 2004, Ken Mehlman, Bush’s campaign manager and Chairman of the RNC, held several meetings with African-American leaders in civic and business positions. When asked about the strategy of using race as an issue to build GOP dominance in the once-Democratic South, Mehlman replied, “Republican candidates often have prospered by ignoring black voters and even by exploiting racial tensions…by the ‘70s and into the ‘80s and ‘90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African-American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican Chairman to tell you we were wrong.”
I believe Mehlman was genuine in his assessment. Are his words tantamount to “lefty smears”???
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 2145 hrs
Lee Atwater a “conservative icon”? Really? That would come as a surprise to lots of conservatives.
The source also explains how Buckley and Barry Goldwater opposed several civil rights acts, not on the basis of race, but on whether the federal government ought not intervene in state matters.
Ummm, duh? In case you didn’t notice the first time, that was my point. Even where past conservatives erred, they didn’t do so out of any opposition to civil rights or minorities. The only reasonable people who could infer otherwise are those who are ignorant of the very movement they’re judging.
You’re also ignoring the far bigger point - that conservatives and Republicans taking the wrong position in those cases was the exception to an overwhelmingly strong and consistent record of advancing black liberty and equality - often with the Democrats fighting them tooth and nail.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on January 23, 2013 at 2159 hrs
Seriously? That’s your comeback? Ken Mehlman?
Party elites and Bush personnel tend to be sniveling worms who will concede whatever historical revisionism they think they need to to stay in the good graces of Beltway culture. What you think is some sort of groundbreaking trump card is really the symptom of something that’s common knowledge.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on January 23, 2013 at 2203 hrs
Calvin—“Lee Atwater a “conservative icon”? Really? That would come as a surprise to lots of conservatives.”
I made specific reference to Jonah Goldberg as a conservative icon, not Lee Atwater. Praytell, how was Atwater NOT conservative, or even an icon for that matter?
Calvin—“You’re also ignoring the far bigger point - that conservatives and Republicans taking the wrong position in those cases was the exception to an overwhelmingly strong and consistent record of advancing black liberty and equality.”No, I recognize the efforts of conservatives and Republicans in championing civil rights, as evident by my statements in Comment 37 and 62—“There have been racists…”
Interesting how you seem to be “moving the goalposts”. You first stated ““American political conservatism has never had anything to do with “oppos[ing] the expansion of rights to those previously denied…”
Now, you claim “conservatives and Republicans taking the wrong position in those cases was the exception to an overwhelmingly strong and consistent record of advancing black liberty and equality…”
Perhaps you should carefully consider the words of Buckley, Goldberg, Atwater, and Mehlman that acknowledges that conservative (D)‘s and (R)‘s either implicitly or explicitly supported Jim Crow via their principles of limited government and states rights.
More white paint, Calvin?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 2234 hrs
“Party elites and Bush personnel tend to be sniveling worms who will concede whatever historical revisionism they think they need to to stay in the good graces of Beltway culture.”
Bravo, Calvin, Bravo. Question a person’s integrity and honesty by automatically linking him to the corrupt DC establishment, rather than carefully review the historical record and the willingness of the participants to objectively reflect upon their attitudes and actions. Well done, sir!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 2241 hrs
I’ll grant I misread the icon line. Goldberg’s one of the best in the biz, but I’d have to see his entire remarks to assess. But if you still think Atwater’s an icon to the Right, you’re only showing your ignorance.
I recognize the efforts of conservatives and Republicans in championing civil rights
Congrats. You have one throwaway line that’s not malicious. It’s a start, I guess. But you apparently don’t acknowledge Republicans’ good points enough to reassess how it reflects on the accuracy of the rest of your claims about GOP history.
Interesting how you seem to be “moving the goalposts”. You first stated ““American political conservatism has never had anything to do with “oppos[ing] the expansion of rights to those previously denied…”
Now, you claim “conservatives and Republicans taking the wrong position in those cases was the exception to an overwhelmingly strong and consistent record of advancing black liberty and equality…”
Bull. In the first comment, I was talking about the ideas, principles, and motives of conservatism, in direct response to Scott’s slander about the philosophy. And I was right: there has never been anything racist, prejudiced, or anti-rights about conservatism. By saying that, I obviously wasn’t saying that no conservative or Republican has ever been on the wrong side of the issue. I fail to see how a competent, fair-minded reader could conclude otherwise…...
If this is how carefully you read most subjects, no wonder you still believe as you do.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on January 23, 2013 at 2255 hrs
Question a person’s integrity and honesty by automatically linking him to the corrupt DC establishment, rather than carefully review the historical record and the willingness of the participants to objectively reflect upon their attitudes and actions. Well done, sir!
Your ignorance of GOP inside baseball isn’t my problem. And I disagree with your inaccurate and biased view of the subject; therefore I must be unwilling to carefully review the historical record.
And you wonder why we don’t respect liberals.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on January 23, 2013 at 2300 hrs
only the most fanatical and shameless of people would pen such words as “racism, sexism and bigotry are inherently conservative.”
For the record, I was wrong to say that and I publicly said so.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 0051 hrs
The idea that American political conservatism is in absolutely no way related to the “averse to change” definition of the word conservative just doesn’t pass the giggle test.
The venom with which you resist this charge is ... weird.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 0054 hrs
Scott,
Government statism is the biggest problem today. A government, the size of which, is destroying the private sector.
The slave taxpayers cannot continue to carry this size of government on its back.
Liberals are adverse to change that—status quo—continue the runaway growth of government.
Tea Party conservatives want to reform and change that.
It is liberals, today, who are adverse to change and reform.
Your comments alone on school vouchers shows how adverse to reform you are and want to continue the current structure, despite the problems.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 0724 hrs
I was wrong to say that and I publicly said so.
Only because you were taking too much heat for it, not because of any principled reason. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be defending the same basic slur in this very thread, simply under less bunt language. Even on the rare occasion when you backpedal, we can always expect you to revert to the same character flaws the next day.
The idea that American political conservatism is in absolutely no way related to the “averse to change” definition of the word conservative just doesn’t pass the giggle test.
Idiot. Did you even read anything I said? I never said there was no relation; I explained why your dictionary test was embarrasingly ignorant and how conservatism is only “averse to changing” CERTAIN THINGS. That you’re so incapable of an informed discussion on the subject that you’re no longer even trying to refute criticism is revealing.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on January 24, 2013 at 0748 hrs
Calvin—“Goldberg’s one of the best in the biz, but I’d have to see his entire remarks to assess.”
You did read his statement when you provided the link. You’re not fooling anyone. So, I imagine you have had the time to assess. What say you?
“But you apparently don’t acknowledge Republicans’ good points enough to reassess how it reflects on the accuracy of the rest of your claims about GOP history.”Any and all political parties have their faults and warts. Seemingly, you refuse to acknowledge the recent history of THOSE conservatives in relation to how SOME employed the tenets of their philosophy to explicitly or implicitly support Jim Crow. The historical record for the past 60 years is crystal clear. Muddy it all you want with your posturing. But, hey, that’s what liberal and conservative partisans do best.
“But if you still think Atwater’s an icon to the Right, you’re only showing your ignorance.Of course, Atwater lacked any significant impact on conservative politics, was not influential in several presidential elections, and certainly has not been recognized by Goldberg, Will, and Fox News regarding his lasting presence. How silly of me to even make such a statement! /sarcasm
It’s on you to prove that Atwater’s accomplishments were not revered by the Right. I eagerly await your rebuttal.
“And I was right: there has never been anything racist, prejudiced, or anti-rights about conservatism.”We are talking about its APPLICATION, not the philosophy in and of itself. Conservative and liberal ideology is NOT racist in its definition, but those people who embrace those beliefs may take the concepts espoused by the ideology and put into motion an agenda or actions which debase and devalue a particular group of people.
“And you wonder why we don’t respect liberals.”And there you have it, folks. Calvin automatically assumes that I must be of a particular ideology because I have the audacity to disagree with his assessment.
For the record, I am an independent not strictly beholden to liberal or conservative ideals. I can think for myself, thank you very much. Besides, liberalism and conservatism mean different things to different people, it’s so easy for us today to be Pavlovian dogs and yell “Liberal” or “Conservative” because we know the negative response it will draw.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 2211 hrs
Calvin—“Goldberg’s one of the best in the biz, but I’d have to see his entire remarks to assess.”
I guess Calvin is in deep thought…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 02, 2013 at 1203 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 39
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/26/2013 03:27 am
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).